Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on February 26, 2014

Bookmark and Share

Apocalypses Everywhere

General Ideas

Is There Any Hope in an Era Filled with Gloom and Doom? 

Wherever we Americans look, the threat of apocalypse stares back at us.

Two clouds of genuine doom still darken our world: nuclear extermination and environmental extinction. If they got the urgent action they deserve, they would be at the top of our political priority list.

But they have a hard time holding our attention, crowded out as they are by a host of new perils also labeled “apocalyptic”: mounting federal debt, the government’s plan to take away our guns, corporate control of the Internet, the Comcast-Time Warner mergerocalypse, Beijing’s pollution airpocalypse, the American snowpocalypse, not to speak of earthquakes and plagues. The list of topics, thrown at us with abandon from the political right, left, and center, just keeps growing.

Then there’s the world of arts and entertainment where selling the apocalypse turns out to be a rewarding enterprise. Check out the website “Romantically Apocalyptic,” Slash’s album “Apocalyptic Love,” or the history-lite documentary “Viking Apocalypse” for starters. These days, mathematicians even have an “apocalyptic number.”

Yes, the A-word is now everywhere, and most of the time it no longer means “the end of everything,” but “the end of anything.” Living a life so saturated with apocalypses undoubtedly takes a toll, though it’s a subject we seldom talk about.

So let’s lift the lid off the A-word, take a peek inside, and examine how it affects our everyday lives. Since it’s not exactly a pretty sight, it’s easy enough to forget that the idea of the apocalypse has been a container for hope as well as fear. Maybe even now we’ll find some hope inside if we look hard enough.

A Brief History of Apocalypse

Apocalyptic stories have been around at least since biblical times, if not earlier. They show up in many religions, always with the same basic plot: the end is at hand; the cosmic struggle between good and evil (or God and the Devil, as the New Testament has it) is about to culminate in catastrophic chaos, mass extermination, and the end of the world as we know it.

That, however, is only Act I, wherein we wipe out the past and leave a blank cosmic slate in preparation for Act II: a new, infinitely better, perhaps even perfect world that will arise from the ashes of our present one. It’s often forgotten that religious apocalypses, for all their scenes of destruction, are ultimately stories of hope; and indeed, they have brought it to millions who had to believe in a better world a-comin’, because they could see nothing hopeful in this world of pain and sorrow.

That traditional religious kind of apocalypse has also been part and parcel of American political life since, in Common Sense, Tom Paine urged the colonies to revolt by promising, “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”

When World War II — itself now sometimes called an apocalypse — ushered in the nuclear age, it brought a radical transformation to the idea. Just as novelist Kurt Vonnegut lamented that the threat of nuclear war had robbed us of “plain old death” (each of us dying individually, mourned by those who survived us), the theologically educated lamented the fate of religion’s plain old apocalypse.

After this country’s “victory weapon” obliterated two Japanese cities in August 1945, most Americans sighed with relief that World War II was finally over. Few, however, believed that a permanently better world would arise from the radioactive ashes of that war. In the 1950s, even as the good times rolled economically, America’s nuclear fear created something historically new and ominous — a thoroughly secular image of the apocalypse.  That’s the one you’ll get first if you type “define apocalypse” into Google’s search engine: “the complete final destruction of the world.” In other words, one big “whoosh” and then… nothing. Total annihilation. The End.

Apocalypse as utter extinction was a new idea. Surprisingly soon, though, most Americans were (to adapt the famous phrase of filmmaker Stanley Kubrick) learning how to stop worrying and get used to the threat of “the big whoosh.” With the end of the Cold War, concern over a world-ending global nuclear exchange essentially evaporated, even if the nuclear arsenals of that era were left ominously in place.

Meanwhile, another kind of apocalypse was gradually arising: environmental destruction so complete that it, too, would spell the end of all life.

