Saturday, 16 September 2017

It’s not bad enough yet


 I was going to write about something else this week. I had something almost ready about Jacob Rees-Mogg’s views on theology. But then I saw that he had ruled himself out from being leader, no doubt because of his views on theology. Maybe at a later date I will discuss those views. I think there is an interesting rational argument to be had about the subject. But why stick your neck out. It’s not bad enough yet.


 Every other day now North Korea either has a new test for a new sort of nuclear weapon or else it sends a rocket over Japan. Kim Jong-un is the Little Engine that Could. He’s little and a little round and he can. Everybody gets very angry about this and makes all sorts of threats. But nothing is going to happen until and unless he does. If any sort of nuclear weapon actually lands on American territory or the territory of an ally then there will be a nuclear response. But until and unless that happens Mr Kim knows that he can pretty much do as he pleases. The Chinese don’t want to see a unified Korea, so they will do nothing. The Russian’s chief foreign policy goal is to do the opposite of what the Americans want and so they will do nothing. Mr Kim wants attention and perhaps needs it and so he will throw his rockets out of his pram, but the game requires that he doesn’t go too far. The only problem is if he miscalculates. What if one of his rockets accidentally lands in Japan? Is there a response then? But fundamentally until the situation gets bad enough the Americans will do nothing. It’s not bad enough yet. I think it has to get very bad indeed before any sort of military action is taken against North Korea. So Mr Trump’s threats are probably empty, just as Mr Kim’s rockets are empty. The game is very dangerous indeed, but for the moment that’s all it is.

The same logic applies to our domestic security situation and the situation of every other Western European Country and indeed the United States. Here we face a situation that is much more dangerous than North Korea, but here too it isn’t bad enough yet.

Every now and again for the last while we turn on the news to find there has been another terrorist incident somewhere in Europe or the United States. We’ve had big ones (9/11) and small ones (Parson’s Green) and medium ones (e.g. Nice).  But none of these are bad enough. What we always get afterwards is the same meaningless words from politicians and the same meaningless gestures. The Eiffel Tower is lit up with the colours of another country’s flag. Scared people tell other scared people that they are not scared. We promise that we won’t give in to terrorism while trying to modify what we say and do in order not to provoke it. None of these things do any good whatsoever. We’ve even ceased to listen to what the politicians say as we already know what they said last time and what they will say next time.

The problem is this. Just as Jacob Rees-Mogg has to rule himself out of being Tory leader for telling the truth about his views, so all of us have to rule ourselves out of membership of polite society if we tell the truth about the nature of the problem and provide solutions that might actually solve it. It’s not bad enough for us to do this and so we say nothing.

There is an unforgivable sin in the modern western world. Because of this unforgivable sin most people go to great lengths to prove that they are not sinners. The unforgivable sin is so awful that I dare not even name it. I can blaspheme against the Holy Spirit with impunity, but we all know that certain words and certain truths may not be said in modern Britain. The reason they may not be said is that it isn’t bad enough yet.

Since Scottish politics became a dead issue not worth writing about I have spent the whole summer trying to explore the fundamentals of politics. Our problem is that we have turned equality into a God that must be worshipped at all costs. It means that whenever we face a situation that requires discrimination we fail to discriminate. We may start off with the best of intentions, after all we all want to be treated fairly, but we end up ignoring real difference. There is a real difference, for instance, between men and women. We are all of us who are not blind and unable to touch fully aware of it. But the logic of the equality lobby leads to children of six being told that this difference is not real and that girls and boys are interchangeable at will. The truth remains the truth and reality remains reality. The foundation of human society is the real difference between men and women. Throw away that foundation at your peril. Men and women want different things and to an extent we think differently and are often good at different things. Treat us fairly by all means but don’t ignore the reality of our difference.

There is likewise a difference between the duty I owe to my family, my fellow citizens and the duty I owe to people in general. These are real differences. I do not have a duty to ruin my own country in order to save the people of another. We are not equal.

When we turn equality into the thing to be worshipped at all costs, the cost in the end is Parsons’s Green. Discriminate has become a bad word. Not the worst of words of course, but bad enough. But really it means to recognise a distinction. People are different. Of course there are fundamental characteristics that we share with people the world over. But anyone who has travelled realises that there is a distinction between my society and your society, my culture and your culture. This is a real distinction. The attempt to erase this distinction because of equality is leading the West to disaster. Many people on the Left because of their belief in equality are trying in effect to create a world without borders. The result will be very bad indeed. It already is pretty bad as you may have noticed in the last five years or so. It may get much worse.

Can anything be done? Possibly. The most important step is to leave the EU. This makes Parliament sovereign and gives us the power to elect politicians who will do what it takes to make our country safe. It also gives us the power, if we choose to exercise it, to act in the interests of our own citizens rather than the citizens of the whole world. We must have no foreign court telling us what to do. The problem is that whenever a country attempts to do what is necessary to make itself safe (e.g. Poland, Hungary etc.) other countries condemn them for failing to share in our common danger. Each of our European countries ought, after all, to be equally dangerous otherwise we sin against the God of Equality.

Will anything be done? Probably not, at least not yet. I think it probably needs a plane to fly into the Houses of Parliament and for that plane to be packed with radioactive material or else some form of chemical or biological weaponry. Such a plane could easily have been flown on September 11th 2001 in which case it might have killed 100,000 people rather than 2996. That would probably have been bad enough. In that case our politicians would not have gone on about what this had nothing to do with. Rather they would have solved the problem. We wouldn’t have had any choice. But this won’t happen, not yet anyway, because it’s not bad enough.  
   

Saturday, 9 September 2017

Indyref; or, 'tis three years since


It’s a pity Walter Scott is so little read nowadays. Waverley (or 'tis sixty years since) is not merely a station in Edinburgh it is the key to understanding everything in Scottish history and if you understand the past you understand the present, for history is not about what was, it’s about what is, it’s not about then, it’s about now.

I resolved earlier this summer to not write about Scottish nationalism, the SNP or even Scottish politics. For the most part I have stuck to this resolution. For the moment there isn’t really anything to write. But as we approach the three year anniversary of the independence referendum I’ve decided to make an exception. But this time I’m not really trying to persuade those who are sympathetic to Scottish nationalism. Rather I think it is for us Pro UK people to learn a lesson.



I have gradually been building towards the conclusion that we were very lucky indeed in 2014. Part of the reason for this is what happened a year ago during the referendum about leaving the EU. Scotland might well have voted to leave the UK and for exactly the same reason that the UK voted to leave the EU. On both occasions the “Remain” campaign was dreadful and achieved the opposite of what it intended.

I have long thought that “Better Together” could hardly have been a worse slogan and strategy. This came to me gradually. For a very long time indeed I went along with it, writing articles about all the disadvantages of leaving the UK and all the advantages of remaining. None of these did any good. All of them missed the point.

“Better Together” implicitly concedes defeat by acknowledging the possibility of being apart. No-one, but no-one, would argue that it is better for Kansas to be together with North Carolina. To suggest that Brittany is better of being together with Normandy would be met with bemusement in France. The reason for this is that both French people and Americans think that they are one nation indivisible. Therefore it is unthinkable that they should split.

“Better Together” acknowledged separation while attempting to argue that we should not separate. It should instead have said that the UK is one nation indivisible and therefore separation is senseless. But this is the problem at the heart of our thinking about the UK. For centuries we have acted as if we were similar to the EU. We have played “international” football with each other and have allowed separate identities to develop. Our Pro UK politicians concede the nationalist argument by continually acknowledging the separateness of the parts of the UK and then use a combination of bribery and threats to try to hold the whole thing together.

The key to defeating an opponent is to deny what he asserts and refute what he assumes. “Better Together” went into battle by accepting what the SNP assumes, i.e. that Scotland is a country in the same way that France is. The only difference between the SNP argument and the Pro UK argument was over the advantages and disadvantages of remaining and leaving. But if you share the SNP assumption then quite logically you must share their conclusion. If Scotland is a country in the same way as France is, then it ought to be independent. Why should Scotland alone out of all the hundreds of countries be the only one that can’t manage to be an independent sovereign nation state? Why indeed? If I thought Scotland was a country in the same way that France is, I would vote for the SNP.

Because “Better Together” agreed with SNP assumptions it was left with mere calculation. Let's tot up all the economic advantages of staying in the UK and point out all of the economic disadvantages of leaving. Also let’s make leaving the UK seem as scary as possible. The worst thing about this is that it is all mere contingency. What if at some point Scotland had an economic surplus? Should we then all vote for independence? The "Better Together" strategy amounts to praying for Scotland to remain poor and dependent. God forbid that Scotland should ever have policies that meant we made a profit! But wishing in this way is not to wish for us to be better, it is to wish for us to be worse. This is obviously not a strategy at all. 

The exact same strategy was repeated in 2016 with regard to the EU, but this time it lost. It very nearly lost in 2014 too. The reason it lost is that it is a terrible strategy. This is not because of economics. We can debate endlessly about economics. Some people believe one thing about economics and vote Labour, others believe something else and vote Tory. It’s not about the economy stupid.

Imagine a young couple who have just got married, but they can’t afford to buy their own house. They decide to remain living with the elderly mother of one of them. There is a lot to be said for the arrangement. The mother is getting old and needs help in the house. She’s lonely and welcomes the company. It’s perfectly possible to imagine this arrangement working well and benefitting everyone. Imagine however that the mother kept going on and on about how she paid more than the young couple. What if she said I pay more of the bills than you do? I pay more for food. I have more money than you do and therefore subsidise you. How do you suppose this arrangement would work out? My guess is that after a short while the young couple would move out. They would do this even if moving out meant a struggle and even if it left them worse off. It’s not about the economy stupid, it’s about the psychology.

Every country that ever became independent went through difficulties. The United States fought a war of independence, so did many other countries. If a country really wants to be independent a few years of economic difficulty are not going to deter it. Why would they? If some countries have thought it worth fighting a war to achieve independence why would a paltry thing like changing currency deter them?

There is a reason why support for the SNP increased and increased so much that they very nearly won the independence referendum. There is a reason too that this support has fallen. “Better Together” caused the increase, the demise of “Better Together” caused the fall.

Every time someone told Scots about what a disaster it would be if we voted for independence one more Scot decided to “leave the house”.
Since the independence referendum fewer and fewer people have been telling Scots that it would be an economic disaster if we voted to leave the UK. It is far better just to let the economic situation speak for itself. We don’t need to bang on and on about it.

Scots are not stupid. We know that the price of oil has fallen. We also know that we get a pretty good deal from the UK Government. But let’s just leave it at that. Don’t rub our noses in it. Families don’t count the cost.

