by Naresh Jotwani for the Saker Blog
Washington Post recently ran an article with headline which contained the two phrases “civilized nations” and “deter Beijing and Moscow” (see a review here). Use of the latter phrase in the headline shows clearly that the phrase “civilized nations” here has undisguised, in-your-face geopolitical motivation.
But “civilized” and “deter” is in fact a very strange combination of words, tempting and encouraging us to dig deeper into the matter.
One must assume that, in geopolitics, it is “just another day at the office” for one power to attempt to deter another. If two powers are in a state of unstable equilibrium, but not yet openly at war, attempts to deter one another would go on. Such is life. Certain lines – red or otherwise! – must not be crossed, weighty pronouncements must be made, and “swords must be banged against shields”. All this is standard stuff which foreign office trainees must learn, and upon which their “superiors” must base their upward mobility.
Clearly physical power is the one deterrent we all know about, starting from our experiences in school. But what has “being civilized” got to do with all that? Makes you wonder.
Surely I would be deterred by a big guy carrying a big stick – regardless of whether or not he seems to be “civilized”. In the same way, I am also deterred by a growling dog – regardless of whether or not it is fed and groomed by a rich owner! Chengiz Khan attacked other countries with brutal physical force, without any claims of possessing “higher civilization”. Before the sack of Rome, Alaric behaved far more sensibly than the “civilized” ruling elite of Rome.
Around the same time, another article also appeared, this one on the subject of Russian history and civilization (a review here). This article was an honest attempt to educate others, but there was no sign of any attempt to deter anyone. Indeed a resplendent, vibrant, creative civilization attracts others, does not deter them. If a “civilization” is aiming to deter others, then what happens to all the talk of “civilizational values” and “soft power”?
We know that power flows through the barrel of a gun, but today do culture and civilization also flow through the barrel of a gun? Something is surely wrong here! Historically, have the “civilized” always won wars? How do we explain the very recent history of Afghanistan? Which “civilization” has been gaining the upper hand there? What did the “civilized nations” achieve there? Whom did they manage to deter? For how long?
***
What follows is a brief history of how we have got to where we now find ourselves. This is not a work of “academic scholarship” – but rather it connects various “dots” discovered by scholars. The connections are based on the play of human nature we see all around us today.
The word “civilize” derives from the Latin root “civis”, meaning “citizen”, and in this way it is predicated on the idea of a “city”. Nomadic tribes of a period earlier than, say, 10,000 years BC would not have such a word in their language, even while the concept of “fellow tribesman” would be internalized very well.
The earliest cities were in fact trading centres for the surplus primary produce of nearby hamlets and villages. Trading – that is, eminently sensible economic exchanges – happened long before the invention of writing and of money. People were smart even then.
Trade generated surplus wealth. Thus people in cities – that is, traders of one sort or another – were free to explore aspects of life other than the hard work of primary production. Philosophy, religion, politics, law, “higher” arts and literature … all these flourished. Individuals in the city cultivated themselves, while their fellow human beings “out there” cultivated the land. Paeans and hymns were dutifully sung to the glory of the city and her various “gods”.
It was not long before the cultivated ones thought of themselves as “superior” to the others. In any one-on-one interaction with a simpler human being, they could easily run circles around the latter – and probably also justify charging a fee for the privilege!
Aided by writing and money, political power of cities grew rapidly, and it soon reached a point at which cities deemed themselves to be “proud city states”. Thence arose class differentiation between “civilized” city dwellers and the rustic population outside, which was by then economically and politically dependent on the cities. City states eventually grew into empires, following the all-too-familiar dynamic of unlimited human greed and brutality.
The simpler rustic folk were divided into “subjects”, “serfs”, “slaves” … and so on; but when the rustic folk got into friction or warfare with the “civilized” ones, they were dubbed “barbarians”. The preferred words nowadays are “deplorable”, “backward”, “lower caste” et cetera.
This phenomenon has played out repeatedly in recorded history. The phenomenon is grounded in economic motivations, and therefore it also has huge economic consequences.
Before “civilizations” came into being – and therefore before the invention of money and writing – the relationships between primary producers and traders were simple and direct, as depicted below.
Even huge geographical distances could not block trade, since ships and caravans could be used. Traders were brave and ingenious. For probably a couple of millennia, mankind experienced a “golden age of trading”, during which benefits of trade accrued but without onerous economic exploitation, slavery, human trafficking, and so on.
Things changed after the emergence of money, writing and “civilizations”. Multiple layers of political, social, financial, legal and other services emerged, giving opportunity to every “citizen” to climb the hierarchy of choice, depending on his or her aptitude and talent. Of course the two most useful talents would be greed and cunning – but clearly any other talent could be put to use, for example physical beauty, or the ability to declaim in public.
Ever since then, members of the “civilized elite” of most “civilizations” have wanted to get into the act and take their cut. The main goal of such “civilized elite” is to grab every opportunity for easy money, with the view: “After me, the deluge!”
The situation thus evolved to what is shown below, in what is projected as “progress” or the “unstoppable march of human advancement”. Men and women high up in the “pecking order” of a “civilization”, puffed up with their own social position and self-importance, feel free to make profound pronouncements about “the masses” or “the common people”.
[Incidentally, how “civilized” can a society be in which we use the phrase “pecking order”? The verb “peck” applies to poultry birds, and is also seen in the phrase “hen-pecked husband”.]
So much for “civilized”, the word wrongly used in the Washington Post article.
***
Surprisingly, this discussion brings us close to Saker’s recent decision to write and share with us short vignettes about the teachings of Jesus Christ. How so?
Jesus Christ lived through a period of great turmoil in the region, as the ruthless might of the Roman empire came into contact with independent minded Hebrews. His message was of love and charity, rather than greed. He promised deliverance to his followers, mostly poor folk.
When does a poor person cry out for deliverance? For the many poor people that I know, a bit of poverty is alright if only they are allowed to live on in peace. None of them demands perfect economic equality. Many earn their livelihood working for richer people. “I am alright, Jack. Let me be!”, they say – as they adapt, cope and share.
But turmoil most definitely does occur when even the otherwise forbearing poor are in unbearable distress; that possibility can never be ruled out.