This would prove to be brand new in a different way. It is, as Todd Gitlin has so aptly termed it, history’s first “slow-motion apocalypse.” Climate change, as it came to be called, had been creeping up on us “in fits and starts,” largely unnoticed, for two centuries. Since it was so different from what Gitlin calls “suddenly surging Genesis-style flood” or the familiar “attack out of the blue,” it presented a baffling challenge. After all, the word apocalypse had been around for a couple of thousand years or more without ever being associated in any meaningful way with the word gradual.

The eminent historian of religions Mircea Eliade once speculated that people could grasp nuclear apocalypse because it resembled Act I in humanity’s huge stock of apocalypse myths, where the end comes in a blinding instant — even if Act II wasn’t going to follow. This mythic heritage, he suggested, remains lodged in everyone’s unconscious, and so feels familiar.

But in a half-century of studying the world’s myths, past and present, he had never found a single one that depicted the end of the world coming slowly. This means we have no unconscious imaginings to pair it with, nor any cultural tropes or traditions that would help us in our struggle to grasp it.

That makes it so much harder for most of us even to imagine an environmentally caused end to life. The very category of “apocalypse” doesn’t seem to apply. Without those apocalyptic images and fears to motivate us, a sense of the urgent action needed to avert such a slowly emerging global catastrophe lessens.

All of that (plus of course the power of the interests arrayed against regulating the fossil fuel industry) might be reason enough to explain the widespread passivity that puts the environmental peril so far down on the American political agenda. But as Dr. Seuss would have said, that is not all! Oh no, that is not all.

Apocalypses Everywhere

When you do that Google search on apocalypse, you’ll also get the most fashionable current meaning of the word: “Any event involving destruction on an awesome scale; [for example] ‘a stock market apocalypse.'” Welcome to the age of apocalypses everywhere.

With so many constantly crying apocalyptic wolf or selling apocalyptic thrills, it’s much harder now to distinguish between genuine threats of extinction and the cheap imitations. The urgency, indeed the very meaning, of apocalypse continues to be watered down in such a way that the word stands in danger of becoming virtually meaningless. As a result, we find ourselves living in an era that constantly reflects premonitions of doom, yet teaches us to look away from the genuine threats of world-ending catastrophe.

Oh, America still worries about the Bomb — but only when it’s in the hands of some “bad” nation. Once that meant Iraq (even if that country, under Saddam Hussein, never had a bomb and in 2003, when the Bush administration invaded, didn’t even have a bomb program). Now, it means Iran — another country without a bomb or any known plan to build one, but with the apocalyptic stare focused on it as if it already had an arsenal of such weapons — and North Korea.

These days, in fact, it’s easy enough to pin the label “apocalyptic peril” on just about any country one loathes, even while ignoring friends, allies, and oneself. We’re used to new apocalyptic threats emerging at a moment’s notice, with little (or no) scrutiny of whether the A-word really applies.

What’s more, the Cold War era fixed a simple equation in American public discourse: bad nation + nuclear weapon = our total destruction. So it’s easy to buy the platitude that Iran must never get a nuclear weapon or it’s curtains. That leaves little pressure on top policymakers and pundits to explain exactly how a few nuclear weapons held by Iran could actually harm Americans.

Meanwhile, there’s little attention paid to the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, right here in the U.S. Indeed, America’s nukes are quite literally impossible to see, hidden as they are underground, under the seas, and under the wraps of “top secret” restrictions. Who’s going to worry about what can’t be seen when so many dangers termed “apocalyptic” seem to be in plain sight?

Environmental perils are among them: melting glaciers and open-water Arctic seas, smog-blinded Chinese cities, increasingly powerful storms, and prolonged droughts. Yet most of the time such perils seem far away and like someone else’s troubles. Even when dangers in nature come close, they generally don’t fit the images in our apocalyptic imagination. Not surprisingly, then, voices proclaiming the inconvenient truth of a slowly emerging apocalypse get lost in the cacophony of apocalypses everywhere. Just one more set of boys crying wolf and so remarkably easy to deny or stir up doubt about.