Every year there are the so called GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland) figures. These are, no doubt, of interest to economists and the bureaucrats who run Scotland, but discussion about these should be left to the financial pages. Scotland is not an independent country and luckily we don’t need to worry too much about whether we are running a surplus or a deficit. If Scotland ever became an independent country our long term economic prospects would depend on the choices, the resources and the decisions of a Scottish Government. Nothing in these GERS figures shows either that Scotland ought or ought not to become an independent country. So let’s just ignore them.

During the independence campaign the SNP made some rather optimistic economic claims. Sometimes they still do. It is perfectly reasonable to point out where they make errors. But generally it is better to let the economic situation of Scotland speak for itself without any glee.

Imagine if my young couple were going through difficulties. The husband was very optimistic about his future, but instead lost his job. Would it be a good idea if the mother every moment told him about how his hopes had been dashed and how now he was dependent on her? Would this make it more or less likely that the young couple stayed in the house? Is it becoming clear yet that Project Fear and Project dash Scotland’s hopes is a stupid strategy?

The Pro UK task is to be positive about the UK and attempt to make people feel unity rather than disunity. We do this by treating everyone in the UK as part of our family. Being nasty about the various parts of the UK, telling these parts that they are useless or dependent or hopeless economically does nothing at all, for our sense of being one family with ties of affection that hold us together.

It doesn’t matter if what “Better Together” said about the economic situation is true or untrue. It doesn’t matter if Project Fear was accurate or inaccurate. It was psychologically obtuse. Tell a teenager how he couldn’t manage on his own and you will invite him to flounce off saying “I’ll show you”. Moreover he will show you.

Support for independence is falling because of what we don’t say rather than what we do say. We don’t every day get some “Pro UK” politician on the news who thinks that insulting Scots is a good way to get us to stay in the UK. It doesn’t matter that the insult is true. If I’m thin and you call me “fatty” I won’t take it as an insult. I’m only ever insulted by things that are true. It doesn’t therefore matter that what certain commentators say about the Scottish economy are true. It doesn’t matter that Scotland would be worse off if we voted for independence. What matters is that we don’t bang on and on about it.  Continually reminding Scots that we are dependent and that we run a "deficit" doesn't help the Pro UK cause, it hurts it. These arguments persuade no-one to join us, but rather persuade many to leave us.  The logical reaction of telling someone continually that they can’t afford independence is for them to try it anyway. This may or may not be stupid economically, but it is the human reaction. It is how we are. 

If Remain had campaigned relentlessly about the merits of the EU and had said nothing whatsoever that was negative about Britain, they would have won. Instead they insulted Britain. They said that the sky would fall in if you vote to leave the EU. They said that Britain couldn’t possibly manage outside the “EU house” and in effect that the EU itself as opposed to the Eurozone was a burning building without any exits. All of the relentless negativity from Remain amounted to an insult. In the end it sounded unpatriotic and it made us seem weak and pathetic. It is for this reason above all that we voted to leave.

'Tis three years since. The genius of Walter Scott is that he portrayed the attractions of Jacobites while at the same time showing that this was something in the past that was not to be revisited. He was in this way able to find reconciliation between the Stuarts and the Hanoverians and for this reason even George IV when he visited Edinburgh could celebrate the 45 Rebellion. In time people in the southern states of America could both celebrate their heroes and their ancestors who fought in the Civil War while being glad that the United States remained intact. This was the key to reconciliation. So too Scott could celebrate the cause of Charles Edward Stuart while recognising the stability and prosperity that came with the Hanoverians.



The key to reconciliation today in Scotland is to acknowledge that those Scots who voted for independence were not stupid economic illiterates. Rather in part they were responding to a misguided “Better Together” campaign that was the equivalent of the Duke of Cumberland bayonetting the wounded. We are one UK family. Let us not count the cost and let us not go on about it. In this way perhaps sometime before we arrive at the sixtieth anniversary of the independence referendum we will find reconciliation just as we did once before. 

Saturday, 2 September 2017

If there is hope, it lies in the Poles


There has been endless complaint since the UK voted to leave the EU a little over a year ago. Not from voters mind you. The vast majority of Remain voters have simply got on with their lives and accepted that they lost the argument. Owing to the fact that the Remain prediction of immediate catastrophe for the UK simply did not occur, many former Remain voters have come to the conclusion that they were duped. But this has not stopped the rearguard action from some politicians and some influential people in the papers. There are still attempts to stop Brexit or to so water it down that it would amount to staying in the EU. Even if the doom and gloom about Britain’s immediate future has been shown by events to be ludicrously pessimistic, we are still supposed to believe these pessimists. It’s as if a weather forecaster kept telling us there would be a hurricane and when day after day it kept failing to appear he kept on expecting us to believe that he could predict the speed of wind. It’s time to realise that that the establishment of political experts in Britain are wrong. What’s more they have been wrong about everything for the past fifty years. It is for this reason that some of the newer EU members such as the Poles are beginning to question whether the whole thing is worth it. The reason is simple. They can watch and they can think.



The whole EU project is based on deception. If only it all happens gradually we can create a United States of Europe without anyone noticing. I don’t think in the end that forming a new nation state called Europe is a good idea. I can though respect those who disagree with me. If it were modelled on the United States of America, with just as much freedom and democracy and with similar rights for the constituent parts, then there could be advantages. But the EU is not remotely like the USA. The people of the USA elect their president and their upper and lower houses of parliament. The powerful people in the EU are appointed. The most important decisions are made behind closed doors. The democratic will of member states (Greece, Republic of Ireland, France, the Netherlands) has recently been overturned. There has been a concerted effort to do the same with the UK. But it looks like it will fail.  There is likewise at the moment an attempt to make Poland bend to the will of its EU masters. Hopefully that will fail too.

If you want to be part of something called the United States of Europe, then it indeed makes sense to support Remain. But few indeed are the Brits who do. This is where the whole project becomes dishonest. I don’t think many French or Italian people want France or Italy to be merely a region of Europe. But after sixty years of EU propaganda and mission creep there is a tendency to think that there is no alternative. A tiny proportion of Remain supporters really believed in European federalism yet that is what they voted for. There is a sort of self-deception that the EU won’t ever quite reach the point of being a United States of Europe. But watch how it has gradually moved more and more towards its goal. There is a single currency. There is border free travel such that in parts of the EU you barely even notice international borders. There is a president. Soon there will be an army. If you don’t think European federalism is happening you frankly are not paying attention.

Brexit may involve some tough choices and it may even involve some hard times. But if we don’t want to be part of a federal nation state called the EU, and the vast majority of us don’t, then leaving is the only option. You either get this, or you don’t. I don’t think you need to be ruled by someone else in order to trade freely with them. But here’s the deal. I would prefer not to trade with them at all than be forced to do bend to the will of the EU. I don’t think Brexit will be nearly as tough economically as some people predict, it may even be such that we barely notice. But again even if it were going to be tough, it would be eminently worth it. Unless you are one of the tiny band of EU federalists you have to agree with me. If you don’t want the UK to be the equivalent of Vermont, then you have to think that it’s better to leave the EU now rather than continue towards the federalist EU destiny.

It is this point that has recently become clear to Poland. Most of us pay little attention to Polish politics. All those consonant clusters can make it difficult to follow. But something important is happening and it is worth paying attention.  There is a now a fundamental dispute between Poland and the EU. The Poles elected a party called Prawo i Sprawiedliwość [Law and Justice].  This party has some fairly traditional Polish Catholic views, but for all that it is currently the largest party in the Polish Parliament. The dispute with the EU may in part be because of this traditional Polish Catholicism, which means that the Polish Government sins in a variety of ways against EU Orthodoxy. But it is in two ways in particular that the EU most disagrees with Poland. The first is that the Polish Government wanted to appoint judges to its Supreme Court. There have been some protests about this in Poland. Fair enough. In every country there are political disagreements. But the EU has told Poland that it may not appoint its judges in this way. Why ever not? The USA appoints judges to its Supreme Court by means of a political process. The EU doesn’t complain about this. Why should it complain about how Poland decides to do these things? What has it to do with the EU? At any rate some rather important people in the EU are appointed and a large number of decisions are made in a less than transparent way. Why threaten to remove Poland’s voting rights in the EU over something as arcane as how they appoint their judges?

The reason perhaps is that Poland has sinned in a more fundamental way. When Angela Merkel responded to the refugee crisis in 2015 by in effect saying all of them were welcome in Germany, what she really meant was that all of them were welcome in the EU. She might have been generous unilaterally, but she expected the consequence of her decision to be shared multilaterally. Poland has refused its share. This is the root of the dispute about judges.

Poland along with other members of the Visegrád Group (Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia) has shown great reluctance to accept any of the people Mrs Merkel let into the EU. Why ever should these countries be so reluctant? After all aren’t we continually told how beneficial immigration has been to Britain, France, Germany, Sweden etc.? Why would anyone want to avoid something that was so clearly of benefit to them?

This is the crux of the matter. The Poles et al have benefited from the EU. They are net recipients and get a large amount of money from the richer EU states. Not only this, but they have also benefited from free movement of people. Many Polish people have been able to live and work in Western Europe. But this has also given them an experience of life in the West. What they have seen is how the Pro EU establishment has managed things for the past decades.

Take Britain where the majority of Polish people have come to live. The UK is wealthier than Poland in part because we didn’t have to live under communism for fifty years. But communism also isolated Poland from much of what has happened to a country like Britain since the 1950s. I think the Poles who have been living in places like Britain have seen where Western values and the EU establishment Orthodoxy lead. They don’t like what they see.

I recently went to a Polish Church service in a cathedral. It was packed with people of all ages who quite obviously were sincere and believed with enthusiasm. My guess is that the equivalent English language service would have been sparsely attended with a few elderly ladies who probably were not quite sure what they ought or ought not to believe. This is the difference. The UK has gone through a revolution since the 1950s. Belief in Christianity has collapsed. Traditional ideas about morality are no longer believed and we have little idea about what we believe about anything. We know what we must not say at least in public. But what is it to be British in Britain today? Few of us have a clue. What values do we have except those vague values that are shared by everyone in the West in general? But then these are not our values. They are the values of everybody. This really means we don’t have our own values.

The Poles have been happy to live and work here. We too have benefited from them coming here. But my guess is that when some have them have returned to Poland they have come with a message. Be careful. If you follow the path of Britain you will turn Poland into the same thing. You see the Poles know exactly what it means for someone to be a Pole and they are absolutely clear about what their values are. What they believe is what they have always believed. They like believing these things and want to maintain their country more or less as it is.