Turmoil did occur in the period when Jesus lived and taught. Therefore, his teachings include useful, practical sayings addressing the daily economic and political reality of the poor people who were his followers. We may consider just three of his many profound sayings:
Man shall not live by bread alone …
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God.
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s …
By the way, these themes are not readily found in Gautam Buddha’s teachings. Why? Buddha lived in pre-Alexander India. Specific instances of suffering which moved him, when he was a young prince, were disease, old age, death … All of which is really kid stuff compared to what the Romans and other people of the time did on a regular basis.
Gautam Buddha traced the roots of suffering to desire, whereas the followers of Jesus Christ suffered from extreme deprivation and cruelty. It would be inhuman to say that desire was at the root of their suffering, when in fact they desired only deliverance from extreme deprivation and cruelty. Buddha and Jesus Christ addressed two totally different audiences, separated greatly in time, space and economic/political conditions.
***
It’s time to turn our attention back to some economic and political realities.
It is much easier to make money otherwise than by being a primary producer, and typically every human being seeks the easier path rather than the harder one. Primary producers are therefore left further and further behind in the headlong societal rush towards material well-being. However, no self-respecting community or country should accept such a dire economic fate for a significant fraction of its hard-working members.
Political and economic measures must therefore address this issue in a fair manner, and also provide avenues open to all members to benefit from training, education and economic mobility. Any ideology – “capitalism”, “neo-liberalism” or whatever else – which violates this fairness criterion will enrich a very few but also doom the society. Any talk of “trickle down wealth” is no more than false propaganda; “trickle down” just does not happen.
The attitude of “civilizational upper-hand” displayed in the Washington Post headline leads to a bargaining tactic which goes something like this:
Hey, you! Every time we engage in any transaction, negotiation, discussion or collaboration, do keep in mind that – since I am more “civilized” – I am by definition superior to you. Is it not enough for you that I even deign to sit and talk with you?
As against this, realistic bargaining between parties must proceed only on the basis of specific strong and weak points of each party. Any presumed and self-proclaimed – but meaningless! – “civilizational superiority” has nothing to do with any real-life negotiation. Why introduce such a red herring of into “real-politik”? In today’s intellectually multi-polar, competitive world, the adversary easily sees through all such false pretences anyway.
The reality of being “civilized” – if indeed there is such reality! – must not depend on haughty self-proclamation. The word “civilized” must be defined in terms which are universal.
Our only “city” now is the entire Planet Earth. There are no outsiders, and therefore the word “civilized” has to have meaning not limited by this or that so-called great city of the past or present – whether that be Rome, Athens, Washington, Beijing, Jerusalem or Varanasi.
In that spirit, a simple test is proposed here for the reader’s consideration:
Regardless of how highly accomplished an individual may be – in music, literature, politics, law, science, wealth, beauty or any combination thereof – does the person “get it” and accept that the most deprived individual is also a human being deserving of dignity and respect?
Note that the word “charity” does not even occur here. Acknowledgement of the other person’s humanity is far more fundamental that any outward act of “charity”. It follows that laughing at deprived individuals or pouring scorn over them is not civilized behaviour.
Only if the above test is satisfied should a person today be considered “civilized”. Loud, self-serving proclamations do not count. This is a matter not of “politics” or “ideology”, but of humanity. Nobody need fly off at the handle shrieking “Buddha”, “Jesus Christ”, “capitalism”, “communism” or “socialism”! Humanity does not dwell in a person’s brain, wealth or loquacity, but deep inside the heart – or perhaps not even there.
Lest anybody misunderstand, none of the above is a justification for what does or does not happen in my own country. Wherever there are human beings, certain behaviour patterns are bound to be seen. Most of what is described here has gone on blatantly in India for many centuries, and at present there is an intense internal struggle in progress.
The point here is that any “civilization” worth its name should help temper economic injustice rather than exacerbate it. In times of huge diversity and change, an attitude amongst people of “us” versus “them” is inevitable. The key questions ask must be such as these:
What are the terms under which societal injustices and resentments are resolved? How exploitative are these terms? How is extreme deprivation avoided?
No society can be strong if brutal economic exploitation runs rampant amongst its people. The following paradox is too glaring to be missed:
“Leaders” who declaim the loudest about being “civilized”, and try to impose their “civilizational values” on others, represent the very same societies which are going through relatively rapid exacerbation of internal fissures. A recent extensive survey carried out in the UK reported that, according to most younger respondents, the number one priority of the government should be to protect the poorest, weakest and the most vulnerable. An overwhelming majority said “F**k them all” about their own political leaders. (A summary of the survey can be found here.)
Much should be expected from anyone claiming to be “civilized” today.
One of the pillars of fascism (especially in Germany and Italy) was the believe of the cultural superiority of the own nation. The fascists deeply believe they need to bring their “civilization” to the east, where the ‘barbarians’ lived. This is linked to deeply racist and stereotype views on the people living in the east.
I see the exact same mechanism still working, only with the difference, that the fascists are sitting in Washington now, not in Berlin and Rome. The “enemy” has stayed the same, the Easteners, the Slavs, the Asians.
What is indicative about the US is the number of people it slaughtered in it’s history. Historians estimate that in the year 1500 there were 90 million native Americans on the territory of the current USA. Of that number 75 million were massacred, mostly with small pox and other methods, like hunger. The wars in Korea and Vietnam saw between 3 to 5 million people killed in each country. For the Washington Post to declare which countries are civilized and which are not is not only laughable, but the height of cynicism.
Don’t forget the million dead in Iraq. When Americans lament the “mistake” that was Iraq, they quote the billions of dollars wasted, or the thousand or so dead GIs. None of them even think of the wasted Iraqi lives. I don’t know about being civilised, but I certainly know that the US Empire is evil.
