[Salon] PRIDE & PREJUDICE
- To: "[Salon]" <salon@committeefortherepublic.org>
- Subject: [Salon] PRIDE & PREJUDICE
- From: Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 11:30:17 -0400
- Authentication-results: mlm2.listserve.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="M5oC1j2E"
- Authentication-results: semf02.mfg.siteprotect.com; iprev=pass (mail-ed1-f52.google.com) smtp.remote-ip=209.85.208.52; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.a=rsa-sha256; dmarc=pass header.from=gmail.com
- Authentication-results: mfg.siteprotect.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cwfresidence@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=gmail.com
- Dkim-filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mlm2.listserve.net DF311A3209
PRIDE & PREJUDICE
March 17, 2022
Friends & Colleagues
Among
the many oddities of the Ukraine affairs, the most astonishing is the
frenzy of hostile passion directed at Putin, Russia and everything
Russian. Nothing close to this has been seen since World War II when
Hitler and the Nazis were Satan incarnate. Even then, it was not
everything German that was cast as evil. That total condemnation was
reserved for the Japanese. When Max Schmeling came to New York for the
rematch with Joe Louis in June 1938, nobody demanded that he denounce
Hitler and the Nazis before getting into the rink During the depths of
the Cold War, it was Communism and the Soviet Union that were the object
of fear and antipathy – not quite completely synonymous with Russia.
This
puzzling phenomenon cries out for explanation. The first thing to be
said on this score, is that the passion and drive have come from
American elites. There has been no great wave of popular outrage, no
mass demonstrations, no blood-curdling calls for revenge and punishment.
No post-9/11 national trauma. Instead, the fury is generated by our
government leaders (Blinken, Sullivan, Nuland, Harris, Pelosi, Cruz);
from the media world’s clueless news presenters cum propogandists, from
the demonically possessed editors of The New York Timeswho have
discovered the thrills of ‘yellow journalism,’ from the likes of Peter
Gelb, from the scores of Nobel Prize winners who in concert have lent
their weight to the crusade; from the university presidents presiding
over pious vigils who are thankful that the spotlight is shifting away
from the unnumerable scandals they are paid hefty sums to whitewash; and
Gold Medal to the IOC who ban crippled athletes from competing in the
Winter Paralympics because their passport says ‘Russia’. All are hugely
self-satisfied. None of them ever blinked an eye as the United States
for 20 years has killed, maimed, starved and tortured hundreds of
thousands in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria et al in exercises of
brutality that have left the country’s security in a more precarious
state than when the onslaught began.
Doubtless, we soon will
read that Zuckerberg has forbidden use of the term “Russian roulette.”
When he does, how about ‘Neo-Con roulette” as a substitute.
This
essay is in two parts. Part I examines a number of hypotheses as to the
reasons for the irrational reaction. Part II takes a critical look at
the public letter sent by over 200 Nobel Laureates castigating Putin and
Russia.
Cheers Michael Brenner mbren@pitt.edu
I. WHY?
HISTORICAL HOSTILITY
The
United States and Russia have never fought a war. No bad blood is
between them. The one, minor American expeditionary force deployed near
Archangel and at Vladivostok during the Russian civil war in 1918-1919.
This symbolic gesture led to just a handful of casualties. There also
were a few dogfights over the Yalu River in Korea where some MIG pilots
reportedly were Russian. That’s it. It is doubtful that more than 1
American in a thousand ever heard of those incidents. The Cold War,
admittedly, was a multi-layered hostile confrontation that lasted for 40
years. But military combat was limited to proxies. Then, too, the two
countries were allies in the great test of WW II – without
Soviet/Russian fortitude and sacrifice, Germany may not have been
defeated.
In other words, one sees no basis for the visceral
antagonism toward Russia and Russians now being demonstrated. Among
many, even at the highest levels, emotions shade into outright hatred.
It is hard to find equivalents; that is to say, analogous passions
certainly are to be found in the annals of history, but never against an
essentially benign background.
ASCRIPTIVE DIVISION
Societies
all have affinities and aversions with others based on race, ethnicity,
language, ideology or religion. They can lead to empathy and bonding or
a sense of separation and distaste. Often, the latter sentiments have
fueled or aggravated competition and conflict. The examples are too
numerous and obvious to denote. When we turn our attention to
Russo-American mutual perceptions, we observe little in the way of
rooted ascriptive divisions. Both are overwhelmingly Caucasian and
Christian in heritage. Catholic vs Orthodox rivalries are distant in
time and place. Ethnically, Slavic Russia does not stand in stark
contrast to the multitudinous American mix. The contrasts and
divergences derive from the all-out ideological war between the Soviet
Union’s aggressive secularism accompanying Communism’s threat to Western
politico-economic foundations.