The British political establishment from the 1950s onward has made one hell of a mess. We have debts that we can’t pay, but which instead we must attempt to gradually inflate away. We have destroyed the foundation of our morality (Christianity) without having been able to put something else in its place. This means that large numbers of our citizens do exactly what they please so long as it is within the law or they can avoid getting caught. We have strange combination of “anything goes” while at the same time we peer through the lace curtains to make sure no-one sins against the latest diktat of political correctness. We have completely lost control of our borders and have absolutely no idea of what to do about it. Meanwhile many of our cities have been changed beyond all recognition, such that pictures from the 1940s look as if they are pictures of another country. They are.

It was this that we rebelled against when we voted to leave the EU. We were saying to the British political establishment that we rejected them and everything that they stood for. It is for this reason too that the establishment and its supporters reacted with such fury. It is for this reason too that they have been fighting such a bitter rearguard action.

We should support the Poles. We went to war to defend Poland in 1939, but in the end failed to do so. We probably couldn’t have done otherwise. We lacked the will, perhaps the strength to fight the Soviet Union in 1945. Nevertheless our failure to defend Eastern Europe in those days led to decades of tyranny.  We must not allow Poland to be bullied because it wishes to protect its sovereignty and way of life. We must allow them to learn the lesson of the past decades.

Western cities are now under continual threat. We are told that we must live with this and that nothing can be done. This is no doubt true. But it is not true about Warsaw, Budapest, Prague or Bratislava. Let these cities at least avoid having to say that this fear is normal. We need a new way of thinking, because the old ways have led to what Poland and its neighbours are desperate to avoid. Brexit may be a step in the right direction. If Poland leaves too then we should offer them friendship, help and free trade. Poles have been through tough times to defend their freedom and sovereignty. No doubt they will consider it to be worth it. Perhaps their example may encourage others. The EU and the Western political establishment that created it is part of the problem. We are seeing the consequences of the decisions that were made for the past decades every day throughout Western Europe. It is for this reason that the Poles reject these decisions. They can see where they lead. They are right to reject them.

If there is hope,’ wrote Winston, ‘it lies in the Poles.’



Saturday, 26 August 2017

Wallace must fall


By an amazing piece of good luck the Aberdeen branch of the Wallace Must Fall Campaign has discovered a hitherto unknown letter between William Wallace and Robert the Bruce. One of the problems of medieval history is that so few contemporary sources survive. We are forced to rely frequently on Blind Harry whose reliability as a witness is hindered not merely by him being blind, but more importantly by the fact that he lived some hundreds of years after the events he describes. But finally we have a contemporary source which provides us with insight into the mind of Wallace and the motivations for his actions.


In time it is hoped that a full facsimile of the letter will be published, but for the moment it is necessary to rely on a summary. In the letter Wallace expresses his concern about his serfs and expresses his fears about the malign influence of Magna Carta (1215) spreading to Scotland. With wonderful insight into the future Wallace foresees that limiting the rights of the English barons will limit the power of the English king. He realises that ultimately it is bound to lead to a peasants’ revolt and with it the end of serfdom. In order to maintain the rights of the nobility in Scotland, Wallace concludes, it is necessary to fight the English who otherwise will bring with them emancipation.

The Wallace Must Fall Campaign already knew that both Wallace and Bruce were slaveholders. Every member of the nobility in Scotland owned serfs, which is of course another word for slave. What was unknown until now was that the motivation of Wallace in fighting for “freedom” was to maintain the slavery of those serfs that he owned.

It is clearly unacceptable to have statues of slaveholders, especially when they fought a war of independence precisely in order to maintain the bondage of these slaves. It is for this reason that the Aberdeen branch of the Wallace Must Fall Campaign proposes to put a rope around the neck of the statue of William Wallace and pull it down.

Meanwhile the Aberdeen branch of the Bonnie Prince Charlie Must Fall Campaign has discovered a hitherto unknown letter in which he expresses admiration for the fact that there is still serfdom in Scotland. In fact there were Scottish serfs until 1799. Charles Edward describes this as just one of the many reasons for why he wants aims to get his father’s kingdom back. He likewise expresses his disdain for the so called “glorious” revolution of 1688 and the Bill of Rights that came with it in 1689. Once more the dreadful Magna Carta codified into law along with other malign documents such as the Petition of Right (1628) and the Habeas Corpus Act (1679) seeks to limit the rights of Scottish kings and nobles. This must be resisted in the name of FREEEEEDOM. All of these attempts to restrict the divine right of the Bonnie Prince are intolerable. He goes on to express his admiration for the Clan system (i.e. feudalism) whereby members of the clan must work for the chief without pay. Charles Edward describes how he hopes to spread this system of bondage throughout his father’s kingdom. What works so well in Ballachulish ought to work still better in Bedford. Think of the costs saved when the kingdom had no need to pay wages.


The Aberdeen Branch of the Bonnie Prince Charlie Must Fall Campaign thinks it is disgraceful that modern Scottish nationalists call themselves after the 1745 campaign to bring slavery to Britain. Unfortunately there is no statue of Charles Edward Stuart in Aberdeen, but it is prosed to erect such a statue for the purpose of then toppling it.

Meanwhile the Aberdeen branch of the Robert Burns Must Fall Campaign have discovered a letter which adds to what we already know about the poet’s intention of working on a slave plantation in Jamaica. The hypocrisy of Burns is fully shown. While he was willing to write The Slave's Lament he had less than enlightened views about black people and used words about them that would see him condemned by any right thinking person in the world today. It is clearly unacceptable to have a statue of someone who wished to earn his wages on the back of slaves. Luckily there is such a statue of Robert Burns in Aberdeen so it will be unnecessary to erect one before tearing it down.


The Aberdeen branches of the Wallace, Bonnie Prince Charlie, and Burns Must Fall Campaigns are looking to further their work of ridding Aberdeen of all monuments to anyone who in any way is unworthy of being looked at. It would greatly appreciate suggestions of any other monument that should be torn down. With luck our campaign will spread and in time there will be no unsuitable monuments at all in Aberdeen and then if others follow this example no more such monuments in Scotland. Today Aberdeen, Tomorrow the world!

Saturday, 19 August 2017

The Left is winning


Until recently I thought that the Right had won the economic battle decisively, but were gradually losing the cultural war. Now I am not so optimistic. Conservative economics suffered a set-back at the last election and now Conservatives are actually helping the Left to still more decisively destroy Conservative values.

Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher won the Cold War by bankrupting the Soviet Union and by showing that Right-wing economics bring with it peace and prosperity. They therefore won both at home and abroad. The Left had generally supported the Soviet Union or at the very least sympathised with Soviet aims and ideals. But the fall of the Berlin Wall and the sight of masses of Eastern Europeans voting with their feet made the Left look silly. After decades of admiration of the Potemkin village in which lived the Soviet Union the Left was forced to reassess socialism and reflect on the fact that it simply didn’t work. It became clear to all but the thoughtless that wherever socialism is tried it leads to poverty and tyranny. For this reason the Left refocussed it efforts. On the economic front it would strive to modify capitalism and make it fairer and more equal without trying to overthrow it. The Left decided that it could work with the free market and improve it. This is the essence of Blairism and other forms of social democracy present from time to time in places like Scandinavia.



Social democracy can work well enough. There is a balance between government spending on things that make society more pleasant (free healthcare, various benefits) and allowing markets to be free and citizens to be taxed at as low a rate as possible. Very high taxes and excessive government spending will interfere with the free market to such an extent as to inhibit economic growth. But very low government spending and tiny rates of tax may lead to a society that is not very pleasant to live in.   
The debate between British Conservatives and social democrats is however essentially sterile. The difference is minimal and amounts to a few percentage points on tax and a slightly different emphasis on public spending. All mainstream UK political parties are really social democrats of one form or another including the Conservatives. There isn’t a party that favours laissez faire free market economics and which wishes to seriously limit the size of the state.

Oddly however despite winning the ideological battle in the 1980s Margaret Thatcher was hated by those who essentially agreed with her. Perhaps it is for this reason that they hated her, because they were forced to agree. The difference between the mildly social democratic SNP and the Conservative Party is really trivial apart from their views on Scottish independence. Both parties are in favour of free market capitalism. The SNP is even in favour of lowering business taxes like the Republic of Ireland. The SNP wants to increase public spending, but then so do the Conservatives. Both favour reducing the deficit. They only differ on the timescale. The SNP accepts that an independent Scotland would have to try to balance its books and live within its means. But this is exactly what the Conservatives think with regard to the UK. The ideological difference between the SNP, the Conservatives and indeed Blairite Labour turns out to be practically speaking tiny. Why then is there so much hatred? Why hate Margaret Thatcher and think of her as the Wicked Witch of the West when fundamentally you agree with her about everything except details?

Jeremy Corbyn has brought ideological difference back into British politics. Since the end of the Soviet Union the Left everywhere has accepted that the economic battle was lost. The task was to modify the free market as much as possible so as spend as much of the proceeds of growth as you could. Meanwhile the Left put all its energies into the cultural battle, which can perhaps best be described as the attempt to correct people culturally by means of shame. It is a variant on the Victorian method of twitching the lace curtains. Don’t you dare show an ankle.  Don’t you dare say the word “postman” or sin in any other way against the morality of the Twitter mob. The social pressure to conform today is the same as it was all those hundreds years ago when the sinner might be forced to wear a scarlet letter. It’s a different form of conformism, but the punishment. The letter is no longer scarlet, rather it is all the colours of the rainbow.    

The difference between Corbyn and Blair is that Corbyn is a conviction politician. He is this in exactly the same way that Nicola Sturgeon is a conviction politician. What Corbyn believes he has more or less always believed. Likewise Sturgeon has been a Scottish nationalist since she was a teenager and will always be one. The answer for her to every question is Scottish independence. Even if she knew that Scottish independence would make Scots poorer economically she would still think it would be worth it. The same goes for Mr Corbyn. Even if he knew that socialism would make Britain poorer overall, he still would want it because it would make Britain fairer and more equal. It is for this reason that he prefers the Venezuelan model of government to the United States model of government. The average standard of living in Venezuela may be massively lower than in the United States, but at least they are all equally poor and poor equally.

Corbyn’s long term aim is not to work with the free market but rather to come up with a different model of economics altogether. He wishes to increase the size of the state, put more and more private business activity under state control, and more and more regulate how the market works. But at a certain point the market really ceases to be free when you do all of these things. Again it is a sliding scale, but as public ownership increases the market becomes less and less free reaching an ultimate point where the state owns everything and there is no private property at all. This is the aim of socialism. Imagine no possessions. You don’t have to imagine if you vote for Mr Corbyn’s Labour. 