As written below, the number of dead people sums up to – millions – of people murdered by Washington’s empire. In Europe alone tens of thousands murderded in the destruction of Yugoslavia and the Stepan-Bandera-style genocide in Ukraine against Russians, Romanians and Jews. The constant blockade of Syria, Cuba and Venezuela starves thousands to death and deprives them of food and medicine. In Vietnam and Korea tens of thousands of Vietnamese women and girls were raped by American soldiers, Agent Orange destructed thousands of hectares of forests and planes for decades. America’s bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed tens of thousand of Japanese, which were burnt alive or died of radiaton. The bombing of Belgrade in the 1990ies with uranium ammuniton caused and causes cancer in thousands of newborn babies, civil buildings were not spared by NATO aggression as a passenger trains was shot by them. The US’s drone murderes bombed thousands of Afghani civilians, amongst them many children. Madeleine Albright justified the murder of over half a million (!) children in Iraq for the nuclear weapon bogus.
This list can go on and on an on.
I suppose that number is possible. However, if true it would mean that 20% of the world’s population in 1500 (461 million) was Native American. I suppose we must keep in mind the death toll of the Bubonic Plague.
Leo is wrong. The estimate is 50 – 100 million for the entire continent, North and South America.
vera
You quoted 50 – 100 million. I used the figure of 75 million, and it does pertain to the territory of the current USA.
You used 90 million for the Native American population and 75 million for the number massacred. That still equates to 19.52 % of the world’s population in 1500 (461 million) being Native American. That seems to me to be excessively large. Again, maybe the Black Plague was a very significant factor in that. One source I checked said there was probably a population of 60 million throughout the Americas. That would be about 13%.
America brought “civilization” to the Philippines, to Vietnam, to Korea, to Afghanistan, to Yugoslavia, to Iraq, to Iran, to Libya, to Chile, to Uruguay, to Argentina, to Brazil, to Nicaragua, to Grenada, to Ukraine, to Puerto Rico, to Japan…Who knows, perhaps Myanmar is next?
Major General Smedley Butler- Stated how he brought civilization to the world!
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street.
The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
and then there’s this?!?!?! From an old book by Dr. Willard Cantelon:
America to the Rescue
On June 5, 1947, George Marshall, Secretary of State, spoke at Harvard University, outlining a plan to rebuild
Europe. Congress accepted the plan and authorized $12 billion for Europe, but this was only the beginning. Eleven billion had already been given to Russia under “lend-lease.”
Soon it seemed that almost every nation on earth was standing on the doorstep of Washington. None seemed to apologize for their appeals for loans or outright gifts. Friend and foe alike went away with his requests granted, whether he was worthy or unworthy.
For my own interest I had recorded the roll call of countries who came knocking on America’s door asking for aid and receiving it:
Austria $ 1,170,100,000
Belgium-Luxembourg 1,935,200,000
Denmark 822,2OO,000
France 9,423,600,000
Germany 4,993,900,000
Berlin 127,000,000
Iceland 62,600,000
Ireland 146,200,000
Italy 5,517,000,000
Netherlands 2,416,000,000
Norway 1,024,500,000
Poland 509,400,000
Portugal 370,600,000
Spain 1,470,300,000
Sweden 108,900,000
United Kingdom 8,668,300,000
Yugoslavia 2,132,400,000
Burma 93,900,000
Cambodia 263,600,000
Republic of China 3,894,500,000
Indochina 1,535,000,000
Indonesia 558,000,000
Japan 3,462;500,000
Korea 4,486,600,000
Laos 301,200,000
Malaya 21,800,000
Philippines 1,555,700,000
Thailand 571,800,000
Vietnam 1,895,900,000
Greece 3,073,500,000
Iran 1,012,500,000
Iraq 65,300,000
Israel 709,100,000
Jordan 230,900,000
Lebanon 86,100,000
Saudi Arabia 46,600,000
Turkey 3,094,900,000
United Arab RePublic 295,000,000
Yemen 11,300,000
Afghanistan 145,700,000
Ceylon 65,300,000
India 2,383,900,000
Nepal 39,400,000
Pakistan 1,255,700,000
Argentina 460,500,000
Bolivia 191,700,000
Brazil 1,376,500,000
Chile 364,600,000
Colombia 249,500,000
Costa Rica 68,700,000
Cuba 52,000,000
Dominican RePublic 8,8oo,ooo
Equador 84,300,000
El Salvador 10,000,000
Guatemala 117,400,000
Haiti 80,400,000
Honduras 34,900,000
Mexico 600,000,000
Nicaragua 42,500,000
Panama 58,600,000
Paraguay 39,500,000
Peru 334,300,000
Uruguay 72,300,000
Venezuela 73,300,000
West Indies 11,500,000
Ethiopia 115,000,000
Ghana 4,000,000
Guiana 3,800,000
Liberia 73,300,000
Libya 154,000,000
Morocco 194,700,000
Nigeria 6,200,000
Somali Republic 9,100,000
Sudan 44,100,000
Tunisia 135,200,000
Too Many Creditors
By 1962, America had given away over $80 billion. But the giving did not end. Soon it was 100 billion, and then 200 billion. Deeper and deeper America sank into debt. Prior to World War I, we prospered like no other nation on earth. Our national debt was only $2 million. Now it was so great that it would take a path of dollar bills reaching to the moon 70 times to pay it. The interest alone on the national debt was costing the American public $500 per second. Cries of “Unfair” were increasing in volume and number from those who understood the unbelievable truth of America’s bankruptcy.
By signing seven treaties, America was pledged to assist 43 countries of the world whose populations represented almost 1/3 of the world’s total population.
In less than a quarter of a century following World War ll, America had scattered over the world enough wealth to equal the total worth of 50 of the nation’s leading cities.
close quote!!!
Wow! If you are willing to pay the price, you can buy almost any government! I was wondering how the US got control of so many countries. Now, thanks to you, I finally know. Bribery truly is man’s best friend.
Australia isn’t on that list.
We ain’t no whore.
We give it away!
Now is the time for Australia to leave the Commonwealth and finally become a republic. And to rescue her own citizens (Julian Assange) from the British
Money is cheap to the guy to prints it.
Foreign aid, except for the cash to Israel to buy congress, never leaves the US. It is doled out to US businesses to buy US production or services for foreign clients. See economic hit man.
The USA more than made up for the money lent by first reneging on the Bretton Woods gold standard, then later with taxation of the world my means of the Petrodollar.