Death in Life

Why does American culture use the A-word so promiscuously? Perhaps we’ve been living so long under a cloud of doom that every danger now readily takes on the same lethal hue.

Psychiatrist Robert Lifton predicted such a state years ago when he suggested that the nuclear age had put us all in the grips of what he called “psychic numbing” or “death in life.” We can no longer assume that we’ll die Vonnegut’s plain old death and be remembered as part of an endless chain of life. Lifton’s research showed that the link between death and life had become, as he put it, a “broken connection.”

As a result, he speculated, our minds stop trying to find the vitalizing images necessary for any healthy life. Every effort to form new mental images only conjures up more fear that the chain of life itself is coming to a dead end. Ultimately, we are left with nothing but “apathy, withdrawal, depression, despair.”

If that’s the deepest psychic lens through which we see the world, however unconsciously, it’s easy to understand why anything and everything can look like more evidence that The End is at hand. No wonder we have a generation of American youth and young adults who take a world filled with apocalyptic images for granted.

Think of it as, in some grim way, a testament to human resiliency. They are learning how to live with the only reality they’ve ever known (and with all the irony we’re capable of, others are learning how to sell them cultural products based on that reality). Naturally, they assume it’s the only reality possible. It’s no surprise that “The Walking Dead,” a zombie apocalypse series, is their favorite TV show, since it reveals (and revels in?) what one TV critic called the “secret life of the post-apocalyptic American teenager.”

Perhaps the only thing that should genuinely surprise us is how many of those young people still manage to break through psychic numbing in search of some way to make a difference in the world.

Yet even in the political process for change, apocalypses are everywhere. Regardless of the issue, the message is typically some version of “Stop this catastrophe now or we’re doomed!” (An example: Stop the Keystone XL pipeline or it’s “game over”!) A better future is often implied between the lines, but seldom gets much attention because it’s ever harder to imagine such a future, no less believe in it.

No matter how righteous the cause, however, such a single-minded focus on danger and doom subtly reinforces the message of our era of apocalypses everywhere: abandon all hope, ye who live here and now.

Doom and the Politics of Hope

Significant numbers of Americans still hold on to the hope that comes from the original religious version of the apocalypse. Millions of evangelical Christians seem ready to endure the terrors of the destruction of the planet, in a nuclear fashion or otherwise, because it’s the promised gateway to an infinitely better world. Unfortunately, such a “left behind” culture has produced an eerie eagerness to fight both the final (perhaps nuclear) war with evildoers abroad and the ultimate culture war against sinners at home.

This “last stand” mentality, deeply ingrained in (among others) some uncompromising tea partiers, seems irrational in the extreme to outsiders. It makes perfect sense, however, if you are convinced beyond a scriptural doubt that we’re heading for Armageddon.

A version of plain old apocalypse was once alive on the political left, too, when there was serious talk of a revolution that would tear down the walls and start rebuilding from the ground up. Given the world we face, it may at least be time to bring back the hope for a better future that lay at its heart.

With doom creeping up on us daily in our environmental slow-motion apocalypse, what we may well need now is a slow-motion revolution. Indeed, in the energy sphere it’s already happening. Scientists have shown that renewable sources like sun and wind could provide all the energy humanity needs. Alternative technologies are putting those theories into practice around the globe, just not (yet) on the scale needed to transform all human life.

Perhaps it’s time to make our words and thoughts reflect not just our fears, but the promise of the revolution that is beginning all around us, and that could change in a profound fashion the way we live on (and with) this planet. Suppose we start abiding by this rule: whenever we say the words “Keystone XL,” or talk about any environmental threat, we will follow up with as realistic a vision as we can conjure up of “Act II”: a new world powered solely by renewable sources of energy, free from all carbon-emitting fuels, and inhabited in ingeniously organized new ways.

In an age in which gloom, doom, and annihilation are everywhere, it’s vital to bring genuine hope — the reality, not just the word — back into political life.

Ira Chernus, a TomDispatch regular, is professor of religious studies at the University of Colorado Boulder and author of the online “MythicAmerica: Essays.” He blogs at MythicAmerica.us.