We already know that if Labour came to power and tried to introduce socialism it would be an economic disaster. The reason we know this is experience. Labour people may suggest that the experiment wouldn’t go that far. Corbyn’s Labour would not seek to overthrow the free market but modify it a bit more than Blair’s Labour. But we know that New Labour ended up with a note telling the next Government that there was no more money. Do we really want a method of running the British economy to go that does to us what the last Labour Government did only still more so? But this anyway is to misunderstand that about Mr Corbyn’s convictions. He’s not playing at being a socialist like most Labour people. Corbyn is not a hypocrite. He’s a true believer.

Conservatives cannot expect permanent Government. It is not a good thing either that one party remains in power forever. But then unless Corbyn’s Labour goes down the full socialist route of abolishing elections, we can expect the public to learn from its experience of voting socialism into power. It is unpleasant to suppose that we must endure a few years of Labour wrecking the economy, but this no doubt is the price of living in a democracy.

It is crucial however that Conservatives learn one thing from Mr Corbyn and indeed from Ms. Sturgeon. Conviction politics works. People like politicians who have beliefs and stick to them. Conservatives therefore should stick up for Conservative values.

The core Conservative economic value is free market capitalism. If you lower taxes, public spending and reduce the size of the state you will get economic growth. This should therefore be the aim of the Conservatives within the limits of maintaining a pleasant country. Conservatives should aim to balance the budget and spend less than we earn. We have failed in this task since coming to power in 2010. No wonder we have been punished by voters. If we were now running a surplus rather than a deficit, if we were gradually paying back the national debt rather than inflating it away, we could have argued against Mr Corbyn that Conservatism stands for living within your means and sound money. Instead we could not do this. No wonder some voters preferred his voodoo economics to ours.

Conservatives accept human nature to be what it is and do not seek to reform it by means of re-education. The Left realising that socialism had failed set out to rectify this failure by changing how people think. The key task culturally for the Left was to put equality at the heart of everything. It starts out trivially by suggesting that we shouldn’t use common words like “postman”. Why is this? It is because of equality. A postman after all might not be a man. This may seem harmless, but changing the words we may use has the aim of changing what we are capable of thinking. It’s not about postmen and that’s just the start anyway. The midpoint is when you tear down a statue   of one of the greatest generals in American history. It could equally well be statesman or a writer who said or did anything to offend against a set of values that had yet to be invented. We must, after all, punish the past for being a part of history rather than the present. But this has nothing to do with statues, nothing even to do with history. It's about here and it's about now. The endpoint is when you rename Washington, D.C. after whichever prophet (Bernie, Barack, Billary, Benedict) takes you to the promised land of social justice. A new land is then founded and the old founding fathers disgraced and forgotten, their values discredited as much as their country.  This happens when social pressure achieves the task of making us believe that 2 + 2 = 5 and that opposites are the same and equal. When contradictions are mediated, at this point socialism becomes possible.

Socialism failed because human nature is unequal and wishes to be unequal. The free market leads to growth that makes everyone’s life better, but the price that must be paid for this is inequality of outcome. The Left, realising that it had lost the economic argument, sought to be win it by means of changing human nature by changing how we speak and how we think. If enough human beings in the world could be made to think exclusively in terms of equality, if their speech could be changed and the way they think re-educated then the goal of socialism might turn out to be in reach after all.

The Left’s has focussed relentlessly on this battle and in the name of equality has sought to erase all distinctions between men and women and people from different countries and places. We must not discriminate between that which is different, we may not even see that there is difference. All difference must be annulled in the name of equality. To maintain that there is a real difference is to risk opprobrium on Twitter and the loss of employment at Google.

As a simple matter of logic it is obvious that a man cannot change into a woman (i.e. man ≠ woman). It is likewise self-evident that some things require difference and need their opposite as a basic matter of meaning. Husband is to wife as knife is to fork. To attempt to eat with two knives is simply to misunderstand the word “knife” and its purpose. Trying to overcome the essential inequality of knives and forks is to fail to understand what it is to eat. This is very simple logic indeed, but then 2 + 2 = 4 is very simple arithmetic. It takes decades to make us believe that which is contrary to logic and ordinary thought, but then the Left has had rather a lot of time and is encouraged because it is winning. Many if not most people in the West believe that opposites are equal and that 2 + 2 = 5. They are scared to believe anything else.

Conservatives above all must not respond to the success of the Left by agreeing with it. This just helps the Left to win its battle. It may seem that it matters not at all to allow someone to change gender simply by filling in a form. Let’s give them that so we can grab a few Labour voters. It may seem that erasing the distinction between my fellow citizen and someone from abroad is a harmless way to show yourself to be liberal and progressive. We’ll win a few more Labour voters that way. But it is to put equality at the heart of your politics and it is to concede the very battle that we need to win in order that there is such a thing as Conservatism in the future.

The Left depends on the idea that there is no distinction between people. But human nature throughout history has been making the distinction between my family and strangers, my country and foreigners, my success and my property earned by my efforts, versus yours. The Left wants to change human nature. Unfortunately it is succeeding. What's more if the Left wins the cultural battle, it wins everything. Victory in the economic battle follows as a matter of course. The long road back from the fall of the Berlin Wall will have been achieved by culturally putting equality at the heart of everything, which naturally will mean economics too. When people can't even think without thinking in terms of equality, when all difference is erased and unthinkable, then human nature will be ready for socialism. 

Jeremy Corbyn’s success is in part because young people can’t remember the last Labour Government, but it is also due to the fact that the Left’s cultural battle has won over the young far more than the rest of society. Education is ever more controlled by the Left and it instils the values of the Left from age 3 to age 22. Many young voters have never even properly met Conservative values and Conservative arguments, not least because the Conservatives themselves are afraid to make the case for Conservatism.

The key to future Conservative success is not to agree with the Left but rather to disagree it. There is a whole constituency of voters many of whom presently vote Labour who would be delighted to find a political party that stuck up for traditional, common sense values and the idea that the British Government cares more for British citizens, than the citizens of anywhere else. Our safety, prosperity and freedom are what is important to us. Fair play and giving everyone a chance to succeed or fail matters far more than everyone must win a prize and the outcome must be the same. People are naturally different, with a variety of talents, skills and natures. They are not equal, cease pretending that they are. That way lies socialism. That way ultimately lies the Gulag of the mind enforced by the Twitter Committee of Public Safety and the Google guillotine. 

Saturday, 12 August 2017

Better to be a dragon than a bear : the Chinese Russian relationship.

Part 1

Russia famously was described by Winston Churchill as “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma”. What is less frequently noted is that Churchill went on to solve his riddle. The key to understanding Russian actions was to look at Russian national interest. But is this not simply to state a truism? Isn’t the key to understanding any country’s action to simply reflect on its national interest? Is Churchill actually saying anything at all? Then again, it was not straightforwardly in the American national interest to fight a war against Germany in 1941. The threat came from the Pacific as they had just learned. Why go for a Germany first strategy? Why afterwards spend the next decades defending a largely ungrateful Europe. So too it was not straightforwardly in the UK’s national interest to either defend Belgium in 1914 or Poland in 1939.
Countries do not always act in their own national interest. Many Western countries in the past decades have sometimes cared more for their own sense of altruism and liberalism than narrow self-interest.  The human rights of strangers are frequently seen as being more important than a country’s security, sometimes even its very existence in its present form. Swedish kindness and openness to the world is seen by many Swedes and certainly those in Government as being more important than maintaining the Sweden that has existed for centuries. So no, not every country is defined by national interest.

If Russia is a riddle then China is an inscrutable mandarin. If the average person in the West knows little about Russia, they know still less about China. Our stereotype is of meeting a Chinese wise man who baffles us with his depth. Meanwhile we have no idea about what he really thinks, because his face is a mask that gives away nothing. If Russia is a riddle what then is China?

Western knowledge decreases the further we go east. Western education focused traditionally on knowing everything that it was possible to know about some people who used to live in Greece and Italy. Everyone else was a barbarian and therefore not worth studying. We moved on a little and began to learn French, German or Italian. We might have some knowledge of the history of France and of French literature. But no matter how educated a person might be their knowledge stopped at the river Elbe.

During the period of the Eastern bloc people in the West barely even distinguished between the various countries. What was the point? They were all de facto ruled from Moscow. Few indeed were those who could name more than two cities in the Soviet Union or one or two in any of the other Warsaw Pact countries. While French and German were familiar, many in the West did not even really know what Russian sounded like and if we did we certainly could not distinguish between Czech, Polish and Russian. They were just a generic Slavic, which we distinguished no more than the Slavs themselves historically distinguished between our languages. They thought that we were all dumb (немцы [nemt︠s︡y], niemiecki). We thought they were all the same.

Few Westerners know very much at all about the history, language, literature or culture of the lands beyond the Elbe. The languages were too hard. Russian which is a world language spoken by hundreds of millions is barely known. Even the alphabet is a mystery. The average Westerner thinks that it is the equivalent of mirror writing. And that it involves back to front Rs and Ns. Only a very few specialists would have dreamed of learning, Polish, Czech or Bulgarian.

But at least we had some knowledge of the countries of Eastern Europe. We know a smattering of history. A few tsars have filtered into Western consciousness. We are aware vaguely of Polish partitions and of good king Wenceslas stepping out. Not a few of us have read some Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. We watch Swan Lake and the Nutcracker and know about 1812 even if it is only an overture. Our knowledge of Eastern European history can be quite horribly lacking. We know every detail about every battle on the Western front from 1914-1918, but know almost nothing about the events in the East. It is even quite hard to find out. There are endless books about the Somme, very few about the Gorlice–Tarnów Offensive. We know everything about one and nothing about the other.

But knowledge of Eastern Europe has at least increased during the past decades. There are still major gaps. Few indeed are those who have heard of Operation Bagration in 1944, which absolutely dwarfs the events in the West, but many have at least heard of Stalingrad and Kursk. The Prague Spring and the Hungarian Uprising reached the consciousness of the average person. Polish Solidarnosc and Lech Walesa became household names. We learned the words “glasnost” and “perestroika” even if we didn’t quite grasp them. Our knowledge of Eastern Europe was lacking, but at least there was some of it.

Contrast this with China. If the Russian alphabet and language are difficult, what about the Chinese? If people in the West only know two or three words of Russian, they don’t even know the words for “Yes” and “No” in Chinese. If people can only name Nicholas II, Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible as historical rulers of Russia, they can barely name any Chinese historical figures at all. Was Ming a Chinese ruler, a vase or a merciless ruler of the universe?