France is a most civilised country. producing fine wines and foods, fashion, art (painting, architecture, film . . . ), elite education establishments, nuclear technology, banking services (most creative ) . . . . . .
Unfortunately a lot of the resources required to sustain their civilised lifestyle and innovations come at a cost to western Africa/Africa, where, for example, in Agadez, Niger, tribes are displaced due to Uranium Mining, causing water/land contamination and resulting rising birth defects, cancer, lower life expectancy.
That the Imperial French have chosen to suck the resources from Niger (one of the poorest African nations ) while unable or disinterested to share these end products. niceties above, is not very civilised.
Italy . . . ditto
Someone in these very pages recently opined thus:
“Civilized nations” is a select club of drug pusher nations, an old tradition of pushing opium in China, heroin from Afghanistan, and previously from Indo-China, fentanyl feast and synthetic opioids from big pharma and now their exclusive brand of vaccines, that’s civilization for you.
Man shall not live by bread alone…Duh! How friggin’ profound is that? And you act like it was said like that. What does it really say in the oldest translation that an oligarch, King James, didn’t have translated? The Bible and all that hooey that no one believes, especially Christians, is another layer of control mechanism. Turn the other cheek? Christ was violent (that little problem with the money changers was significant), if he existed beyond a hodge podge of semi-historic figures, pitchforked together to make sure you paid your taxes and took it up the keister from Caesar without benefit of Crisco or objections. I’m native American and see right through your blind idiot god and your phony savior. Your religion got world supremacy through our slaughter just like they say the success of America was free slave labor. No difference really from the racial superiority of what America to your religious elitism in view of the centuries of crimes perpetrated in your ‘Christ’s’ name. I’m not buying the phony sanctimonious claims. You people need to atone for your sins, stfu, Do you wipe the blood from your eyes as you scatter this fertilizer? Pretending the people’s of India also didn’t suffer is hilarious and unscholarly. I’ll take Buddha any day over the murderous creed vomited forth from vile creatures pretending to be God’s chosen bringing us the sermon of love. Not all of us will bend the knee. Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.
No difference really from the racial superiority of what America to your religious elitism….
should read white America
You people need to atone for your sins, stfu, get humble and practice what you preach.
Thank you,
hu·mil·i·ty
/(h)yo͞oˈmilədē/
noun
a modest or low view of one’s own importance; humbleness.
“he needs the humility to accept that their way may be better”
Similar:
modesty
And all of the big countries are of the same criminal lying traitorous types along with their leaders…including the great Putin so lionized in these Vineyard pages. And now China as well- li Jing ping with his vaccines, spike proteins and all, forcing them on the people.
Th vaccine question clears up any question or reticence I had with calling all of them elitist traitors. All 4 big power…the USA, China, Russia, the Euro Union… all of them bristling with vaccine needles for the ordinary people, forcing the people t take invasive needled they do not want or need, look like one huge organized criminal Zionist gang, mafia preparing to kill off al the ordinary people of the world
I have been leery of Putin from the start but I left a decision on hold for clear proof of the traitor I thought he was from the start emerging as Russian leader hanging on to the coat tails of Yeltsin. Now by the Russian vaccination issue it is clear that Putin is also a Khazari controlled agent in control of Russia in the interest of international banking…not at all on he side of the Russian ordinary people, upon whom he has let loose lesser Russian officials to force into vaccination.
And it is the same in China where Li Jing P is also loose on the Chinese people with his needs and spike proteins. That’s all the evidence needed to determine where we stand with all the political leaders in the world currently. The political leaders who were sincere are all dead, assassinated. those alive and in power are all traitors to their people working for the Zionist Mafia in the world
all the noise between the USA and China/Russia is international banker coordinated noise and that now war is intended at all because the Chinese/Russian governments are also controlled by Russian Khazari Bankers.
It is time for the ordinary people of the planet to rise up and put and end to this atrocious elitist global reality…to end finally and forever all electoral politics from the bottom up: end all capitalism and all concentration of power in the world: end finally the Jewish power, unmask the fake Jews and strip them of all power making it impossible for them to ever again achieve any power in the world as a collective.
It is time for the ordinary people in active, global power to develop and extrude their own organizing forms to run their parts of the world in their own collective interest, that contains no form of power concentration at all.
it is time for the ordinary folk to rise up and take over and make over human society, or be damned by history to hell, Brave New world and all of that kind of stuff
History suggests that does not happen. What will happen is that the elitists will over-reach, and in doing so cause the collapse of the edifices their “civilisation” relies upon to continue to exist. The ordinary folk, most of whom are too friggin clueless to see what is staring them in the face, will either starve or die from the stress of being unaqble to comprehend that their daily routine has been demolished. Some will escape to the rural hinterlands where they have family or friends and adopt an agrarian life, and the whole cycle will begin anew, as it has repeatedly throughout human history.
As for a response to the Jewish thing, that may or may not happen during this phase, which may or may not be global in nature depending on the wit and wisdom of various leaders. Their history suggests they will too overreach and fall. The trick is to find a way of embedding in the human historical memory the knowledge of the danger that ideology/cult poses to thus ensure it never again gets up the head of steam it currently has.
As Archdruid John Michael Greer was fond of saying, collapse early and avoid the rush.
”What will happen is that the elitists will over-reach, and in doing so cause the collapse of the edifices their “civilisation” relies upon to continue to exist.” Agreed. Human beings, especially those with an impulse to dominate their fellow beings, are vain, pathetic creatures, just look around. The rise and fall of civilization is baked into the human condition. Like the man (Lord Acton) once said: ‘Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ So the show must, for some opaque reason, go on. The Gods are really playing tricks on us for their own amusement, and we are the performing actors.
WoW! sharp eyes indeed!
sigh :( unfortunately I agree w you… in both
and – collapse early and avoid the rush – would be really good thing to do but appears to be hopeless for the ‘whites’ as they rather cling to their ver of ‘civilised’ ‘civilisation’ of which, other than some fine arts and sound philosophy, is blood soaked ‘foundation’.
bwbs
Que doideira! Só os que deliram igual é que são bons e justos.
Yandex translate. Mod:
That’s crazy! Only those who delve the same are good and righteous.
Matthew 7:6 comes to mind.
