PREDICTIONS OR THE HIDDEN HAND
February 1, 2011
“…the concept of justice means more than democracy.” 
A couple of weeks ago at the Fitness Center I picked up a magazine to help me wile away my bike time. There’s a bin for old, recycled magazines and my hand came out of the cookie jar with an Economist. Number 8691 of this distinguished organ specializes in that brand of assured, omniscient and, above all, fair-minded objectivity whose haughty panache is a distinctive English trait. I wish there was space to analyze just this aspect of that single page of high-toned “mind-training.” At least they have brought us a fair and balanced network and thank heaven it’s not a web.
The articles all unsigned bear in lieu of a name a place, a city, say New York or Kampala. The more important features have a caption. The message is that these columns are not simply the opinions or facts of flawed or biased individuals; no, these pieces result from the considered views of a consensus of expert observers. They carry ‘from-the-mountain-top’ truths from London for the world. One should not doubt their predictive powers.
The lead article in #8691 was poignantly titled, “Thank you and goodbye,” a title that encapsulates the entire political history of Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and, though given less attention, King Abdullah of “Saudi Arabia” who has been “educating his people” with “high-speed railways” and a “$12 billion university” which must have some nice oases and gold-sandaled camels. But the main idea was in the caption: “for good or ill, change is coming to Egypt and Saudi Arabia soon”: consider yourselves put on notice and given an opportunity to craft a correct exit strategy.
Keep in mind this article was published six months ago, six months before the now familiar “Chaos in Cairo” about which Geraldo and others currently are informing us. It is after all a free press and “a more appalling caricature of freedom of thought cannot be imagined.” As an example, it only took six months for Washington’s best and brightest to echo the line they had conned: “we are urging Mr. Mubarak to facilitate an orderly transition of power.” Ah, the joys of a thirty-year tenure at the end of a gilded leash.
Elegantly crafted, the column’s leitmotif was rather vulgar, namely, that the two rulers are old, “aging autocrats” the first sentence noted, coloring the entire piece. “Maybe the old men will manage to control their succession” reads the second paragraph’s lead sentence. “Ancient as they are,” another lead sentence asserts putting in play a nasty and puerile theme: they are old, aging, ancient and “widely reported to be grievously ill.” That the men are dictators is true: Britain and then America, carrying the home country’s water, helped make them what they are. Whitehall made their states, detaching Egypt from the Ottoman Empire, invading in 1882 to establish a formal protectorate and setting up a dependent monarchy n 1922 at which point its grand plan for the Middle East was “a British federation with its front door on the Mediterranean.” Today it’s called “the New Middle East.” So when Britain says “goodbye” it’s wise to listen. Harping on someone’s age not only delegitimizes at a level below thought but advances the cause of human obsolescence, birth and population reduction and control that has come from Northern Europe and America for more than a century. An attack on deference weakens local structures everywhere and encourages ‘recycling’ of played-out resources and inventory.
“Change is coming,” “change you can [and will] believe in.”
The article is divided, like Gaul by Caesar, in partes tres: the introductory section whose title, the caption quoted above, alerts and warns; the tutorial “what’s wrong with them” and then the far-sighted and reformative, “and what’s to be done,” all so business-like and objective one hardly notices the nanny-like, schoolmarm quality of the spanking which is what the British, who once excelled in literature, navigation and pluck, have made their own since the early Modern era, “this strange disease of modern life” filled with “sick fatigue [and the] languid doubt of casual creeds.” This is the soul-vacuum that the English sponsored Islam to fill getting the double-dip benefit of prefab crisis-starters that can stir any pot, one as big as the globe, until it requires regional or UN solutions girded with enhanced security measures, “for peace.”
The article worries over Egyptian “repression” which certainly exists as it does in all Arab States. Given the existence of groups like the Islamic Brotherhood, which Britain helped create late in the 1920s, no government in these areas exists without repression. If the Economist meant the repression of Christian groups it did not say so. It did however lament at some length how cruel the regime of Hosni-the-aged has been to the MB or, as it cozily termed them, “Brothers.” The “suppression of Egypt’s Muslim Brothers has been unwise as well as unjust,” the editors noted gravely and then add a bit of drollery that must have challenged their straight faces. “Leading Brothers repeatedly disavow violence and jihad,” they wrote; why “they, like Turkey’s mild Islamists” [that’s a pc euphemism] would hold mutli-party elections if they ever won power – and would graciously bow out if the voters told them to.”
Didn’t these fellows ever see that “Little Rascals” short titled, “Don’t Lie”? It’s the suave manner with which they drop their whoppers that most impresses. The Muslim Brotherhood is just a group of misunderstood parliamentarians and Mr. Mubarak is just a heavy-handed Officer Krupke. His nation, far older than its Greek name (ancient Egypt was divided into Lower, downriver or Kemet, “black lands,” that is, alluvial soil, and deshret, “red land” or Upper Egypt) like Saudi Arabia receives huge amounts of American money with which it buys or is gifted vast amounts of American arms: that’s why the tanks on the screen look familiar. Anyway, it’s a very big fib to present the MB as congressional glad-handers: they believe in a different process, one in which Western money flows via less obvious channels.
To share the credit, Russia and China play a similar game with Iran and Syria though it’s doubtful they lie with such elegant impersonation of truth. The writer/s of the Economist seem/s to have imbibed the manner of witches, “equivocations of the fiend that lies like truth.” Perhaps it’s a cultural thing.
