As a new year approaches, there seems little for the West to cheer about. Parts of Europe look to be facing economic turmoil, while the United Kingdom is divisively and emotively split between pro and anti Europeans.
The United States is also damagingly divided along bitter cultural, economic and political lines. As investigations intensify on a growing political, and perhaps even criminal, scandal in Washington, many wonder if it could all end up with the president being impeached.
Yet despite being in a constant battle with the FBI, he remains belligerent. He is blindly bullish on his own achievements and on the domestic economy. He stays close to Moscow – many say too close – and also works hard to keep tight with Beijing.
And his talk of war in Asia continues to dominate headlines. In December, one of the president’s senior aides said that the US would, if necessary, “strike hard … and keep on striking until the enemy’s will was broken.”
Always moaning about how his country’s coffers have to prop up Europe’s defences, the US president has also threatened to leave NATO while his own support of Israel is receiving worldwide condemnation.
The situation in the Middle East is chaotic and is a risk not just to the world’s oil supply but to the entire planet’s stability. And to make matters worse, terrorism has grown to new levels and is now a very live threat in all cities across the western world.
So will it be a weary welcome to 2018? Actually, no. The year I described here was 1973. “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose (the more it changes, the more it is the same thing) as they say.
But probably not in Brexit Britain. The UK entered the European Community, the forerunner of the European Union, on January 1, 1973. The other events from that year – President Richard Nixon and Watergate, the oil crisis, the Vietnam War and the different terror cells that started their urban bombing campaigns – do seem like events from another planet, despite the stark similarities to 2017.
As for the British gripes, groans and hysterical howls that arose from the UK’s entry into Europe, it could quite possibly have come from yesterday. To mark the Britain’s 1973 entry into Europe, then Prime Minister Edward Heath addressed the nation on TV.
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty,” he said. “These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.” Yet the fact remains, for an insular, presumptuously proud and more than slightly xenophobic UK, these fears never, over four decades, really went away.
It is not hard to work out why every living prime minister wanted the UK to stay in the EU and this once included Theresa May before she took office. Now, she is being visibly destroyed by her attempts to carry out what she calls a “clean Brexit.”
The EU brings with it a stack of big-picture benefits that include membership of what is probably the world’s strongest economic, political and cultural alliance of 28 countries and half a billion people.
Leaving means unraveling a 40-year legislative labyrinth of laws, contracts and strategic alliances, and possibly could also trigger a journey into the economic wilderness.
In December, researchers from Birmingham University’s City Region Economic and Development Institute found that 2.64% of the EU’s GDP was at risk because of Brexit trade-related consequences. The figure for Britain was 12%.
This, concluded the report unsurprisingly, will leave the UK in a much weaker economic bargaining position.
There is a notion, largely aired by those on the right-wing fringes of Brexit’s pro-leave camp, that saying goodbye to the EU will take the nation back to a pre-1973 world. It is a so-called Empire 2.0, where London will be free to rejuvenate trading alliances with its old colonial allies.
Critics of this notion point out that the UK was not exactly in great shape in 1973. It was a time of dying imperialist power, widespread industrial unrest, power shortages and economic stagnation.
Anyway, say these critics, the world has, quite simply, moved on and Britannia has not ruled the waves now for quite some time.
Indeed, the British government’s more pragmatic tack seems to be to try to retain as strong a tie with Europe as is possible – the much talked about “soft Brexit” – while working hard to cultivate new ones. And that, of course, means China.
The UK apparently, now sits at the end of China’s Belt and Road Iniative. Yes, the phrase does sound odd because it is odd. But it does not really matter if this apparent position is real, supposed, metaphorical or symbolic.
Because the situation is that Britain does seem to have been coerced into playing a very real and strong, supporting role to China’s Belt and Road project.
By doing this, it will presumably receive favorable post-Brexit trade terms, while for China it is not dissimilar to its nuclear power station new build program in the UK, which is being carried out for reasons that are more about reputation than commerce.
Get a license for a nuclear power station in Britain, goes the plan, and you will be able to get a nuclear power station license anywhere.
Similarly, when a country with such a historically powerful diplomatic and commercial legacy as the UK starts earnestly marching down your new, Made in China Silk Road then there is a good chance it will give the whole thing a much bolder air of legitimacy and, indeed, success.
When Britain joined Europe 45 years ago such a close union would have been unthinkable and not just because China was then largely in economic and social disarray because of the Cultural Revolution.
Diplomatic relations between the two in the early 1970s were frosty to say the least. China still held active plans to invade and take back Hong Kong and petty military border skirmishes between the two were still then fairly common.
Also, the British embassy in Beijing had been destroyed a few years earlier when Red Guards seized it and attacked its staff. How times have changed.
Internationally, things started moving for China when Nixon, who had always been up to that point staunchly and vocally anti-communist, traveled to China in 1972 and famously met Chairman Mao. In doing so he became the first US President to visit the country.
Like President Donald Trump today, he was famously immodest when he dubbed his visit: “The week that changed the world.” He was, rarely perhaps for him, close to the truth.
The Shanghai Communiqué that he signed amid the stunning art deco splendor of the Jinjiang Hotel, agreed to normalize relations between the two countries and ended 25 years of silence between Washington and Beijing.
After Nixon’s trip, trade between the two countries started and China was duly admitted into the United Nations. In 1973 “liaison offices” were opened in both capitals and these were a precursor to full diplomatic relations.
The Shanghai Communiqué has been the guide to this globally key relationship ever since and can be seen as the start of China’s incredible economic journey.
The journey for Nixon was less glittering. His trip to China certainly gave him a place in the history books. But then so too did other things. In 1974, as the Watergate inquiry turned criminal and Nixon was about to be impeached, he resigned his Presidency.
Because of these events – in China, the Middle East, Washington and Europe – 1973 has been called “the year that changed everything”. So what for 2018? “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” as they might be saying. But probably not in Brexit Britain.
These days, it may not be China connection but some in-laws of the famous Brits hotshots may make a radical change-over like Blair’s sister in law ‘Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
1973 and 2017 futures are not the same.
Then of the two Communist powers, BIG USSR Khrushchev, dizzy with Sputnik beep banged his shoe at the UN bragging to bury capitalism 6 feet under.
Mao the wise from little prc told his people to concentrate on building their country, ignore America the "paper tiger". Well before the Viet-Nam rout, 9/11, fake WMD, Iraq quagmire, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, AF-Pak debacle, rise of BRICS, Arab spring, Jihad challenge, irrelevance of EU and Israel, loss of Iran and Pakistan as assets and allies, financial meltdown, debt, depression, despair, choice of liar Clinton vs bigot Trump hell bent on replacing baseball with pussy-grabbing as national sport.
50 years later while USSR is a has-been, China is a world power, and the Paper Tiger is wet and limping. Far away from gold-backed $ of yesteryear, a laughing stock of the entire globe. So is UK, nay the whole West.
Why? Says so factually the West’s Prophet of Doom Samuel Huntington:
” .. The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do ”
—— The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, p. 51 …
Violence, organized or otherwise, does not pay. BRI/New Silk Road to unify Europe, Asia, Africa in one will, violence prone West take note.
The West has not been any more violence-prone than anyone else.
History is replete with examples of pitiless conquest and mass extermination — Ashoka before he converted to Buddhism, the Aztecs and their industrial-scale human sacrifice, the biblical Hebrews slaughtering men, women and children in the service of their jealous deity, etc., etc., etc.
Superiority in applying organized violence is still superiority, as it evidences a constellation of superior qualities. Intelligence, intrepidity, organization, the ability to improvise and respond to objective reality, as well as what are called "intangibles."
Michael Klopman
Give me one example in history where a civilization killed 1 in 4 of ITS OWN as did Europe during 1914-45. 120,000,000 killed in wars, camps, gulags, collectivizations.
Organized violence against others begets organized violence against self sooner or later. European civilization committed suicide in 20th century, turning its back on Christianity. Today, the whites are below replenishment around the globe. That despite Nobel Prizes, Wealth, Power. So much knowledge, so little wisdom.
There are powers today who are rising by the sweat of their brow rather than the barrel of their guns, the West take note. Even godless Russia has gone back to Jesus, and saved itself.
The greatest achievement of the West in 2,500 years is godless corporate capitalist democracy, and Israel, lol.