I do not think is wrong the Washington Post phrase “civilized nations” (auto)referred to the, essentially, themselves, the Anglo-Saxon World.
They, indeed, historically are descendent of nordic, barbaric, savage, uncivilized tribes, that were then “civilized” from their barbaric status by, essentially, the Roman civilization.
So, it is correct: they are (were) civilized since did not produce by themselves any civilization.
Civilisation: Mankind’s endless attempt to escape from the effects of nature. (constraints is a better word than effects, on consideration)
I coined that defintion very early in my life.
This is an interesting subject, and the author presents some perspectives that are worth considering, but I fear we are so far down this dead end road we are on as a species that the walk back to any place worthwhile will finish off a large percentage of humanity. It is on that basis that I elected to abandon my career as a parasite on the agrarian class and instead to join them as the owner of a small farm and an agricultural worker. It could all go to hell in a handcart tomorrow and my family would survive well enough to continue to exist. Those not connected to the land, not so much. History tells us this has happened before, and as sure as the sun rises in the east, it will happen again. Given the lack of simple wits being displayed by our allegedly civilised leaders and administrators, it will happen sooner rather than later.
Now, whether or not that is a desirabable outcome is another debate, one where there is bound to be a lot of fire and fury very little light from past experience.
Reminds me of a phrase in the lyric from a song by Guns and Roses; in the song titled “Civil War”, where the question asked was “what is so civil about war anyways..”
All them civilized nations making wars….
What St. Paul called “the powers that be” have steadily evolved over the millennia to a point where you wonder if they’re even human anymore. Their pathological rejection of all human values for the sake of monetary profit and material gain leads me to think that maybe they’re some kind of self-replicating AI profit algorithm like what controls the hedge funds. They don’t seem to have much need for actual human beings other than the techno nerds who keep them running. With robots taking over as the “primary producers” the human population can be drastically reduced by climate change, plagues, biowarfare, and best of all, nuclear warfare.
US Christian Zionists actually pray for this to happen. They embrace the political concept that their god divided the world between the elected and the unelected, between his chosen few and everyone else deserving of eternal damnation. They long for a cataclysmic final conflict that will bring their warrior messiah back to Earth to smite all unbelievers, everyone but them, apparently. My hope is that the living God of justice, compassion, and truth will preserve us all from the wrath of the Christian Zionists and the chosenites.
Theodore Kaczynski in his book “Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How” also alludes to your thought; that technology is consuming the human race. The book is a worthwhile read.
Problem right now is that the work force is collapsing and the bots are not there to replace them.
History will probably show that we were a decade or so off from being able to save ourselves, oh well, chit happens and now the future does not look so bright for a significant number of debtor souls.
Tip of the day: Save yourself first, then worry about others.
“Save yourself first, then worry about others.”
We’re all being played by the PTB into thinking this, when it’s only a communitarian response that will work. The new Belt and Road Initiative is that kind of response. It’s stated objectives are “to construct a unified large market and make full use of both international and domestic markets, through cultural exchange and integration, to enhance mutual understanding and trust of member nations, resulting in an innovative pattern of capital inflows, talent pools, and technology databases.” This is diametrically opposed to the AngloZionist Empire’s objective of domination and exploitation.
Oxford dictionary.
1. at an advanced stage of social and cultural development.
“a civilized society”
Similar:
enlightened
educated
advanced
developed
cultured
Opposite:
uncivilized
barbaric
2.
polite and well-mannered.
“I went to talk to them and we had a very civilized conversation”
Definition 1. Seems to imply that the age of the society has something to do with the degree of societal and Cultrual maturity. The word advanced means it has moved forward. Many would argue that by this metric the USA has stalled and is no longer advancing while China is advancing at an accelerated pace. It is obvious that China is older and is advancing faster than the USA.
From this definition China would be more civilized.
Definition 2. Polite and well mannered. It is difficult to even know where to start with this one. I will use personal experience to make my point. As a child my father told me you eat what is front of you and thank the cook for providing it. In my personal experience, this is not a trait exhibited by the standard American tourist comment when confronted with food that is uncommon to their palate. The standard American tourist response seems to be ” It is not like this at home”. To which I would reply, ” well if you wanted it like it is backhome why did you spend the money to come here”. Actually this Is more inciteful than I would like to admit about the American mentality. We have democracy and if you don’t we will bring it to you and you will like it. So to me, the manners definition holds no water as it applies to America.
Deter discourage (someone) from doing something by instilling doubt or fear of the consequences.
“only a health problem would deter him from seeking re-election”
Similar:
put off
discourage
dissuade
scare off
warn
caution
dishearten
demoralize
daunt
make worried/nervous/anxious
frighten
unnerve
intimidate
Opposite:
encourage
prevent the occurrence of.
“strategists think not only about how to deter war, but about how war might occur”
The end use of the verb in the definition is so appropriate to this matter. So what are they thinking? Are they trying to start a war or prevent a war? You decide.
Sorry, but I can’t resist this quote about the oxymoron idea of “American civilization” in general:
“America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without knowing civilization”
–a quote various ascribed to George Bernard Shaw, Oscar Wilde, Winston Churchill, and Georges Clemenceau
I doubt if the psychopathic alcoholic Churchill would have known much about civilisation, although he was given to the occasional witty riposte.
I’m not at all a Churchill fan. I despise his aggressive anti-socialist viewpoints, the unnessarily bombing of civilians in Germany and his digustingly racists viewpoints on Indians. But one has to admire at least he was able to sit at a table with the Russians and negotiate in a statesman like manner. Those clowns like Bojo, or even wore, the Dutch prime minister Rutte behave like kindergarteners. They couln’t even pull themselves together if it were to avoid nuclear war.
Wrong. If it was not for uncle Joe’s tank divisions, W.C. would never sat down with such a barbarian. If, hypothetically, Putin decides to use precise rockets and take out every British lord in their manors, what would UK do? I assume common folk would cheer and then see if they can make something form it for themselves (perfectly human reaction). And BOJo and other survivors would talk all right. No, it was not from goodness of his heart.