You don’t suppose that paid provocateurs had anything to do with this ‘sudden’ unrest?
Just as they primped and painted the Brotherhood, so the magazine cooed for Hamas, a democratic organization “who were not allowed to govern” after they won what the Economist called “a fair election in 2006.” If the idea that Chicago, or America has “fair elections” makes you queasy, increase the unease ten thousand fold and you conceive a “fair election” duked out between Abu Mazen & Co, Hamas and assorted members of dozens of other terrorist groups and intelligence services. If only Hamas had been allowed to govern London already would have had that really big crisis of which we are now getting a foretaste, “for good or ill,” the one that will lead to a definitive perestroika of the planet, “for peace.”
“And what’s to be done” is offered not as a question but as a prescription by the wise old “ruling personality” in London. “What the Arabs need most, in a hurry, is the rule of law.” Thank you, gov’nuh, and what do you mean by the rule of law, Jersey City or Chicago? They spelled it out: “independent courts, freeish media, women’s and worker’s rights, a professional civil service, and an education system [don’t laugh] that is not in hock to the government.” “Freeish” is a particularly nice touch in its deft disorganization of language and thought, its calculated vagueness and stone-cold cynicism. Yes, Islam needs “women’s rights” just as in the Anglophone world, female workers, not breeders, more divorce, more lawyers, less children and more unisexual styles. Is not our own “education system…in hock to the government” not to mention that “education” now means conditioning and control? As for the rule of law, President Clinton, indeed all our recent worthies affirm it; the Muslims have Sharia law and a patchwork of colonial and other borrowings from the West. But, “in the Arab lexicon,” the ruler continues, “the concept of justice means more than democracy.” Indeed it does and it used to in other cultures as well, in ways as various as the cultures were, cultures now being merged, by well-stirred crises into one megalopolitan stew of agitated frenzy and fear. Though the Economist says you can’t, surely one can have justice without “democracy,” in fact modern democracy probably makes justice impossible given that politicians are paid to do tricks. As for what is real about this or other crises: “What is truth? For the multitude, that which it continually reads and hears,” and today, in the age of the spectacle and distraction machine, one would add, the images they see.
Another thought about the sine qua non of democracy: “through money, democracy becomes its own destroyer after money has destroyed intellect.” In this destruction, one sees “the shadow of the coming Caesarism,” those bland groups of controllers that “stand in no definite relation to the State” that indeed will wither away. As for what is going on in Cairo, it is becoming “a world city, to which belongs not a folk but a mob,” frenzied and distracted by a demand for ‘democracy’ that is D.O.A. We now have adverts for education.com and freeschoolsconnection.com that feature striving for the disappearing middle class dollies singing and dancing. Groovy!
The hairstyle reading the news has highly arched eyebrows, a big smile, eyes as sparkling as they are shallow, deep cleavage in her bright red dress and a man’s name. This is the fruit of “freeish media, women’s rights” and “the rule of law.” This reminds one that “the wars of the era of world-peace are more fearful than any State wars because they are formless.” It is an age of terror that, under the rubric of peace, “whole continents will be staked, India, China, Russia, South Africa, Islam, new techniques and tactics played and counter-played.” That’s how the Economist would write if he cared for truth.
To re-organize the world, crash the markets: it’s late January 2011.
One last important thing the master wrote almost a century ago bears on the Economist’s precepts regarding “education” and “democracy”: “the idealist of early democracy regarded public education as enlightenment pure and simple. Even today one finds some weak heads that become enthusiastic on the subject of ‘Freedom of the Press…’ Formerly a man did not dare to think freely. Now he dares but cannot: his will to think is only a willingness to think to order and this is what he feels as his liberty.”
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
That’s what the mobs of Cairo, a world city in the worst way yearn for: already, though they neither know nor care they are part of the “collectivity of obedience” that pours into the streets on demand and believes that the demand is its own. “Contemporary English-American politics have created through the press [media] a force-field of world-wide mental and political tensions in which every individual takes up the part allotted to him [or her] so that he must think, will and act as a ruling personality somewhere or other thinks fit.” Moscow’s pioneers of Pravda were late-comers to this game, over-compensating with brutal frankness and brutality for their lack of finesse in using emissaries. But hark: the Secretary of State is speaking from Washington. Don’t panic and sell the farm: think of this nightmare as a buying opportunity. If the intellectual elite that runs the machine “is overpowered by a growing sense of its own Satanism,” its ferocious “managerial energy” they still know how to play the game: they talk the talk and the Economist records it for posterity… “Thank you and goodbye.”
Eugene Narrett’s recent book is Culture of Terror (www.authorhouse.com 2009)
The Economist (London), “Thank you and goodbye,”
July 17, 2010, page 15
2, Oswald Spengler, the Decline of the West Chapter 19, “The Philosophy of Politics,” “The Press”
3, Ibid. (NY 1962; 2006, Alan Helps abridged English edition, Charles Atkinson translation), 395
4, Matthew Arnold, “The Scholar Gypsy” (1853), 203, 64, 172
5, Macbeth 5.5.43-4
6, The Decline of the West, op. cit. 394
7, Ibid. 396, 29
8, Ibid. 380, 376, “Caesarism” and “The Period of Contending States”
9, Ibid. 393-4, “the Press”
10, Ibid 413; Chapter 21, “the Machine”
© 2011 Eugene Narrett - All Rights Reserved