Bolshevism, and the Soviet
system that it fathered, was singularly thin on ascriptive
characteristics. Sure, in important respects, that condition emerged
from the Russian empire where Russia predominated throughout. A scan of
the roster of the USSR’s elites reveals just how multinational it was.
Brezhnev, Voroshilov and Trotsky were from Ukraine – as were hundreds of
senior officials in all spheres. The large Jewish presence in the
Bolshevik leadership ranks is well-known: Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev,
Radek, Yagoda,Kaganovich, Sverdlov. Lenin himself reportedly was ¼
Jewish, Russian. German and Swedish in terms of ethnic ancestry. Molotov
and Dzerzhinsky (the Polish nobleman who founded the Cheka/NKVD) had
Jewish wives. Stalin and Beria, of course, were Georgians; Mikoyan was
Armenian; Yezhev was Lithuanian – and so on. The political leadership of
the country today is distinctly more ethically Russian, leavened by a
fair number of ethnic Jews who survived and didn’t emigrate (e.g. the
Deputy Foreign Minister and the 2 high-ranking officials who head the
Russian delegation in negotiations with Ukraine).
So, it would
be far-fetched to seek explanations for the American political class’s
fierce anti-Russian antagonism to some kind of atavistic aversion.
FEAR & DREAD
Americans
do not see a threat to their national security fromn any conventional
Russian military menace. In this sense, minds and moods differ
fundamentally from where they were during the Cold War. Sure, Russia
still has the physical capability to destroy the United States with
nuclear weapons. However, we have come to live with the Bomb and
post-Soviet Russia never was cast in the same dark colors. Admittedly,
the Pentagon placed Russia at Number 2 in its threat rankings as early
as 2017 – in the aftermath of its intervention in Syria. But that had
more to do with budgets and wounded pride at having failed a mission
once again than it did serious worry. Russia was more a surprising than a
threat.
That explains why the Ukraine affairs was viewed as a
serious concern by only 26% of the public at the end of last year. That
is to say, before the vast propaganda campaign got into full gear. Most
were as familiar with the country, and took as much interest in it, as
they did Madagascar. (Nancy Pelosi could place it in Europe, but its
exact geography eluded her). Even today, there is no rush to build bomb
shelters or check with distant relatives the availability of housing
deep in the sticks. Here, again, we have a discrepancy between public
attitudes in general and our political elites – especially the foreign
affairs community. Its pivot is less intellectual than it is one of
feelings: pride, self-esteem and national esteem. It is among the latter
than we find an acute concern about America’s standing as Number 1 in
the world: supreme, dominant and hegemonic. A gnawing sense that we are
losing that status, that we are becoming an ’ordinary’ power is
unsettling. China’s rise, financial turmoil, job insecurity, the growing
signs that fewer countries now bow instinctively to our will as readily
as they did in the past – together, they undercut personal self-regard
which, throughout American history, has drawn strength and credibility
from the country’s standing as the trail-blazer of human progress.
Hence, a creeping sense of dread, i.e. free floating anxiety. Its
shifting fixation moves from Islamic terrorism, to China, to Russia with
stopovers at Iran, Venezuela, Cuba. Everything bugs us
disproportionately – even the crickets in Havana.
INDIVIDUAL/GROUP PSYCHOLOGY
To
search for an explanation of this behavior, one would have to dive into
the turbid depths of the human mind. That is beyond the scope of this
essay. A couple of thoughts do come to mind.
One is that this
overreaction may be propelled in part by hidden feelings of guilt about
the West’s irresponsible abstention in doing next to nothing to prevent
or even mitigate the atrocities in Bosnia. Silence, then, was golden.
(And public lies the order of the day: e.g., German President
Franz-Walter Steinmeier and then Foreign Minister outstanding among
them). Perhaps, those feelings were strengthened by the excesses of the
American ‘War On Terror’ in which the Europeans were accomplices in
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen. In addition to the provision of
tangible aid, every NATO government was an accomplice in the rendition
program, in one way or another – with the sole exception of France.