Just noticed something: in some uncivilized parts of the world, W.C. is considered a civilizational tool, responsible for sanitation and health, help eradicate gastro enteral diseases, which helped against cholera, diphtheria and such with no input from medicine at all. W.C. indeed.
Cheers :-)
How civilized is it really, when you reflect on it, to pee and poo in drinking water? Hm? Manure belongs in the soil, not water. Including human manure.
When I went to Versailles some years ago, the palace smelled of urine. The guide said that in the time of Louis XIV it was common for the king to go behind the draperies covering the walls when he wanted to relieve himself. I suppose some poor servant had to clean up afterwards. A few years later I returned and the smell was gone. I expect the palace had gone through a deep cleaning in an effort to rid the place of the smell. How ‘civilized’ was that?
The initiative of talking about civilization, in the context of a Western temptation to monopolize the word for its own advantage, is laudable. But there is a fundamental flaw in the central assumption of this article.
Excuse me Naresh but trade is not what fostered the original emergence of large cities it was power.
I sketch, hereunder, the historical process of the transition from tribal societies to power societies that explains how the association of men of power with men of knowledge is what allowed for the institutional reproduction of power institutions which resulted in the emergence of the first large cities…
_______________
Tribal societies used a fission-fusion model of population control to maintain their levels at an average of 150 people. In other words, when it reached somewhere around 180 heads, a tribe split in two. Some 120 stayed put on the territory of the tribe while the other 60 moved to a, as of yet, not occupied territory while associating with the surplus population of other tribes to reach the minimum population level to make a tribe viable.
The abrupt climate warming that followed the Younger-Dryas (11,700 Years ago) resulted in such an abundance of resources that the Mesopotamian alluvial plains were completely occupied sometime around 10,500 years ago. This was different in China where the alluvial plains were so big that continued tribal territorial expansion gave way to a model of civilization based on tribal cultural unification (Alluvial plains of Fertile Crescent = 15,000 Km2, Chinese alluvial plains – 1,500,000 Km2). In what follows I sketch what happened in the Fertile Crescent.
The tribal model of population control had reached its physical limits and a solution had to be found to ensure the survival of tribal excess population. That’s when arose the first agricultural villages. Villages occupied territorial spaces of 20 -50 square Km for a few thousand people which compared to a space of some 4000 square Km for a tribe of 150 people ! In a context of territorial rarity the village structure offered incomparable advantages… Archaeological digs in Anatolia show that the first villages appeared sometime between 10,500 and 10,000 years ago that practiced agriculture and crafts. These first villages governed their affairs on the tribal model of the consensus (unanimity).
Some 2,000 years later these villages started to be governed by men of power who rapidly assembled multiple villages into chiefdoms and later in Early-Kingdoms. But power was constantly slipping through their fingers …and because of that these men of power were not in the capacity to ensure the reproduction of their institutions over the span of multiple generations. Chieftains used violence against the tribes to expand the territory of their villages and this resulted in ‒ the flight of tribesmen toward ever less hospitable lands ‒ the temptation of emigration West…
The archeological site of Gebekli Tepe gives us a clue about what was going on. Gebekli Tepe was an animist retreat-center of the men of knowledge from the tribes composing the Fertile Crescent and it accessorilly acted as a playground for seasonal feasts with their fellow tribesmen. While villages were competing with tribes for territory the worldview shared by these villagers remained tribal animism. But animism fostered consensual decision making and as such it opposed the idea of an institutional reproduction of power. In other words there was a conflict between the new men of power and tribal animism…
And then sometime around 10,000 years ago Gebekli Tepe was voluntarily covered under a thick layer of dirt indicating a radical rejection of animism …and so arose the need for a new narrative to be shared by villagers. This is the moment when religions first tried to emerge in the Middle-East. But it will take some 3,000 years for their narratives to stabilize sufficiently to be shared with large number of villages… In the meantime many chieftains and early-kings emerged but they fell one after another and so there was no institutional reproduction of power institutions.
Sometime between 5,000 and 5,500 years ago appear the first Early-kingdoms that start to succeed reproducing their institutions of power. The reason for this was that the men of power associated with the most popular men of knowledge of their time in order to glue the minds of their citizens around a common vision of reality in which the king played the role of an earthly representative of the celestial powers. These worldviews were foundational to empires and they produced the axioms of their civilizations.
The first empires concentrated large quantities of servants and clerks around the king or emperor which drastically increased the population of his village and thus arose a capital-city. Herein resides the emergence of large cities and commerce was needed as a consequence to supply the needs of their populations.
If interested to read the full presentation of this argument check The Continuum of the Cultural Field
Thank you, Iaodan. That is a good argument, and it definitely adds to my understanding. But I still think that trade would have played a major role even before chieftains became “kings”. I say that because trade generates surplus wealth through win-win barter — even in the absence of “money” — and any wannabe “king” would be foolish to ignore the visible profits to be had through both trade and also control over trade routes. I assume wannabe “kings” were not foolish. They probably had control over local produce anyway, through fealty — so trade and trade routes were the obvious means to expand power. So-called “knowledge”, crafted cunningly to suit local purposes, follows soon thereafter.
Wealth and power grow together, as far as I can understand human nature. Vendors of “knowledge” follow. Incidentally, these points about trade, power and “knowledge” are rather blatantly on display in today’s geopolitics. I write the K-word in quotes to distinguish it from truth :)
You are right Naresh in writing that “trade played a major role even before chieftains became ‘kings’ “.
Trade starts indeed very early on in the Paleolithic. Hunter-gatherers needed among other : ‒ oxides to paint and die textiles ‒ and very hard stones to craft their stone tools. They secured these sometimes from long distances. Some archeological excavations indicate that such trade could took place hundreds of thousands of years past between areas as far away as a thousand Km.
So trade was not the determinant factor in securing the reproduction of the institutions of power.
The men of power used brute force but brute force was unsuccessful at stamping out insurrections taking place in different places of the kingdom or the empire. Soldiers could indeed not be simultaneously at different places and so power was easily lost… It is the sharing of a common understanding about the working of reality that procured the reproduction of the institutions of power over the long haul.