How many regions of China can the average Westerner name? How many cities? Even if we can name them, we might only know how they used to be pronounced, Nanking instead of Nanjing. How much Chinese music has filtered through to the West? How much Chinese literature? People may be aware of Confucius, but his thought is not studied in the same way that Plato or Aristotle is studied. Some people might read the Art of War by Sun Tzu, but how many can read it in Chinese?  It’s far more likely to meet someone who can read the History of the Peloponnesian War in Greek.  Some of the world’s largest cities are in China, yet most of these are unknown to all but one person in a thousand in the West. Is it any surprise that we find them enigmatic? But it may not be their fault, rather it may be ours.

In recent years the Chinese have been visiting us in greater numbers. Frequently they take the trouble to learn our languages. Often they do so rather well even if it is probably as hard for them to learn how we speak as it is for us to learn how they speak. How many westerners study in Chinese at a university in China? Yet somehow we suppose it is their fault that they are inscrutable and impossible to understand.

The relationship between Russia and China is one of the most important in international relations. It is a relationship that baffles however for the simple reason that we know next to nothing about Russia and still less about China. How then can we understand their conjunction and their interaction? The only way to begin doing so is to go back to the beginning. We must build the foundation of our knowledge upon history. It is not so much self-interest that is the key to our understanding, though it may be important. Rather it is trying to understand in broad terms how Chinese and Russian history has influenced and determined what Chinese and Russian people are today. For this reason it is important to try to understand in very general terms the significant ways in which Chinese and Russian history are similar, but also different. By comparing and contrasting the sweep of historical events, it may be possible to grasp something essential. For this reason it is not necessary to explore details. These are the trees that sometimes prevent us seeing the wood. This broad approach may miss something. It may even get details wrong. But this will not matter for at least we will then be aware that there is a Russian wood and a Chinese wood and that together they make a forest.

The biggest difference between Chinese and Russian history is that the one begins rather early, while the other begins rather late. Recorded Chinese history may begin around 2000 BC. Whether the events described are entirely accurate is beside the point. After all did the Siege of Troy actually happen in the way that it is described? Were there really only 300 Spartans at Thermopylae? The point is that the Chinese were writing something like history fifteen hundred years before the year zero. In this they can be compared with other ancient civilizations that developed in Mesopotamia, India and Greece.

The contrast with Russia is stark. What were Russians doing in 1500 BC? It is probably senseless to even ask this question. There isn’t even any historical mention of Slavs until the sixth century AD. At what point did the Russian branch of the Slavs break away from the other branches? It certainly wasn’t in 1500 BC. Where were the ancestors of the Russians in 1500 BC? Were they living around what today is Moscow or St. Petersburg? Perhaps some were. Russians have a mixture of ancestries. But the Slavs were not originally from where they are now. Rather they migrated sometime in prehistory.

When the Chinese had established a civilization the Russians therefore did not even exist. What we know of them depends entirely on archaeology and guesswork. Historical linguistics may be able to make inferences about a Proto Slavic language spoken in 1500 BC, but we have no examples of it. While the Chinese were writing and recording their history we know almost nothing about what the ancestors of the Russians were doing. All we have is what other people wrote about them and what we can dig up out of the ground. For the most part we don’t even have that.

Even in European terms Russian history begins rather late. Quite a lot is known about the history of Britain since at least the Roman Conquest. We know the names of British historical figures, the names of towns and the names of events and when they occurred. If someone wanted to write the history of the British Isles from the Roman Conquest to the rule of Alfred the Great a good deal could be written. Of course archaeology would be useful, but we also have extensive written sources providing us with names, dates and descriptions of events. The same is the case with China. It is these that enable history to be written.

The history of Russia prior to 862 AD is basically a blank page. How many historical figures can be named? How many historical events? How many Russian documents survive? None. All we have is archaeology. There is therefore in essence no history.

Even for first few centuries after the founding of Kievan Rus’ there is dearth of written sources. Apart from Olga of Kiev who converted to Christianity around 950 AD we hardly know even the name of another ruler’s wife or the mother of a prince. The early history of Rus’ depends on chronicles which are frequently dubious, unclear and incomplete. It depends on writings discovered on birch bark. It depends on archaeology in a way that the history of Britain, France or Germany simply doesn’t.

While Western Europe has a culture stretching back to the Greeks and the Romans and continuing into the middle ages, Russia once more essentially has a blank sheet. All we have is chronicles, ecclesiastical documents and pieces of correspondence sometimes fragmentary. Apart from the The Tale of Igor's Campaign discovered in the eighteenth century, there is no surviving Russian literature written in the early centuries. Some folk tales have been passed down orally and these have been collected, but compared to Western Europe Russia really didn’t produce any literature of world importance until Pushkin.

While Western Europe was producing Beowulf, Chaucer, Dante, Chretien de Troyes, the Nibelungenlied and the Icelandic sagas, Russia essentially produced nothing or if it did it is now lost.

The great period of Russian literature, beginning in the 1830s, springs as it were from nothing. Compare this with China. Look at the achievements of Chinese thinkers, poets from ancient times onwards. It could accurately be said that practically nothing of consequence for anyone else comes out of Russia before 1830. Everything else is either unoriginal imitation, such as St. Petersburg or it is not really of importance at least for anyone else. Russia has no one even close to a Shakespeare, Moliere, Dante or Confucius prior to the nineteenth century.  It barely has any culture at all.

The contrast between China being an ancient civilization with vast achievements in terms of invention and culture and Russia which doesn’t really escape the dark ages until the eighteenth century explains much about how these countries are today.

Even Russia’s language in its present form can only really be traced back to Pushkin. The Russian elites until relatively recently so lacked confidence in their own language and culture that they preferred to speak French. Peter the Great found his country to be Asiatic and barbarous. Russians have found themselves looking at Europe with the desire to imitate, but they have never found themselves belonging. They have also always looked eastwards. It is towards the East that Russia has always spread from its Kievan Rus’ beginnings.

So too has China spread from its original heartland along the Yellow and Yangtze rivers.  First Russia and China met through intermediaries, but gradually they each approached and then finally began to border each other. But how does an ancient civilization respond to a comparatively modern one? Has the relative lack of Russian history and culture made Russian’s insecure and desperate to be recognised? On the other hand have the Chinese felt that much of their greatness like that of the Greeks is something that belongs only to antiquity? Where is the present Chinese greatness to match that of ancient times? Where is today’s Confucius? Has this made the Chinese insecure and desperate to make up for those times when they have been humiliated in recent centuries?


Part 2

The root of China is from itself. The Chinese come from the Chinese. This cannot really be said of Russia. Was it Russians who began Russia? Not really. Russia at root is a Viking civilization. It is the result of Vikings wishing to reach Byzantium by a quicker route than going all the way round by way of the Mediterranean. The first rulers of Kievan Rus’ are not therefore even Slavs. Rather in time they became Russified.

There is another sense too in which the origins of Russia are not Russian. Since 1991 the cradle of Russian civilization does not even lie with the boundaries of Russia. Kiev is no longer the capital of “Little Russia” rather it is the capital of anti-Russia. The Russian self lies outside itself.

The foundation of the Russian house is Scandinavian. On top of this is piled Byzantium and claims of Moscow being the third Rome. Throughout the centuries Russia has always been looking outside itself. Trying to find whatever it lost at the beginning. These are not solid foundations. These are the basis of the insecurity in the Russian nature that explains much of its history. Why else would a people seek to continually imitate someone else? Why would that people continually be unsure if it wanted to go West or go East? Even as the French sought to destroy Russia the Russians wanted to be French and then fought against the French with a brutality that no-one else had previously come close to matching. The Russians may too have always thought of Germans as “dumb” but yet for centuries their doctors and their generals have been Germans, their skilled merchants have been imported from Germany. While Russians lazed on the divan (Oblomov) the Germans ran their country and at times were at the heart of their royalty. This is the duality at the heart of the Russian mind. They have been humiliated since Peter the Great cut their beards off and built Venice as their capital.

China too has faced the humiliation of being a faded power. It may once have expected the rest of the world to pay tribute. It may once have thought that Russians were barbarians who needed to bow down to the Chinese. But by the nineteenth century Chinese greatness lay in antiquity. It was indeed the Chinese who discovered gunpowder. It was they who had a culture and a civilization stretching back to the dawn of human history. China had reached a level of knowledge and sophistication that Europe could not dream of one two or even three thousand years ago, but then they thought they had reached perfection and so stopped.

This is the greatest fault in Asian culture, the lack of continued development. The Japanese decide that a certain form of art is perfection, a certain way of making tea cannot be improved and a certain way of making war may not be altered. They then stop. After this they repeat and imitate. They end up with samurai fighting against machine guns. So too with China. Centuries of thinking they were already perfect led to the humiliation of China becoming a colony which the real Great Powers of the nineteenth century squabbled over and divided as they pleased.

But at root China is secure. Compared to Russia it has a solid foundation. Its culture is not imposed from without. Rather the Chinese house is built on the same foundations that were created in antiquity. The centre of Chinese culture is not divided against itself.

Both China and Russia are civilizations that have expanded from a core and have taken over peoples and places that were not at the beginning either Chinese or Russian. The essence of both is to be colonizers. The fundamental difference however between other colonial powers such as the British or the French is that Russia and China, for the most part colonized contiguously. Britain expanded as far as India, Australia and the North America, but geography doomed the project from the start. In time Australians, Indians and North Americans would always recognise the absurdity of being ruled by a small island that was far away. These oceans created the seeds of the destruction of the British Empire. Russia however began expanding from its small core stretching from Kiev northwards and eastwards. The people who became part of Russia were not Russians, but they were at least contiguous. So too China expanded from its core around the Yangtze and the Yellow river to take in other peoples and cultures. Both Russia and China developed the same policy. What is mine will always be mine. If it ever was mine it still is mine. It is the same reasoning that means some people think Al-Andalus is in essence still part of the Dār al-Islām.

The Russian and the Chinese cultures spread just as their people spread. We find ethnic Russians and ethnic Chinese in places far from where they originated. They dominate and their language becomes the language of all. Vladivostok did not speak Russian a thousand years ago. It was thousands of miles away from anyone who did. It is a colony just as much as Australia was a colony. But Vladivostok cannot free itself from Russian rule, because it is joined at the hip.

So too Taiwan was colonised. Its original people were not Chinese. They spoke an Australasian language and they did not look like Chinese people at all. So too the Uyghurs speak a Turkic language. They are no more Chinese in their origin than Siberians are Russian in their origin. But both were colonised.   Russians and Chinese have moved from the centre and now claim where they have moved to as their own. The reason they can keep these places while other Empires have fallen apart is a matter of geography. Apart from that the process by which they were colonised differs in no way from how the British and French colonised Africa.