TomDispatch



32 Comments on "Apocalypses Everywhere"

  1. MSN on Wed, 26th Feb 2014 4:54 pm 

    Yawn.. all this talk about the apocalypse. I guess were assuming ‘civilisation’ is worth saving anyhow (in its current form)
    Has the author ever considered BAU + Civilisation (in general) + pop numbers leading to extinction as the worst case and under 1 billion of us in the best…. maybe… just maybe we are living in the apocalypse now.
    Besides. When this mythical event of Apocalypse or Collapse or whatever does occur, it doesn’t matter 🙂
    What happens happens. We just adjust and move forward. I happen to think an apocalypse / collapse may be fun… im an optimist. we live in the best times of humanity.

  2. Northwest Resident on Wed, 26th Feb 2014 5:21 pm 

    It’s a shame that the phrase “Apocalypse Now” has already been taken, because that phrase would make a great bumper sticker for doomers everywhere to proudly display on their cars and trucks and bugout-mobiles.

    The story of an evil and corrupt civilization being completely destroyed, and a rebirth of a more enlightened civilization rising from the ashes of the destroyed one is a constant theme throughout human written history. I’m surprised that the author didn’t reference Sodom and Gomorrah — maybe because there wasn’t a rebirth from the ashes of those two cities, so they didn’t fit the theme. But the Biblical Book of Daniel (old testament) and the Book of Revelation (new testament) were early renditions of the Apocalyptic theme. And how about the Phoenix of Greek mythology, a long-lived bird that is cyclically regenerated — probably doesn’t fit the Apocalyptic theme, but still, it is a story of rebirth out of the burning ashes of the old.

    There is a great deal of survival value in hope. The Apocalyptic theme is all about hope — hope for a better world, for a better version of humanity that has learned from its mistakes and is determined to not repeat them. It is only natural, I think, that those of us who clearly see the economic collapse coming and the implications of that collapse are inspired to hope for a better future — one where people return to a localized community and economy, where the degenerates and sickly masses that piggy-backed BAU do not survive into the future, where human genetics are once again “purified” of all the sicknesses both mental and physical that we are now awash in today. Whether it turns out to be that way or not, the hope is good — and is better than facing what’s coming without any hope at all. So yeah, bring on the Apocalypse!

  3. action on Wed, 26th Feb 2014 8:17 pm 

    Ill be the guy on acid with the puppy!

  4. GregT on Wed, 26th Feb 2014 9:44 pm 

    MSN,

    “maybe we are living in the apocalypse now.”

    “When this mythical event of Apocalypse or Collapse or whatever does occur,”

    “I happen to think an apocalypse / collapse may be fun”

    Off your meds………again?

  5. MSN on Wed, 26th Feb 2014 9:52 pm 

    GregT you need to be an optimist. what’s the point of prepping if you don’t plan to have fun and take advantage of any situation, be it good or bad.?????????
    (or living for that matter)

  6. action on Wed, 26th Feb 2014 9:58 pm 

    Now’s the time for fun (not that im a cup half full kind of guy to begin with), wtshtf not so much, unless you call being hungry fun.

  7. GregT on Wed, 26th Feb 2014 11:00 pm 

    MSN,

    Optimism, and pessimism are human traits, and do not necessarily reflect reality. I am a realist, and take reality for what it is. There are times to be happy, times to be sad, times to be serious, and times to have fun.

    I accept whatever life brings me, and respond accordingly.

  8. Arthur on Wed, 26th Feb 2014 11:31 pm 

    Until a few weeks ago I thought it was going to be a financial meltdown that would bring BAU down for ever.

    Now, following the events of the last few days, I begin to suspect that a 2nd Crimean War could be next. The last time (1853-1856) the Russians lost from Britain, France and Turkey. Britain opined that Russia was threatening the declining Ottoman empire, not entirely without merit.