The sharing of a common worldview procures the following :
— prior unanswered existential questions are answered by the worldview which — quietens the mind — and instills trust among the citizens — and trust is instilling the perception in the minds of the individuals that they are being part of a common group…
— in other words higher trust among citizens boost societal cohesion
— and higher societal cohesion eases the reproduction of the institutions of power over the long haul of many generations
My understanding is that wealth and power are like Siamese twins; each one badly needs the other. Trader gives “protection money” — “tax”! — to the chief. Sadly, “knowledge men” usually go to the highest bidder. Here I distinguish “knowledge” from “truth”. Those in search of “truth” go to remote mountain retreats — away from power, trade and “knowledge” which is servile to power.
So it is not plausible that chieftains of old accumulated power without partaking of the wealth which is generated by trade. Mumbo-jumbo “knowldege” is cooked up to convince a chief that he is “divinely ordained”, whereupon the chief begins to pay more attention to priests and lawyers than to his own people, priding in institutions built on lies.
— ” wealth and power are like Siamese twins”.
Tribal societies were egalitarian and non-power societies. Tribal happiness was in the act of giving. That’s why tribal economies are called “gift economies”. And they practiced this for tens of thousands of years perhaps as far back as over one hundred thousand years.
Many of the tribal values and practices accompanied thus the behaviors of villagers all along the transition to power societies that started sometime 10,500 to 10,000 years ago. So it took thousands of years for wealth to emerge as the twin of power.
Furthermore the men of power did not need to accumulate wealth prior their taking the power. They took the power over the villages by brute force and once they had the power they eventually took the wealth away from the people who had some … but this was more particularly true after the institutions of power were re-conducted over the many generations because this procured a more absolute kind of power in the hands of the men of power.
— knowledge, in its traditional understanding, means the societal knowledge that the members of a society share at the effect of reducing their suffering. This is in sharp contrast with “religious knowledge” which is an ideological narrative often justifying the exercise of power of those “in power” and “scientific knowledge” which is an amalgamation of “knowings” about bits and pieces of reality destined to help capital holders increase their profits.
The traditional understanding of Knowledge is more particularly shared in the realm of the Chinese and Indian civilizations where Knowledge was in reality the body of knowledge inherited from tribal animism that was then regularly been actualized to the changing cultural contexts of the day.
But what passed for knowledge in the Tri-Continental-Area (to avoid the Eurocentrist “Middle-East”) was not really knowledge. In the TCA animism had been rejected in order to accelerate the emergence of village power and agriculture. In this operation the new religious narratives had lost the benefit of the body of animist knowledge and had thus to rebuild a narrative from scratch or better from the abstractions that preoccupied the men of knowledge at the time. And in that sense these narratives were based on ideas that were often far from the reality of peoples’ daily lives. It is easy to understand that men of knowledge were in competition to get the seal of approval of the men of knowledge and as such they integrated in their narrative the idea that the men of power were the earthly representatives of the celestial powers…
There is much that is thought-provoking in your comment. Thank you. I am beginning to think that my own understanding of history is somewhat biased by that of the TCA. And so I suspect strongly that the current understanding of Eurasian history is similarly also quite one-sided. As far as the subcontinental civilization is concerned, belief in “the absolute” has played a major role. That belief “absolutely” requires all life forms to be seen as kin of a sort. For obvious reasons, most “powers that be” prefer not to subscribe to such a belief.
“I am beginning to think that my own understanding of history is somewhat biased by that of the TCA”.
I’m happy that you come to this realization.
We all share the same Late-Modern intellectual predicament. European Historians and archeologists have been busy since the 19th century concocting a history of societal evolution that centers on the leading role of the TCA and by extension of the Western Christian Civilization that they think derives from the TCA.
Their target was to justify Western superiority over all the other civilizations on this earth. And so they have been teaching, until very recently in academia, that Africa, for example had no history.
And because the intellectual elites of the whole world have been sucking the breast of Western academia for so long they see and understand their own national history in line with Western concepts and Western narratives.
I think that we have to go back to the origins to discover the reality of cultural evolution in order to begin to understand how the world evolved societally in its present form. That’s what I’m personally trying to do in my limited capacity…
It appears that everyone is waiting for a city that has yet too be built.
“How do we explain the very recent history of Afghanistan? Which “civilization” has been gaining the upper hand there? ”
If you stick to “very recent history” then civilization is “the end of History”. Washington and its Post, Hollywood and its dream factory, especially the dream of global dominance and global consumerism. A civilization aptly drawn in your very instructive second diagram.
But if you read a bit of history, you begin to understand why the Afghans told the Yanks, “You have the watches but we have the time”.
Afghan civilization stretches back thousands of years, through two Persian Empires (one of them Islamic, the other Zoroastran), one Hellenistic Empire, beyond those to Buddhism, and beyond all those – beyond recorded history to the great age of trading. As you say, “Trading – that is, eminently sensible economic exchanges – happened long before the invention of writing and of money. People were smart even then.”
The Afghans live on a great mountainous EurAsian cross road. The people who live in what the ancient Persians called Bactria, whose capital city is named after Alexander the Great, have watched traders and soldiers come and go “over the sands of time”. The people themselves, who stay there and live there, know who they themselves are: that is true civilization.
“You have the watches but we have the time”.
I don’t believe Kabul was named for Alexander.
Kandahar, the country’s second city, apparently was. (from Iskander)
“Much should be expected from anyone claiming to be “civilized” today.”
“Any man who must say “I Am the King” is no true king.”
I always wonder why, unlike scholars, artists can phrase multi-faceted truths in a single sentence.
Stop me if you’ve heard this one:
“Mr.Ghandi, what do you think of Western Civilization?”
“I think that would be a good idea”.
Thank you for that laughter! I will remember that anecdote ;)
» … the rustic population outside, which was by then economically and politically dependent on the cities «
This is not entirely true: Cities remain dependent on the countryside and collapse and wither away if the countryside no longer prosperous.
Poverty is a man-made phenomena, and can only be solved by reforming society.
Nomads may experience hardship, but not poverty, because poverty is not lack but deprivation by others.
Exploitation is a term that hardly occurs in the neo-liberal manual, since they think of poverty in terms of a group of people who is not yet wealthy and lacking, but fortunate there are wealthy job creators so they are not entirely destitute.