There is a difference however between Russia and China. The Russian Empire has been in retreat since the peak of its expansion in the nineteenth century and the culmination of its power in 1945. The vassal states of the Warsaw Pact, which in effect were ruled from Moscow, have gone. Far from being buffer states they are now largely hostile. But what had been the Russian Empire gradually began falling apart in the years after 1917. Poland was lost as was Finland and the Baltic States. Parts of these were gathered back in 1939 or 1945, but then were lost for good in 1991. At this point we saw the result of decades, perhaps centuries of Russian imperial policy. Given the chance the parts of the Russian Empire voted with their feet. Those parts that spoke very different languages no longer wished to be ruled from Moscow. Armenia, Azerbaijan and all the other “stans” left. This was painful enough. But what was still worse was the loss of Belarus and Ukraine. It’s one thing to lose places that didn’t speak Russian, but to lose places that did was a far worse vote of no-confidence.

Rus’ was all those part of the Slavic world that were Orthodox and spoke an eastern Slavic language. Most Russians until very recently indeed considered these places to speak Russian or dialects of Russian. Most Russians thought these places were Russia. They were either “white Russia” (Belarus) or “little Russia” (Ukraine) (literally the edge of Russia). It would have been unimaginable to a Russian in the nineteenth century to suppose that Kiev or Minsk were capitals of foreign countries. The core of Russianness, the historical foundation of Russian society, was split in 1991. It is this above all that explains the history of Russia since 1991.

There is a lack of confidence about Russia. The Soviet Union was a great power. They won the “Great Patriotic War”. They put the First man in space, the first woman and the first dog. People in the West were scared on the Soviet Union. We treated them with respect. Their opinion was asked for.

Suddenly the Soviet Union fell. No-one expected this. The West no longer respected Russia. We thought that Yeltsin was a clown. We sent them aid as if they were some third world country facing famine. This is why they wanted a strong leader who we would respect and perhaps fear.

The Russian Empire is in decline, but has the decline finished? This is the key question. After all the Russia of today is made up of hundreds of peoples, many of whom can speak languages different from Russian, who follow different religions to Orthodox Christianity, who look differently from most people in Moscow, and who have often been persecuted by Russians for centuries.

Russia has a declining population and a landmass bordered by populations who are growing. Can 144 million, many of whom are not even at root Russian, really hold on to most of Eurasia while 1.3 Billion Chinese have to be satisfied merely with a corner?

The relation then between China and Russia can be described in this way. While Russia strategically is growing weaker and may decline still further, China is growing in terms of power, influence and wealth.

Chinese influence is expanding in places as far apart as the Caribbean and Africa. China gives money in exchange for resources and soft power. The only significant loss for China since 1945 was Taiwan and even here it wasn’t really lost. Most of the world accepts that Taiwan is still part of China and that there is only one China even if it looks as if there is more than one. China regained Hong Kong, Macau and Tibet. While the Soviet Union was so weakened by the communist economics Ronald Reagan’s tactics that it lost the Cold War decisively and ceased to exist, China was fundamentally strong enough to see off the challenge. The revolutionary period in Europe that began in the late 1980s and concluded in the early 1990s saw the breakup of the Soviet Union and the defeat of Communism. But China survived. It defeated the revolutionary forces in 1989. Tiananmen Square did not lead to the breakup of China. The Chinese therefore were and are stronger than the Russians.

This is the key to understanding the present relationship between China and Russia. Russian wealth, insofar as it exists, is a function of its geography. Russian history meant that it was able to colonise vast chunks of essentially empty land that no-one else much wanted. But it turned out that these barren lands held resources. They had oil, gas, and minerals. This is a source of Russian strength, but it is also a source of weakness. Russia relies on what it has rather than what it makes.

The Russian people think of themselves at least in part as First World Europeans. They look to the West and think that they deserve the same products as everyone else, the same lifestyle and the same standard of living. But they have not properly reached a free market system. Few Russian products are sold in the West that they make. Their businesses remain corrupt and inefficient. As soon as there is a decline in oil and gas prices as soon as there are sanctions the Russian economy takes a nose dive.

Contrast this with China. Chinese business is successful, Chinese products are sold everywhere. Chinese people do not expect a Western lifestyle without doing any work. For this reason many of them approach it and indeed go beyond it.

While there may be a limit to Chinese economic progress for the reason that truly free markets and capitalism require a democracy that China lacks.  Nevertheless despite remaining officially “communists” China has made much more economic progress than Russia in the past decades. Russia may have thrown off communism, but it was simply unable to develop business. In this respect it is essentially worse off now than it was before the 1917 Revolution. In the nineteenth century there were prosperous small towns in Russia far from Moscow. Now there is a giant Moscow founded on corruption and wealth derived from ownership of natural resources that were quite frankly stolen in the years following 1991. Life in a small town five hundred miles from Moscow today is worse than it was one hundred and fifty years ago.

China may be limited economically by its lack of democracy, but it has at least become a first rate economic power and the foundation of this economic power is good businesses that produce products that the world wants. Without its natural resources Russia would barely have any economic power at all and without economic power a country in the end has no power. China has not got all of the fundamentals right, but it has at least got some of them right. It perhaps has even got the main fundamental right. Economics. Russia on the other hand has hardly got any of the fundamentals right in the years since 1991. Most of all it has only developed the appearance of a market economy. Russian wealth is dependent not on what they can make, but on what they can find. In this sense they have not really gone beyond the Hunter Gather stage.


Part 3

Both Russia and China are great powers in the context of the twenty first century. In different ways their history as great powers stretches back into history. In nineteenth century international relations, Russia was important in a way that China was not. However, China was already great when Russia was not, when Russia did not even exit. However, despite both Russia and China having long term greatness they have also had long term weakness.

At the beginning of the twentieth century China had been reduced in effect to being a colony of the great powers. It had become the equivalent of the Ottoman Empire in the East and was the “Sick Manchu of Asia.” Each of the great powers, Britain, Germany, Russia, France, USA etc. had a chunk of China and treated it as theirs. Chinese immigrants to the United States were treated as inferiors, fit only to work as coolies or to do laundry. When the Chinese rebelled against foreign rule with the Boxer Rebellion (1899-1901) the great powers thought they had the right to crush it and so they did.

Russia too entered the twentieth century as a power in decline. The tsar still thought that he ruled according to the concept of the divine right of kings. This is something that Britain essentially dispensed with when it cut off the head of Charles I. France too ceased identifying the power of the state with a single person (L’etat c’est moi) only a few Louis after the fourteenth one. They too achieved this by cutting off the head of a king. But Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century had not really progressed much beyond the seventeen or perhaps eighteenth century.

For a long time this did not matter. Russia’s vastness, stubbornness, population and brutality were enough to defeat Napoleon. Russia could retreat further than anyone else which meant defeat in battle, loss of life, crops, even a burned Moscow mattered little if at all. Russia also did not play by Napoleon’s rules. It simply refused to surrender and in this way was able to defeat what it could not defeat in battle.

Russian troops eventually reached Paris. This may have been the peak of Russian power. But the lessons of Paris were not learned. Every attempt to reform Russia was made too little and too late. Those officers who had seen that Western Europe was more prosperous that Russia and who wanted to bring back to Russia the lessons they had learned were crushed by Nicholas the first, tsar of all the Russias who knew better because his power was from God.

This same Nicholas would get himself involved in a tangle with Britain and France over access to churches in Jerusalem. Naturally he must have the right to enter when he pleased. Unfortunately he discovered at Alma that British and French rifles could shoot further than Russian ones, for which reason the British and French could simply shoot down any Russia without risking being shot in return. Russia had as always neglected technology because of its divine right to win battles.

Russian reforms in the decades after Crimea were two little and too late. Reforms that might have been decisive in the 1820s if only the tsar had listened to the Decembrists were not enough when they were finally introduced in 1861.

The key to avoiding revolution as the British learned over the centuries was to give ground when needed. England had been doing so since Magna Carta. The Glorious Revolution of 1690, which wasn’t a revolution at all, prevented real revolution from occurring during the next three centuries. By limiting the monarchy so early it was possible for the British Kings and Queens to survive. By introducing democracy and free markets gradually, the people’s discontent was limited, because they always had hope for better times.  

Russia’s failure in the late nineteenth century was its inability to change quickly enough. It simply left the process of beginning change too late to overcome the brewing discontent.

The warning came in 1905 with Russia’s defeat to Japan and its first twentieth century Revolution. How could mighty Russia stretching across a continent lose to a tiny island that had kept itself isolated more or less until 1854? Japan was better than anyone expected and this latent power would be ably demonstrated in the 1930s and 1940s. But Russia was weaker.

The tsar perhaps had one last chance in 1905. Even then it was very late in the day. But as always he did too little and too late. At the beginning of the First World War the tsar still essentially ruled because he had the divine right to do so. He even appointed himself not merely a symbolic head of the armed forces but something like the actual head. While the British king had learned to keep himself in the background and accepted his powerlessness, the tsar took all responsibility and also therefore all the blame. No-one blamed the British king if things went wrong for everyone knew he was just a symbol. After a few centuries of this the British monarchy could see the benefits. George V had less power and influence than either Kaiser Wilhelm II or Nicholas II, but his family kept their throne while his cousins lost theirs. You can’t blame someone who doesn’t have power. This was the key to kings surviving in the twentieth century.

Russia made economic progress in the decades up to 1914. But again they were too little and too late. More importantly those who led did so because of who their fathers were rather than their ability. The mass of Russian soldiers were essentially the same as the ones that had fought Napoleon a century earlier. But it was no longer enough.

The German army continually showed that it was superior both in terms of leadership and in terms of the ability of its ordinary soldiers. This meant that a small force could defeat a larger force at Tannenberg in 1914. Once more Russia retreated, but despite the ebbs and flows of fluctuating fortunes in the years ahead never came close to defeating Germany on its own. Russia’s only hope was to hold on until the Western Allies won, but it could not even do this.

The failure to reform in the previous decades, which can be traced to Nicholas I caught up with Nicolas II and led to his family being bayonetted by Red guards. Russia suffered the greatest defeat in its history in 1917/1918. The German Army decisively defeated the Russian Army in the field. The extent of its advance and the harshness of the peace terms at Brest Litovsk were only reversed in part by the Allied Victory in November 1918 and the civil war that followed the Russian Revolution.