    Now Russia is facing the US, that is looking for a fight, or at least a proxy war, to let Russia bleed to the max., all in the name of ‘freedom & democracy’ of course, as if not a democratically elected president was just toppled in an outright coup d’etat.

    I don’t see how this can end well. It is Syria all over again. The ultra-nationalists are encouraged to take over the Ukraine, the Russians will not go along and will invade the Crimea via Kerch, supported by the population, as in Ossetia. It is unlikely that there will be ‘US boots on the ground’ and certainly no European, but the Cold War will be back and another Yugoslavia / Syria / Grozny will almost certainly develop. Nuland and the rest of the neocons can be satisfied.

  9. Davy, Hermann, MO on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 12:52 am 

    @MSN – I am having fun prepping. I suspect if or when a contraction or collapse occurs I will find it immensely interesting. I have been researching, studying, and living collapse prep for the last 14 years. My understanding and attitudes have grown and adapted as I become more experienced and prepared. I believe there will be a real opportunity for the “heroic” when this day of reckoning comes. As the “informed ones” we will have answers, plan B’s, and the proper attitude. The “lost ones” will turn to us for advice, help, and support. We will have importance. The BAU popular people will be rejected and people will look to us instead. Tell me what good Charlie Sheen is going to be without his support system? I like to look at the coming wild ride like Ghung. Ghung says he wants front row seat with popcorn. I second that and I plan on a seat belt!

  10. Northwest Resident on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 1:26 am 

    “I second that and I plan on a seat belt!”

    And an extra change or two of underwear might also come in handy.

    Like Steve Buscemi’s character (Rockhound) said in the classic cinematic literary work titled “Armageddon”: “Hey guys, we’ve got front row seats to the end of the world!”

    Arthur — Your deep dark conspiracy theories provide amazing insights. In your world, do Nuland and neocons lurk behind every rock and go “boo” in the night? Not to trivialize what is happening in Ukraine — but Obama’s admin secretly plotting proxy war in league with the neocons against Russia? They can’t possibly be that stupid.

  11. GregT on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 1:55 am 

    “I second that and I plan on a seat belt!”

    “And an extra change or two of underwear might also come in handy.”

    I have a 25 year old bottle of scotch that I’ve been hanging on to for 18 years. Never found a good enough reason to crack it.

  12. Makati1 on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 2:02 am 

    Northwest, I think that, yes, they can be that stupid. It depends on their ultimate goals. This is the event that could trigger nuclear war and maybe the ‘powers that be’ think they can survive and prosper from such a war.

    I hope I am wrong, but if Arthur thinks that the EU/NATO will not be involved … where does much of Europe get their
    NG? And what country does most of it come through in pipelines? From what country? Russia still has most of it’s chess pieces on the board, the US/EU, not so much.

    You cannot claim a country is weak if it has the ability to destroy the world in a day. North Korea only has a few nukes, but no one is crazy enough to invade it.

  13. MSN on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 2:30 am 

    So you do have the right idea lol
    Just imagine. sitting back with a bottle of scotch looking at a blank T.V. screen… and smiling. Looking from your… survival place I guess. You get the point. Seeing all the hungry driven mad masses when they are forced to live in the realm of truth. Then look back at your 2 year supply of food and think. “Should have believed me shouldn’t you guys”
    As for leading them…. Ill leave you to that Davy. My plan begins and ends with shotgun diplomacy.

  14. Sheila Chambers on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 2:32 am 

    Perhaps after the collapse, I can smoke a joint in peace! I’m sick and tired of religious people in government telling me what to eat, drink or smoke or how to live MY LIFE.
    I’ll be the old lady enjoying the sunset, bothering no one while smoking a bong.

  15. ted on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 4:04 am 

    Looking back at your 2 year supply and thinking oh sh** I am going to be just like all those hungry people in 2 years!!!