Gautama and much of Indian thought proceeds in terms of seeing and enlightenment, and freedom from suffering, whereas Jesus (et al) proceed more in terms of hearing and obeying, above all hearing the voice of God who calls us by name, and hearing the other, who calls out to us, and so, freedom from bondage and social injustice (debt). [The two metaphors are not at all opposed to each other]
The problem in Jesus’ time was fundamentally debt, as was true of the ancient city states. In the ancient city states they cancelled the debt periodically, and debt slaves were returned to the land their kin had inherited. The economy then blossomed, and the king could win the support of the people to defend the state. Debt slaves do not care who the ruler is and will not fight when they have nothing to lose. But in Rome they no longer knew such renewal of balance.
The one who cultivates his soul knows when he sees the other: There but for the grace of God go I.
In Buddhism there is also the famous question about debt: With what could you repay the milk from your mother’s breast?
“In the ancient city states they cancelled the debt periodically, and debt slaves were returned to the land their kin had inherited. The economy then blossomed, and the king could win the support of the people to defend the state”.
Yes. And the reason for that was that the leaders in the Early city-states had still not forgotten the difficulties their peers a few generations earlier had encountered to reproduce their institutions of power over the long haul of many generations.
In the Roman context this memory had completely vanished from the minds of all…
This begs the question “Could a policy that was in practice in the context of the TCA Early City-States be put in practice in our Late-Modern context as Michael Hudson proposes ? “.
I argued in a comment on Naked Capitalism about the specificity of the context, of the TCA Early City-States, that motivated their canceling of debt. But I think that the application of this recipe in the present Late-Modern context is rather unrealistic. It would require a violent revolution, by the 99%, to terminate the belief of Modernity in “the reason that is at work in the transformation of money into capital”. I don’t think we are there yet…
The producers in those city states had leverage. They periodically decamped outside the city gates, refusing work, and threatening to leave altogether. The elites fell all over themselves canceling debts every few years.
I love the title….
The hidden pieces:
1) assume have accounted 4 all the actors present in the room.
2) which assumes (which it does) no manipulation over thousands of thousands of thousands of years.
3) – reconstruct a manipulated design of the reality we live in – u can not read this in any book- one has to use inductive logic to uncover it- it is hidden and not intended to b figured out -especially by any university professor s/he will get the boot)
4) I agree w many of the biblical arguments, and the ones based a common sense of what it is universally accepted 2 b human, but the more profusely the author writes… the more gets entangled in parts of : (1) (2) and (3)
5) The article starts off simple enough, and w good intentions, but somewhere along the line has 2 boil down “all of civilization” (Adam to present) into an article on economics –that is impossible 2 cut it (sticking 2 the title was fine…just keep it simple)
6) The premise of the article was fine, but the more the article expands, the more it runs into the unintended consequences of “manipulations in civilization ” ( that by their very nature r unaccounted 4 in most university publications…which compounds the problem)
Manipulations include but r not limited to: technology”, history (not “social studies”- which was never intended to be “history”-) language (dictionary definitions r constructs not a b all end all- if I change a definition I change ur reality) science, (biology/chemistry/physics) computers, medicine- derivatives, economics, archeology (meaning artifacts were already destroyed intentionally long before Pinta and Nina boats arrived to America…gee wounder why..) …among many many others (essentially any course in college- besides maybe logic/ critical thinking/ math)
7) “manipulations” r never intended 2 b found- 4 the most r hidden from the public – but the have huge implications on how one reconstructs accepted version of reality… or “civilization” in this case, so when topic cover “civilization” and does not keep to a simple premise … and just keeps expanding…it is just begging 4 the article 2 collapse on itself (which it does).
The author posted two diagrams that tells it all. What is wealth? Who produces it? And who amasses it?
This gentleman has my admiration. Eloquent, brilliant writing and gentle and caring as a feather.
The truth can be served in many ways right? Mr. Jotwani you have a gift. Thank you for sharing it with us less gifted. Of course, here I speak for myself.
‘Civilised’ is a term meaning ‘fit to operate functionally in civil society’.
Of course, what behaviours constitute civilised depend fundamentally on what kind of civil society you are required to operate in.
If you operate in one run by grifters, the Mafia, totalitarian dictators, then in general, being ‘civilised’ involves mouthing whatever the necessary mantras of the day are, without considering for one second whether or not you actually agree with them.
If you operate in one where the rule of law is upheld by common acclaim, where free speech is honoured and upheld, even for those with views far from the median, then in general you will consider your tone of voice to be a far greater benchmark for civilised behaviour than you would find in a frenzied bunch of desparado ‘reporters’ all seeking a ‘usable quote’ from some trumped up ‘scandal’ involving a ‘public official’.
Civilised behaviour in the rarified environs of DC power includes:
1. Ass-licking upwards and kicking ass downwards.
2. Being outraged about offending the sensibilities of ‘trans-people’ whilst considering bombing the s**t out of 1 million Iraqis and Libyans to be ‘acceptable collateral damage’.
3. Declaring 1/6 to be an ‘act of domestic terrorism’ whilst describing the murdering of attendees of weddings in Afghanistan using drone strikes as ‘defending essential US national interests’.
4. Removing all human rights to the non-vaccinated, whilst simulataneously providing never-ending freedom from liability to the manufacturers of Emergency Use Authorised ‘vaccines’ despite a total lack of long-term Phase III clinical trial data.
Civilised behaviour is a movable feast. What is civilised in Tehran may be sexist rubbish in LA. What is paedophilia in Hollywood of 2020 may have been ‘how business gets done’ 40 years ago.
It is certainly not civilised to engage in unaccountable weather engineering without liability. But don’t tell all the West Coast PE behemoths that….they want a 10X return on their 2010s investments….
It is clear war propaganda. We also we it in the mask agenda. It starts with splitting a smaller group from the larger group, then define and re-define them along the lines of some real or made-up differences, then onwards to declaring these differences as undesirable and then inhumane. And thus that group, just freshly diened their humanity, can be treated however one wants, including all sort of abuse and violence, including war. The Empire propaganda calling the competition uncivilized is clear war propoganda.