The Russian Empire was an empty shell in 1918 just as much as the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It might have fallen apart just as they did. What saved Russia and kept it as a great power was the Bolshevik Revolution. Without this Revolution we might have ended up with Russia being not much more powerful today than Austria or Hungary. Russia might have been left as a relatively small power. Who knows how much territory would have been lost if the Bolsheviks had lost the struggle. But while giving Russia short term strength, the Bolshevik Revolution stored up long term failure. The same can be said for the Revolution in China.

Chinese weakness continued even after the overthrow its emperor. The Republic of China (1912-1949) simply did not have enough time to introduce the reforms necessary to maintain itself. The Chinese emperor until 1912 had been an absolute monarch, like the tsar, but he had been an impotent one. It simply was not possible in the time allowed to introduce the modernisations necessary for the challenges ahead.

These challenges became existential when China found itself fighting a war against Japan. Once more Japan demonstrated that it could fight a country much larger than itself. China emerged victorious, but could not have won on its own at least it could not have won in 1945 on its own. Chinese victory was dependent on American nuclear bombs.

The feebleness of nationalist China is ably demonstrated by the swiftness of its defeat after World War II. Russia reached perhaps its lowest point of power in 1918 with Brest Litovsk, but the Republic of China too reached its lowest point despite technical victory in 1945.

The “victorious” Republic of China almost immediately found itself challenged by communism and collapsed and had to flee to Taiwan shortly afterwards.

China’s status today as a great power is down to the Communist Revolution. Just as Communism made Russia a great power in the twentieth century so too did Communist Revolution allow China to reach greatness in the second half of the twentieth century.

But just as with Russia, so too with China. Both communist revolutions had within them the seeds of failure and weakness. The price of short term power was long term failure.

Russia because of the Communist revolution was able to defeat Nazi Germany in 1945. It enabled the new Russian Empire (called the Soviet Union) to industrialise and to bring about levels of education hitherto unknown. Only tyranny could have defeated Hitler. If Russia had been a democracy in 1941 it would have lost, because no democracy could have accepted the level of sacrifice required. But tyranny, just as with Nicolas I, meant that Russia could not reform quickly enough. It was bankrupted by Ronald Reagan. Gorbachev tried to reform just like Nicholas II, but what he tried was too little and too late. The loss in 1991 was even greater than the loss at Brest Litovsk. The Russian Empire lost its heartland (Belarus, Ukraine) and most of its non-Russian peoples. The tsar was no longer tsar of all the Russias, because now there was only one.

The Chinese Revolution brought with it Chinese power. The other great powers in the world began to respect China in a way that they had not done for centuries if at all. The British gave back Hong Kong only because China was a greater power than Britain.

But although the Chinese Revolution brought with it greatness the cost was great too. The Great Leap Forward, the Great Famine and the Cultural Revolution killed millions of Chinese. The country was held together by authority and tyranny.

But China began to reform. From 1978 China has been attempting to reconcile Communism and Capitalism. After the trauma of the previous decades, a trauma that may eventually have led to another revolution, the Communist Party has attempted to evolve.

The major test was in 1989. The danger for any autocracy is when it first tries to introduce change. It gives people a taste and they want more. This is the difficult balance. A state must introduce enough reform to prevent revolution, but not so much that it makes revolution inevitable.

China was able to crush its minor revolution in 1989. Does this mean that it had already introduced enough reform? Were the changes made from 1978 to 1989 enough to maintain the Chinese state? For the moment it looks as if they were, because the Chinese people seem uninterested today in revolution. Now they have the chance to achieve wealth. But it was perhaps a close run thing. The Tiananmen Square democracy protests may have overthrown the path that China is now on. They may have led to something better, but they may have led to something worse. This is the essential problem with revolution that we have learned from the French Revolution to the Arab Spring. Revolution most frequently does not lead to peace, love and democracy. Most frequently it leads to chaos and terror.

But there is still a contradiction at the heart of China. Free market capitalism requires freedom and democracy. There is a limit to Chinese economic progress which is imposed by the lack of consent which ordinary Chinese people can give to the way their society is run.

China’s status as a great power is because of its revolution, but this revolution at the same time limits its prospects.

Russia went through a second revolution in 1991, which reduced it to the status of barely being a great power at all. Russia’s enemies have been able to take over the former parts of the Russian empire (Baltics, Poland) and were close to taking over the spiritual heart and origin of Russian society (Kiev). Russia’s response has been to flail wildly and posture (Crimea, Donbass, Syria), but this cannot disguise the inherent weakness of Russia.

China’s economic prospects are first class. But it faces the challenge of reform. Is it possible to hold together such a large, diverse country in a way that is not authoritarian? Is democracy compatible with developing China economically? Would democratic reforms simply lead to the breakup of China? But the lesson of history is that gradual reform prevents revolution. This is China’s task today.

But the fundamental position of China is much better than Russia. China has a large population. It makes products other people around the world want to buy. It has a population that works hard and with good levels of productivity. There is a route for many ordinary people that leads them to a better life and wealth. This wealth depends at least in part on hard work rather than criminality and corruption. Compared to Russia China as many advantages.

The only advantage Russia has is land mass. But this land is essentially empty and becoming emptier. Russia desperately needs both economic and democratic reforms. But Russia has not fundamentally changed at all. It still has the same structure of society as it did during the tsar. At that point there was a small gentry and a large peasantry. During Communism there was a small elite (the Party) and a large mass of workers. Now there is the small group of oligarchs who were able to grab low hanging fruit when communism fell. The Russian rich are powerful because of what they stole, not because of what they invented or the businesses that they made successful. The foundation is not capitalism, but feudalism. The strong (Putin and friends) still rule over the weak. Many ordinary Russians are excluded from any chance of reaching success. But they exclude themselves because of their love, perhaps their dependence on strong leaders.

Russia is a pressure cooker. The 1991 revolution is still ongoing and we may if we are not careful find ourselves facing another such revolution. The Chinese Pressure cooker is letting out steam. Ordinary Chinese can now have as high a standard of living as anyone in the world. They can travel and they can practically speaking live as freely as anyone in the United States. There are challenges ahead. China must resolve its contradictions, but they are at least going in the right direction. It is this that distinguishes China from Russia. Russia isn’t going in the right direction, because it isn’t going anywhere at all.


Part 4

It may be that that what limits both Russia and China is that they lack what is necessary to reach democracy. They both lack the idea of the individual and the individual mattering. Briefly it looked as if Russia might have made the transition to democracy in the early nineteen nineties. Russia at least did make a peaceful transition from communism to post-communism. It attempted to make democratic reforms and become a multi-party democracy. But the attempt failed. It led to national humiliation (food aid, Yeltsin), weakness and economic crisis. Once more Russia turned to the strong man. But at least Russia tried. China did not and has not even really attempted democracy.

China has made progress in terms of market reforms and has in this respect done much better than Russia, but it has failed to do the one thing that Russia did do successfully. Russia did get rid of the Party peacefully. China has not. This amounts to an albatross around China’s neck. It must know that at some point it is necessary to go beyond the Party, but the longer it continues the harder this looks.

China is a market economy, but it is ruled by the Communist Party. If it is really a market economy why is it ruled by the Party? If on the other hand it is really communist, why does it have a fully functioning market economy? This contradiction is at the heart of China and is a source of weakness. It may be that China will in time be able to mediate the contradiction and come up with a new way of ruling that is compatible with free markets, but as yet they have not done so. China needs a revolution to overthrow the Party, but there is no guarantee that it would be peaceful (more or less) as was the case with Russia. This is the central risk with China, perhaps with the world.

At the heart of Russian and Chinese history is the idea that the ordinary person does not matter. This was the case in Russia where a person’s wealth was counted in souls. Some of these souls could arbitrarily be consigned to the army in effect for life. It did not matter how many of these souls were killed in battle, no more at Borodino than at Stalingrad.

Russia suffered some of the greatest military defeats in history in 1941. I use Russia, of course, to mean the continuing Russian Empire. The Soviet Union in essence was still all the Russias. The losses suffered in Operation Barbarossa in 1941 amount to nearly 5 million people. 700,000 were lost when Kiev alone was surrounded, nearly 350,000 at Minsk. No other army, no other people could have endured such losses.

But these defeats are ignored. They have been wiped away from history just as much as Nikolai Yezhov was deleted from photos with Stalin after he was purged. Museums in Russia today do not mention defeats, only victories. The loss of half a million people does not matter. They are just dead souls.

So too in China. The lives of ordinary Chinese people were governed historically by laws that did not care at all about their individuality. The whim of the Manchu would see someone executed. If the Great Leap forward was built on the backs of millions of dead peasants it would be worth it. Except there was no leap, it was not great and it did not move forwards.

Communism depends on the idea that the individual does not matter. It is for this reason that it has only ever approached something like fulfilment in countries that do not value the individual and where there is little sense of individualism.

Conformity is the key to communism. It is for this reason that Germany would be the perfect communist country and would be more successful than the others. Poles and Czechs always had far too much individuality to conform. If the atom bomb had not intervened then Japan would no doubt have been partitioned just like Korea. In that case we would now have North Japan. Perhaps it would be the ideal communist paradise. But even so it is worth noting that East German conformism did not match West Germany’s Mercedes.

But it is precisely the lack of the idea that the individual matters that makes democracy so problematic for both China and Russia. The traditional Russian steamroller meant that Russian power depended on the idea that this or that Russian would crush and at the same time be crushed. But it wouldn’t matter. Without this the Russian army would not have the traditional power that it always had, nor would the Russian state.

Progress, whether it was the building of St. Petersburg, or the creation of the White Sea Canal, required Russia’s rulers not to care how many people were killed. This too is why Russian casualties in the World War II were so high. The Russian army had so many that it simply did not matter. They would clear a mine field with a regiment if it was quicker than having to go round it. It is in part because of this that Russia’s historically large population has begun to collapse. If the state did not give a damn about casualties, why should the people give a damn about bringing these casualties into the world?

Chinese losses in World War II are only a little less than those of Russia. While China in total lost 15-20 million Russia lost 26-27 million. Britain and the United States each lost less than half a million. One of the reasons for this of course was the brutality of the fighting in China and in Russia, but it must also be recognised that another reason was that Britain and the United States cared about each individual who was lost and fought so as to limit casualties.

The history of the twentieth century in Russia is of the individual’s rights, even his existence, being subordinated to the power of the state. It didn’t matter if collectivisation killed millions both by hunger and by its inherent long term inefficiency, what mattered was introducing communist doctrine. The Gulag swallowed up millions. It did not matter if it swallowed both the innocent and the guilty so long as Siberia was opened up and gained the workers it needed.

Mao would surround a Chinese city and starve its population to death. He needed to do this in order to win his revolution. It mattered not at all to him that hundreds of thousands and then millions of Chinese would perish.