They, thus, found themselves on the wrong side of a line of blood.
Crossing back is important for a group of nations whose self-identity,
and their one card in playing the game of international politics, is
their proclaimed virtue and enlightenment.
A second, related
point of conjecture is that these people have lived ‘non-moral’ lives in
an ethically sterile environment. That is to say that Westen elites
rarely were placed in or sought circumstances where they faced difficult
moral choices – where they had to affirm through action the ideals and
virtues to which they nominally adhere. They grew up in pedestrian
circumstances. At some level, certain of these well-educated enlightened
elites have felt that void to varying degrees. Suddenly, out of the
blue comes a golden opportunity to do so. To do so without pain or
serious cost, with the mutual support of a large consort of cosmopolitan
fellows.
THE TENDER AMERICAN EGO
As I have written in an earlier commentary,
‘Americans
are struggling to draw into focus their exalted image of themselves and
reality. They are not doing a very good job of it. The gap is wide and
growing.
Fading prowess is one of the most difficult things for
humans to cope with – whether it be an individual or a nation. By
nature, we prize our strength and competence; we dread decline and its
intimations of extinction. This is especially so in the United States
where for many the individual and the collective persona are
inseparable. No other country tries so relentlessly to live its legend
as does the U.S. Today, events are occurring that contradict the
American narrative of a nation with a unique destiny. That creates
cognitive dissonance.
America’s idealized sense of self is
rooted in the belief that we are pacesetters and world beaters in every
domain. The state of affairs sketched above - marked by impulsive
enterprises that underline our foredoomed, audacious ambition to gain
global dominance - does not represent cool strategic judgment. It is the
national equivalent of ostentatious iron-pumping by bodybuilders
worried about losing muscle tone. Those worries never disappear, though,
even as one becomes muscle-bound striving ever more energetically to
reassure oneself that nothing is creeping up behind you. The mirror is
much preferred to the backward glance.
Americanism acts as a
Unified Field Theory of self-identity, collective enterprise, and the
Republic’s enduring meaning. When one element is felt to be jeopardy,
the integrity of the whole edifice becomes vulnerable. In the past,
American mythology energized the country in ways that helped it to
thrive. Today, it is a dangerous hallucinogen that traps Americans in a
time warp more and more distant from reality.
At the
psychological level, this approach is understandable since it plays to
the United States’ strength: overweening self-confidence coupled to
material strength - thereby perpetuating the national myths of being
destined to remain the world’s No. 1 forever, and of being in a position
to shape the world system according to American principles and
interests. The tension for a nation so constituted encountering
objective reality does not favor heightened self-awareness or a change
in behavior.. Today, there is no foreign policy debate whatsoever. In
addition, our vassal governments in Europe and elsewhere either have a
national interest in preserving the warped American view of the world
(Israel, Poland) or have been so denatured over the decades that they
are incapable 0f doing other than to follow Washington obediently –
despite already having tumbled over a number of cliffs and staring at a
potentially fatal abyss re. China and Russia
NIHILISM
Finally,
there is the facilitating factor: a society in which anything goes.
Where norms, standards, codes of decent conduct are so diluted as to be
inoperative. In our state of generalized alienation, each of us is
permitted – indeed, encouraged – to ‘do our own thing.’ Feelings of
embarrassment, of shame, of guilt are weak or totally absent. Impulse,
emotion, and – not -least – the enormous pressures of uniformity void
that nominal freedom of meaning. Few have the wherewithal to work out an
individual structure of values, of rights & wrongs. Whatever
primitive benchmarks we walk around with, they obviously are inadequate
to guide us when faced with complex issues, value contradictions, or the
need for subtle, qualified of judgment.
In these
circumstances, it is unsurprising, if not inevitable, that “fuck the
Russians” becomes the universal order of the day – for Nobel laureates,
university presidents, pundits, editors, or wannabe moralists of every
stripe. Not an edifying spectacle – or reassuring harbinger of what’s to
come.
P.S. In accordance with the principle of absolute candor
in discussing these issues, we should consider the possibility that some
of the over-the-top attacks on all that is Russian, from certain
prominent persons prominent in the anti-Russia campaign, could arise
from family history – namely, a great-grandmother assaulted by
Czarist-inspired Russians during the frequent pogroms in the Russian
Empire, or some similar incident. Let me say in this regard that my
paternal grandmother was indeed assaulted by Cossacks in the Ukraine in
1915. Yet, I never felt that was reason to freeze-dry my brain on all
matters concerning either place OR to take revenge on Anna Netrebko,
Daniel Medvedev, or those brave ‘Russian’ men and women who have been
given the bum’s rush at the Paralympics. Anyone who does should be
automatically disqualified from this discourse and their loudly
advertised devotion to human rights placed in brackets.
II. NOBLE NOBELS?
For
people like the Nobel Laureates, signing one’s name to a full-page add
denouncing the vices of Russia may be experienced as a last-chance
ethical saloon (or altar) – a god-given opportunity to secure one’s
place on the side of the Angels. That high stakes psychological
motivation carried the implication that, in order for the moral uplift
to take full effect, the subject of moral objection had to be
exaggerated – to cartoonish extent. It is the fate of such expedient
lunges for salvation to boomerang. The 200 or so Laureates put
themselves in the position of adding fuel to the bonfire of anti-Russian
passions. Perhaps the most disgraceful episode in this pogrom has been
the banning of Russian athletes from the winter Paralympics on the
grounds that their very presence would sully the games’ moral purity.
On
March 3 – a few days before the opening ceremony – theInternational
Paralympic Committee told the Russians that they should get back into
their wheelchairs and roll back to Moscow. This brutal action reversed,
under intense Western pressure, an earlier decision to permit their
participation. Let’s make no bones about it: this is as morally
atrocious conduct as is imaginable – obscene as taken in the name of
ethics. Ethics as defined and shaped by elites, like many of the
Laureates, whose morality arises from a calibrated, self-serving
motivation rather than genuine empathy for the victimized. The outcome:
they are accessories to the crime of inflicting incalculable pain on men
and women whose lives have exceeded by far the normal measure of pain
any human could expect; they insulted courageous persons whom we should
honor and respect; they punctured hopes and dreams fashioned from a
thousand hours of grueling perseverance; they pronounced guilt on the
innocent. Their self-centered, obtuse try at exalting themselves has
diminished them. They have added to the degraded spectacle of collective
indecency.
God forgive them – for they know not what they do.
This
is the end-point of a contrived and debased humanism that is a hallmark
of our times. A humanism that places less value on fresh and blood
sentient people than it does on a doctrine, on self-gratification, on
the political or emotional need for an enemy, on a public posture, on
parochial interest. That is the mindset that, in modern times alone, has
sent tens of millions to an early grave.
The Nobel petition is
meant to impress – and it does,representing the common opinion of over
203 persons of scholarly distinction. Still, I do not believe that it is
disrespectful or a denigration of their academic accomplishment, to
take a searching look at the authoritative basis for what they write,
and the grounds for arguing that the public should accord them
exceptional value. Such an inquiry can be organized in the form of a set
of inter-related questions, i.e. the scientific method of dispassionate
investigation and analysis.
!. What are the credentials of the
203 in making the political judgments that underlay their appeal? Do
they possess exceptional information about the Ukraine-Russia affair?
Have they studied the matter? How much of the factual data have they
assimilated? There answer is none; that is to say, no more than that
possessed by any educated person of superior intelligence who follows
the news. Moreover, on all counts it is far inferior to that of truly
knowledgeable persons (e.g. Ambassador Jack Matlock who played a central
role in navigating the break-up of the Soviet Union) who have spent a
lifetime studying Russia in all its dimensions. His outlook on the
entire year-long crisis diverges in quite critical ways.
2. What
are the credentials of the 203 in making the severe ethical judgments
boldly stated in their letter? Are they versed in the daunting
complexities of applying ethical standards to relations between states?
How much knowledge of history do they have? Have they pondered the
philosophical questions of guilt & innocence, of just & unjust
war, of individual morality & the ethic of public responsibility?
Here again, a fair assessment is that there is no evidence of their
having acquired exceptional insight or experience. Of course, one would
have to be familiar with the backgrounds of each of the signatories to
reach a definitive conclusion. However, it seems reasonable that in
aggregate the 203 do not meet the standards that would qualify them as
expert.
3. An essential trait of the scientific methods is to
review all available empirical evidence gathered from diverse sources
before making pronouncements – whether in the form of general laws or in
assessment of particular cases. Let’s get down to brass tacks.
Have
the Laureates investigated other instances of inter-state violence?
Whether or not they have, is there a record of judgments made publicly
that are consistent with those they are making about Russia, Putin, and
the conduct of the Russian military in Ukraine? To put in bluntly: what
exactly have they said/written in regard to: a) the use of violence by
the United states government in Iraq, in Yemen, in Syria, in Libya, in
Somalia, in Afghanistan; b) the use of violent force by the state of
Israel in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories and in Lebanon;
c) the material American support given to repression regimes that kill,
maim, torture and imprison their citizens (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain,
Egypt, Honduras, Guatemala, El-Salvador inter alia)?
A corollary
question: did the Laureates protest Biden's outright theft of $8
billion from the Afghan Central Bank at a time when millions are
starving after 20 years of America escorting them down the garden path
that led to the illusory land of milk & honey we promised them?
4.
The Laureates finely tuned sense of ethics presumably ranges far and
wide. Presumably, it is applied with even greater vigor and rigor close
to home. So, let’s ask them: a) to Harvard professors: when and by what
manner did you protest your institution’s close. Honored and lucrative
relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, one that was publicly known and
involved 3 Presidents?; b) to MIT Professors: when and by what manner
did you protest your institution’s receipt of substantial funds from Mr.
Epstein – after his sordid criminal acts were on the public record?; c)
to Yale Professors: which of you have protested your institution’s
summary firing of Dr. Bandy Lee for the sin of offering a professional
judgment of our dangerous psychopathic President Trump – based on
credentials infinitely superior to any you can boast on Putin’s mental
state/Russia/Ukraine, or hiring General Stanley McChrystal to a
distinguished faculty position despite his having been the initiator and
overseer of torture in Iraq and Afghanistan, or selling an academic
piece of your university (Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy) to
two predatory billionaires from the world of financial buccaneering in
exchange for their right to censor curriculum and faculty assignments -
culminating in their forcing the resignation of the director last year?
d) which of you have condemned the abuse of every academic ethical code
by the American Psychological Association for entering into contracts
with the CIA and the Pentagon to instruct them in torture techniques
forbidden by American law, the U.S. Constitution and International
Conventions to which we are signatories?
5. You proclaim the
principle that every people has a right to existence as an independent
country. What efforts have you made, in aggregate or individually, to
promote the independence of Palestine, of Kashmir, of Tigray, of Kurds,
of Chechnya?
6. You state: “In a move that recalls the
infamous attack of Nazi Germany on Poland in 1939 and on the Soviet
Union in 1941, the government of the Russian Federation, led by
President Putin, has launched an unprovoked military aggression –…..”
And then you have the audacity to claim: “We choose our words carefully
here….’ Let’s hope not!
What is the objective, evidential basis
for drawing and highlighting this parallel? What data or logic support
the implied contention that Putin/Russia aims at conquering all of
Europe, of murdering millions of its civilians in organized death camps,
in imposing an oppressive totalitarian rule, to giving all power to a
superior race of Russians? The answer: you have none. And in an act of
staggering indecency &/or abysmal ignorance, you use as model one of
the greatest crimes of history that killed roughly15 million Russians
(and Ukrainians, Byelorussians -among other ethnic groups). Why then do
you conjure false images and make the most elementary errors of
comparative analysis? Can you honestly say that it is not an
anti-intellectual device for demonizing a foe by deploying a gross
insult and evoking the most horrific images from modern history?
If
I were to compose a similarly crude screed in support of my views
regarding genetics and racial intelligence, the potential for ‘cold
fusion,’ or harnessing nuclear power so easily that energy would be
available so cheaply that it wouldn’t even be worth the cost of charging
for it – if I wrote any of those, should the world stand up and take
notice and honor my conclusion just because I won a prestigious prize in
the Social Sciences? No - you would tell me: “Get out of here; we’re
not interested!”
6. In the light of the above, what plausible
reason is there for your fellow citizens, our government leaders, and
parties in other countries to have their conclusions, judgments and
opinions about preferred action re. Russia influenced by your brief but
bold public letter – disproportionate to other persons? Is it simply a
matter of celebrity and name recognition? Why not give equal weight to
other stars in the nation’s over-populated galaxy of celebrities? – why
not Tom Brady, Meryl Streep, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Oprah Winfrey,
Tucker Carlson, Adele, Anthony Fauci, Lady Gaga, or Kenya West?
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail (Mailman edition) and
MHonArc.