Syed Abbas
Actually, Christianity was the worst thing to happen to whites. It’s largely responsible for the collective gelding that’s enabling the West’s destruction.
Even among revelatory religions, which appeal to the mentally challenged and those who prey on them, Christianity is downright stupid.
And the greatest achievement of whites is the modern world. To at least a first-order approximation, whites are the ones who keep it going, while most of the rest of the world is freeloading in one way or another.
And Marxism/Communism was not a white creation. Wow, it’s 2017 and some folks still think it was.
You get true believers in a sky god, and true believers in government.
Both are crutches for losers.
Michael Klopman
The modern world is in the making in Asia – Singapore, Tokyo, Beijing, Shanghai ….
Do not confuse "modern" with "Western". Scientific and technological advance is culture neutral, not anyone’s monopoly. The Arabs built upon the achievements of the Greeks, Chinese, Indians. The West built upon discoveries of Arabs. Now Asia is again building upon the achievement of the rest of the world. What is "Western" about it? I presume the West discovered matter just like they "discovered" America lol.
The sole contribution of the "West" is corporate capitalism and Israel. Can you think of anything else?
As I said before – the Primal Question of Existence is Survival, Growth, Evolution. Why is so that despite all the "Achievements" that you allude to, the West is disappearing, below replinishment. If you do not survive, you can not grow, let alone evolve.
Asked of the Western Civilization, Gandhi quipped once – "It will be a good idea".
Open your eyes. You can still save yourself. And yes, if you think Christianity doomed you, then you are really doomed.
Michael Klopman
Losers?
Look around you Klopman – the shrinking, disappearing West.
100 years ago not a square inch of the globe breathed without permission of the West. Today, a Westerner is scared to set foof on 9/10th of Globe. Your future is Trump like leaders.
When are all gone, we shall still be around. Enjoy the party while it lasts.
Top ten countries re: quality of life (various sources agree on this, with minor differences in rankings):
(1) Australia
(2) Sweden
(3) Canada
(4) Norway
(5) Switzerland
(6) US
(7) Denmark
(8) Netherlands
(9) Iceland
(10) UK
Much of the urban US is unlivable for normal whites. Plus, I’d take Canadians’ opinion of themselves with a huge grain of salt.
And needless to say, the racial demographics of most of the above are changing for the worse. Particularly the US, UK and Canada, with Norway and Sweden becoming complete embarassments to their Viking forebears.
It still remains that the above list is as nominally white as a KKK confab.
Michael Klopman
No one denies that if you want a Western lifestyle, the 10 countries you mention provide it good – for a while.
But throughout my posts I am emphasized the trend. That lifestyle is available to fewer and fewer people over past 50 years. Middle class has disappeared from US, and disappearing in UK and Canada. Then it will be these countries you list.
Carpe-Diem, enjoy the party while it lasts. Childless existence means no future.
Syed Abbas
Those smart Asians all seem to want a "Western" lifestyle.
Own a home, zippy car, lots of conspicuously consumed goodies. Plus putting off having kids. That comes next, you know. Those ladies want ”liberation.”
BTW, how do you feel about those Jews kicking Moslem butt time and time again? I’m not pro-Israel by any means, the opposite in fact — ancient Semitic feuds are no business of whites, and (((their))) incurable iconoclasm has caused enough problems in white lands — but you and yours don’t seem to have acquitted yourselves well.
Compared to SS Africans, you look good. Otherwise, pretty sad. What happened?
I sometimes whether the BREXIT enthusiasts in the UK ever truly thought through the consequences for theur country. Where can Britain go from here? It joined the EC (as the EU was called then) out of desperation in 1973 after years of being kept waiting. In Britain they had watched for years with envy as the 6 founding members of the European Common Market went ahead by leaps and bounds while Britains remained stangnant. Britain joined duplicitously craving the economic boost while not sharing any of that la-de-dah Continental idealism of building a united Europe. As a Young Tory I met in Sydney back in 1972 remarked to me "we are going in for the money!"
The Brits are going to find it a very cruel world outside. Their former EU partners will not want to do them any favours while their bargarning powers with other, potentially more distant, overseas trading partners will be very weak. Britain is leaving on a wave of unrealistic optimism (euphoria?) about its ability to go it alone that I believe is unjustified – as dismal future events will prove.