In the United States people read obsessively about battles of the American Civil War. During the battle with the worst daily toll of casualties, Antietam or Sharpsburg, a little more than two thousand United States Army soldiers lost their lives. In China or in Russia such a battle would not even be worthy of note. But it is for this reason that they struggle to introduce democracy.

In the end free markets depend on democracy, because it is through the creativity of individuals that new products and ways of business are created. Creativity depends on the idea that individuals can reach greatness. It is the lack of Chinese individuality historically that limits them for it means that their economy can only imitate, just as their culture creates little that is new. There is something missing from Chinese violinists, because no Chinese has produced anything close to Beethoven. They just imitate and imitate almost perfectly, but it is the imitation of something that they do not quite grasp.

So too Chinese capitalism is an imitation of the United States, but it is not founded on the individualism of nineteenth century American history. For this reason the Chinese have not created in the way that Henry Ford did, nor in the way of Bill Gates, nor indeed in the way of Charles Ives and John Ford.

The elite of Russian society could produce greatness both during the time of the tsar and during the time of the Party, but nothing of consequence has been produced since. It is as if communism ate out the heart of Russian culture and left a husk. There looks to be no prospect at all of a modern Tolstoy or Tchaikovsky. The elite have become vulgar, concerned only with consumption and buying expensive brands, the masses look on and wish to buy those same brands. The Slavophiles have decisively been defeated by Christian Dior. But Christian Dior and the essence of all of the other ideas in the West is neither founded on vulgarity, excessive consumption, imitation, nor longing for something you can’t have, it is founded on individualism and the idea that it matters what I look like and smell like and that I can attain these things by working hard. So ordinary Russians have lost what was theirs and cannot attain what is not theirs. The creative tension between East and West that created the greatness of Russian culture has ceased and so they produce nothing.

Both China and Russia founded their twentieth century history on ideas that were not theirs. Marx and Engels were adapted by Lenin, but the essence of the idea was German not Russian. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, were adapted by Mao, but the essence of the idea was Russian rather than Chinese. In this way they both lost what was original about their own culture by imitating someone else. But really they were imitating nothing, for Marx and Engels did not intend to apply their ideas to a peasant society like Russia, still less to a medieval society like China. They intended to try communism in Germany. So Lenin was really imitating something that never was, and Mao was imitating a pale imitation of something that never would be. In the process they lost what was essential and original about Russia and China for the sake of ideas that were not even intended to apply to them.

But some of what had been was retained. The fundamental difference between the Chinese and the Russians is that the former is naturally good at business while the latter is not. Even today if you go to a market in a Russian city, it is most likely that the people doing the business will not be Russians. They will be from the Caucuses. The merchant class in Russia was historically small and often imported from elsewhere, such as Germany. The ordinary mass of Russians worked as serfs. They did what they were told and worked only when someone was watching, but they did not require any sense of business and any sense of initiative.  

The Chinese communist authorities may have tried to crush entrepreneurs, they may have been able to kill millions of them, but the historical experience of doing small business could not be crushed entirely. It is for this reason above all that the Chinese economy is able to progress in a way that the Russian cannot. The Chinese are good at business and they like doing it. Business is about gambling, taking risks, profit and loss. But the Chinese since antiquity have been gambling about everything and with their ability to not betray their emotions and to keep their faces blank they are very good at it indeed. Lenin and Stalin could kill off the business mentality in Russia because it was not really there anyway. Mao could no more kill off the business sense in China than communism could kill off the Catholic Church in Poland. These ideas were too strong and too inherent. To be Polish is to be Catholic, to be Chinese is to gamble at Mahjong.

Russia and China both have dominant ethnic groups. In Russia and in all the Russias it is the Russian speaker who traces his linage back to Kievan Rus. In China it is the Han Chinese who can trace his lineage back to the Han dynasty. These are the colonisers, everyone else is the colony.

One of the strengths of both China and Russia is that they are able to turn what is not Chinese and not Russian into something Chinese and Russian. Siberia is Russian and so is everything in between. The people who are not descended from Kievan Rus still think of themselves as Russian even if they do not look like Russians. Russia has been able to Russify the whole of northern Eurasia. So too the Han have spread and have become the dominant culture of the whole of China.

This is the strength of both Russia and China. While many Western Europeans are ashamed of their identity, the Russians and the Chinese are not. In Britain the idea of multiculturalism has gained dominance. Each culture and people that has come to Britain is equal to the British culture. In the end this means that British intellectuals think of their own culture as worse than everyone else’s. The Left sides with our country’s rivals and enemies. No-one in Russia or China thinks in this way. Indigenous cultures in these countries may have rights, but they are subordinate to the central culture. For this reason everything is centralised. In Vladivostok the trains use Moscow time.

The United States is rapidly losing the foundation of its greatness. It is being eaten away from within by multiculturalism and insecurity about what it is to be an American. Nearly everything of consequence in American history right up until Eisenhower was created by White Anglo Saxons Protestants (Wasps). All important Americans, almost without exception, were Europeans. But now approximately half the population of the United States is from places other than Europe. It is one thing to melt into a common identity people who are essentially the same, but the United States is now attempting to do this with people who are essentially different. Why should such a country stay together? What holds them? Their common culture is really the culture of only half of them. Why should an “American” who is neither white, nor an Angle nor a Saxon nor a Protestant care whether Washington told the truth about chopping down a tree? What has a Civil War fought by white people to do with immigrants from Asia? But what else is there to unite these people?

Europe too is importing people at almost the same rate as the United States. It becomes unclear how these states can retain their identity and their sense of historical continuity with the places that preceded them.

It is here that Russian and Chinese confidence in their own identity may be a strength. Russia remains a homogenous society. Those people who are ethnically or linguistically non-Russian have been there for centuries. They have been Russified. So too the Han Chinese have imposed their culture and their language on everyone else. They have settled and they have come to dominate those places that were originally not Han Chinese. It is this above all that may hold China and Russia together while Europe and the United States face the challenge of keeping together that which has become too multicultural, multilingual and multi-ethnic, i.e. too diverse to hold itself together.

Russia’s economy depends on resources, oil, gas and minerals, but the future is not with these things. Technology will supersede the internal combustion engine. This is possible even now. It will be still more possible in twenty or one hundred years.

The future may see the development of batteries that can store renewable energy. It may see the development of fusion power. The harnessing of the power of the sun, will solve all energy problems in the flash of the hydrogen bomb. This may be a long term development. At the moment we are not close. But we are close to developing clean fission energy. Thorium reactors, which China especially is developing, might give us nuclear energy without the downside of storing dangerous waste. At this point oil and gas become obsolete.

The foundation of the Chinese economy therefore looks much more promising in the long term than the Russian economy. Business is a more reliable way of creating wealth than finding resources. It is the lack of progress that Russia has made in creating products anyone else wants to buy that is its biggest failure since 1991. The Soviet Union in most respects had better agriculture and manufacturing than Russia today and the Soviet economy was a house of cards that was brought crashing down by Star Wars. Whatever force the Soviets had, it was not with them. The Americans had the force, which was why they won the Cold War, by bankrupting their opponent, not merely in terms of economics, but in terms of ideas.

Russia has a continent which it found almost empty and found first. This is Russia’s main advantage, both strategically and economically. Russia can always retreat and store up strength. But Russia lacks people and lacks ideas. It is dependent on trying to keep its people happy by means of pretending that Russia is still great. Russia will nibble bits of Georgia and bits of Ukraine and Russians may shout in the street about their greatness, but when they return to their ordinary lives they know that it is not true.

China has people. They face demographic challenges with an aging population, but the fundamentals are still in China’s favour. They have less land than Russia and more people. Their economy is based on manufacturing and business. The weakness of China is their lack of originality.

It is hard to think of any music produced in China that is of world importance. They have great literature, but it is rarely read outside China. There is no Chinese author as famous in world terms as Dostoevsky. Few in any other part of the world read Confucius. Chinese religion has not spread much beyond China’s border. Chinese culture remains something exotic rather than influential.

Both China and Russia are only a few generations away from some of the worst horrors of the twentieth Century. Russian leaders killed far more than Holocaust and so did the Chinese. Perversely this is ignored by the rest of the world and is properly acknowledged neither in China nor in Russia.

In China there is still a picture of Mao in Tiananmen Square. In Russia there is a limit to how much anyone can criticise Lenin, Stalin or Russian history in general. Both Russians and Chinese suffer from “Holocaust Denial”. They deny or refuse to acknowledge what their leaders did. This is their weakness.

The wound festers because it has not been treated. Germany on the other hand for the most part acknowledges what was done and has taken responsibility. The limit is that Germans pretend that all these horrors were done by Nazis and not them. It was the SS. it wasn’t my grandparents. But at least the Germans recognise that there was a Holocaust. This means that Germans can move on in a way that Russians and Chinese cannot.

The Russians and Chinese have a one sided view of history. They focus only on what they want to acknowledge and ignore and suppress what they don’t. The Russians won’t even acknowledge the scale of the defeats that made their ultimate victory so extraordinary. They diminish their own achievement. The Chinese by retaining the Communist Party fail to acknowledge fully what that Party did and the crimes it committed. Neither Russian nor Chinese society therefore is grounded in truth. The foundations of their society are not solid. It is this above all that limits them both.

Chinese lack of individuality means they are willing to work. This is to their advantage, but it is also their ultimate limit. Without individuality they will not be able to fully create the business conditions necessary for the innovations of the future. But even so China has achieved economic greatness. This is more than can be said for Russia, which still relies on a Soviet aircraft carrier towed by tugs, because it simply could not produce such a ship today.

Russian society is founded on land, but without people land is simply empty space waiting to be filled by someone stronger. The Russian people have more individuality than the Chinese and have a greater history of creativity, but this has declined even from the time of the Soviet Union let alone the time of Tolstoy. Russians think that because they are white and almost European they deserve the same standard of living as those who they watch on television. But their mentality is still that of the serf who requires someone to tell him to work. Their economy is fundamentally worse than it was during the Soviet Union. While China has great challenges, it is possible to imagine that China may achieve a greatness that it has never had up until now. Russia is no longer a superpower, it is barely even a great power. It can still lash out, but this will not even slow Russia’s decline. It depends on natural resources (oil and gas) that are becoming obsolete and a landmass it gradually will be unable to fill with people. Putin’s posturing cannot hide the truth, because it is only posturing.

This then is the fundamental aspect of China Russian relations. Chinese power and influence has increased and will increase still further. Russia is going in the opposite direction. The Chinese understand this and it is this that defines the relationship between these countries.