  16. Northwest Resident on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 5:34 am 

    Makati1 — Ukraine is a major food production and export country. When I was living in Russia, I knew Russian and Ukrainian businessmen who were very friendly with American agricultural companies, and a lot of that $5 billion that the right-wing hooey sites are saying was spent to drive Ukraine away from Russia was actually spent to develop agriculture in Ukraine for the benefit of the Ukrainian people and the European and of course American companies that wanted to import their goods. Starting any kind of proxy war in Ukraine would disrupt critical food supplies to the world, it would disrupt energy supplies to European countries that are dependent on that energy. Any kind of long-lasting or intensive civil war in Ukraine would drag Europe into the crapper. It would be stupid, idiotic, and only people who see an evil conspiracy hiding in every dark corner would seriously consider that America is trying to start a war there. Just my opinion.

  17. GregT on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 6:08 am 

    NWR,

    I’m not sure where you get your news from, but it would certainly appear that a proxy war is in the works, at least from the news being broadcast here.

    I guess time will tell.

    And yah, stupid and idiotic. Just like war.

  18. Arthur on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 6:13 am 

    NRW “but Obama’s admin secretly plotting proxy war in league with the neocons against Russia? They can’t possibly be that stupid.”

    Jeez NRW, have you followed at all what happened in Syria? They want the world.

    Listen too Engdahl and PCR on the Corbettreport:

    http://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/2014-02-26%20William%20Engdahl.mp3

  19. Northwest Resident on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 6:46 am 

    Arthur, GregT — Syria is a whole different story than Ukraine. Yeah, a lot of the Republican neocons like McCain are still stuck in the cold war and they see the situation in Ukraine as an opportunity. Nuland got caught saying some stupid things that certainly fuel the conspiracy theories. If/when Russia moves troops in to control the situation, there will be a lot of condemnations and “stern warnings” from the West including America, threats of economic retaliation, the same deck of cards that always gets played. In the end, Russia will deal with it just like they did in Chechnya and Georgia. The West will tsk tsk about the human rights violations and call for peaceful negotiations, elections, all that shit. After the smoke clears, business will return to normal. There is no way in hell that America and/or Europe are going to engage in proxy or direct conflict with Russia. They may be power mad, they may be anything and everything bad that you can imagine, but engaging in any kind of war with Russia, proxy or otherwise, would be suicidal, and they are not suicidal. It will all blow over, wait and see.

  20. Davy, Hermann, MO on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 11:15 am 

    @MSN said:
    As for leading them…. Ill leave you to that Davy. My plan begins and ends with shotgun diplomacy.

    MSM, not planning on leading only consulting. Now, if a band of beautiful young free thinking and loving women come by and want a leader I will step up that is if my Italian girlfriend gets stuck in Italy. My thoughts are purely on the fact that we have done years of study on prepping both short term and long term. We will be in demand to educate. I will want to help. I do not believe it will all be “Mad Max” and “Book of Eli” although this will likely be part of it. Well-armed for hunting and security here on the farm. I have guns and ammo as much for security and hunting as trade and barter.

    @N/R said:
    It would be stupid, idiotic, and only people who see an evil conspiracy hiding in every dark corner would seriously consider that America is trying to start a war there. Just my opinion.

    I tend to agree with @N/R. @Arthur and Makati, your western distortion propaganda is simplistic and lacks the subtlety of modern global economic realities. Crisis is bad for business. The US is run by an Oligarchy of a system of politicians and business organizations in a revolving door of patronage and connections. Lobbyist, accountants/economist, military, and lawyers design the systems direction through crafting laws and the fact that most people in these groups are educated in one of these fields. Crisis have benefits in a very small segment of global regions and issues to this group. Basically anything that will disturb confidence in the status quo BaU is bad for business. I might add this collusion of business and politics is worldwide and between nations. Nations may be in completion but equally in collusion in the business of profit and greed. Arthur/Makati your cold war horse blinders cover a very small segment of both side in geopolitical power bases. In the new normal it is about profit and greed. This could quickly change in a battle for remaining resources and influence in a global collapse scenario.

  21. Arthur on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 11:25 am 

    @NRW: Syria is a whole different story than Ukraine.

    Absolutely not. Washington hates everyone who opposes the NWO (Washington global empire). Most of all: Islamic fundamentalists and ultra-nationalist, because they oppose the NWO. Nevertheless both in Syria and Ukraine these people are instrumentalized for the real purpose of Washington: defeat the only remaining serious opponents of the NWO: Russia (and China). Islamists and nationalists are used, because Washington does not need to take these people serious. Wasinghton could not care less about Syria and Janokowitsch run Ukraine, except that they are/were allies of Moscow. THAT’s what puts them in cross-hairs.

  22. Arthur on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 11:38 am 

    Crisis is bad for business

    Crisis is an opportunity to create new geopolitical realities. That’s why Washington needed/provoked/created Pearl Harbor and the ‘New Pearl Harbor’ 9/11.

    No Pearl Harbor, no domination over Europe.

    No 9/11, no invasion in Iraq (that failed miserably, thank God).

    Wasinghton loves and creates crisis.

    Ueber-neocon Michael Ledeen sums it up perfectly what his/their agenda is:

    Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.

    Oh, and Ledeen says he talks about America, but in reality he means his own leading group.

    But they are going to fail, just like they failed to conquer the world with their USSR.

    http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.530857

  23. Arthur on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 11:45 am 

    I don;t see how this can be stopped, Crimea is already in state of siege. Prepare for the next Yugoslavia, now with direct Russian involvement, just like in Georgia. But Georgia was easy.

    http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/liveticker-zu-ukraine-und-russland-a-955925.html

    – Russia will add 10-20 million people to it’s country + large cities and Crimea
    – new cold war

  24. Davy, Hermann, MO on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 11:54 am 

    Arthur, The Crimea was a de-facto Russian sphere since the breakup of the Old Soviet system. No one is going to push that button. That was another Yelstin vodka decision. There was a point where it should have been annex but Yelstin let it go. The population is pro-Russian with multiple military assets in that area. It is lost to the Ukraine already. It just will be a matter of how the global politicians negotiate out a “who gets what” arrangement.

  25. Arthur on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 1:28 pm 

    Chrustchev, not Yelstin.
    True, they won’t push the button, but cold war, likely.

  26. meld on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 1:28 pm 

    Crimea is definitely going to be annexed to Russia in the next few months. I’m sure some interesting geopolitical moves will be made going forward but I am very doubtful of any kind of Europe – Russia war. Nobody has the money or inclination for it.

  27. Davy, Hermann, MO on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 1:39 pm 

    @Arthur, Khrushch gave it to the Ukraine during the Soviet period. Yelstin should have annexed it during the breakup of the Soviet Union.

  28. Northwest Resident on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 3:25 pm 

    “I am very doubtful of any kind of Europe – Russia war. Nobody has the money or inclination for it.”

    Exactly. Russia is on financial thin ice and barely pumping enough oil/NG to keep their boat floating, same as Europe, America and the rest of the world. Other than poking a sharp stick in Russia’s eye, what could possibly be gained by America/Europe starting a proxy war in Ukraine? Nothing. There is far too much to lose in encouraging and supporting proxy war in Ukraine, and almost nothing to be gained. All the speculation about somehow weakening Russia by starting proxy war in Ukraine is B.S. Sensible people in Europe, America and Ukraine will be glad when this all blows over. There are far larger problems to contend with, nobody needs proxy wars in Ukraine to complicate matters.

  29. Davy, Hermann, MO on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 3:43 pm 

    N/R – exactly my thoughts.

    West gets something and Russia get something. They squawk and bitch in the end it is just another Big Powers dividing the spoils

  30. Arthur on Thu, 27th Feb 2014 3:44 pm 

    There is not going to be a war between EU and Russia. EU would be without fuel for starters.

  31. clueless on Fri, 28th Feb 2014 2:18 am 

    USA invented and implemented the phrase “apocalypse” for their own gain and benefit. Now it’s backfiring…

  32. GregT on Thu, 6th Mar 2014 5:52 am 

    :rolleyes: 🙄

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *