Sunday, December 2, 2012

Model Business




Sex lives of the rich and powerful have never been the same in Europe since dour Emperor Constantine accepted Christianity. Gone were the stables of slave girls and boys, bisexual orgies, sex with animals and other fun stuff. The patricians and the military commanders were accorded one non-divorceable wife, no exceptions.
            Life in the Middle Ages was truly grim. Homosexuality was punishable by death. Peasant girls were unattractive, filthy creatures lacking all sophistication. Noble-born women were few and far between kept in prison-like castles. Meeting with their well-armed fathers, husbands and elder brothers was justly considered an equivalent to encountering band of Saracens on the Crusade. Whores were the daughters of misery lacking full complement of fingers, teeth and eyes.
            It took European nobility nearly twelve centuries to recover. By that time, a new Renaissance culture replaced stone moors of the keeps with the palaces open for lavish parties and created a new type of urban whore, well-dressed and sophisticated. Still, European nobility could not engage in well-organized debauchery of their Chinese or Russian counterparts. Marco Polo writes: “Thither the grand khan sends his officers every second year, or oftener, as it may happen to his pleasure, who collect, for him, to the number of four or five hundred, or more, of the handsomest young women, according to … their instructions… Upon the arrival of these commissioners they give orders for assembling all the young women of the province, and appoint qualified persons to examine them… Upon their arrival in his presence, he [the Khan] causes a new examination to be made by a different set of inspectors… when thirty or forty are retained for his own chamber. Having undergone this rigorous scrutiny, they are divided into parties of five, one of which parties attends during three days and three nights, in his majesty’s interior apartment… The remainder of them, whose value has been estimated at inferior rate, are assigned to the different lords of household.”
            Ivan the Terrible, though an Orthodox Christian, imitated this procedure in XVI Century: “Being bored in his unchaste widowhood, he looked for the third wife. Noble and ignoble brides were collected to Sloboda [his temporary capital] from all towns, more than two thousands in whole. Everyone was shown to him personally. First he selected 24 and then 12, which should have been inspected by the doctor and the nurses. He held lengthy comparisons in beauty, in character and wit…”[1]
            Yet, at about the same time, two horrible innovations—syphilis brought by Columbus’ caravels from the Americas, and the Reformation, proclaiming the return to the ascetic ideals of Early Christianity—once again brought happy frolics of European aristocrats into disarray. Reform theologians, who could not compete with the eternal bliss in the afterlife, opportunistically endorsed by the Council of Lateran (1518?), re-invented another horrible thing: a divorce.
It was still heavily stacked in favor of men, but the simple fact, that many an aristocratic wife had equally powerful fathers and brothers, somewhat restricted toleration of multiple concubines in high society. Increased toleration of the Jews also enhanced the probability that highly positioned members of nobility and the clergy would share their conquests in brothels with the detested circumcised. Yet again, by the eighteenth century, upper classes resumed their exploits in the well-appointed “Isles of Cetera”, “Stag Parks” and other establishments of the Ancien Régime. Propagation of opera, comedy theatre and ballet mightily enabled meeting attractive sexual partners in an amusing setting.  
Then the revolution with its slogan had stricken the newly comfortable world of the old nobility and clergy: “There should be no universal revolution without universal copulation.” (M. de Sade) The answer of the victorious counter-revolution was, well, Victorianism. Uppity Victorians could, of course, have their kept women and frequent prostitutes. Raping servant girls was a natural part of male education in high society. However, there was not a chance that a gentleman could parade his concubine among his peers. This abrogated “pissing contests” between competing males but also made market in kept women highly illiquid—in the absence of social gatherings where the men of quality and the women of endowment could easily mingle—the choice of potential partners for all but the most illustrious of stags (such as Edward VII, “the Caresser”) was severely limited. Remaining photographic portraits of the famous courtesans of the age and consorts of the rich and powerful with rare exceptions do not blind us with immortal beauty.
The discovery of cinema in the Late Victorian Age provided somewhat of a relief. Highly placed men could now present their boys’ toys to each other by pointing at covers and folds of the glamour magazines. But this was a far cry from the free-for-all contests of the Ancien Régime because a potential love interest needed at least marginal acting, singing or dancing talent and, moreover, the dating scene was limited by geographic constraints.
Most of the prospective conquests lived in Los Angeles suburbia and to a lesser degree in Berlin before the WWII or Rome’s Cinecitta thereafter, far from established financial centers of New York and London and the center of power in Washington, DC. Only the staunchest and most dedicated whoremongers such as Kennedys could afford, in monetary, as well as in more important social terms, to pursue Hollywood beauties.
Modeling industry has already emerged but, in Coco Chanel’s time, models were little more than glorified prostitutes. They were poor, nameless and could not be accepted in polite society. For quite a few, modeling was an adjunct to their “working on the side.” The revolution came with the 60s and was brought about, ironically, by gays. Andy Warhol with his “superstars”, Robert Mapplethorpe who turned photographic pornography into an accepted art form and Herb Ritts, who propagated erotic art from galleries of Soho to the glamour magazines, became the pioneers and paved the way for many gay as well as straight admirers.
The beginning of the age of a supermodel coincided with the end of the Cold War. Now the Western ruling class could cede the last vestiges of its martial origins and entirely absorb itself in the pursuit of unheard-of-luxury and erotic hedonism. The models were different from courtesans of old by a few important qualities. Rich and powerful men could cavort with them and show them off to one another freely under the guise of charity events, art auctions and fundraisers. With the new invention of private jet they could be shoveled anywhere. Unlike opera and film stars of old, they did not have to possess even minimal talents other than in bed. To assist pissing contests of the elite men, photography in the glamour magazines became even racier than the established pornographic journals in the 50s and 60s thus accelerating the demise of the latter. Unlike the porn stars, underage models could be legally transported across borders and photographed without parental consent.
For the first time since antiquity, open pursuit of underage girls and boys became if not legal then less socially unacceptable under the guise of search for the new talent. If sex with them would still have legal consequences in New York, there were places like Bangkok or Prague, where everything goes as long as you are an American or, in cases of harshest violations, pay the police. Eventually all models had to look like teenagers, being freakishly tall and thin androgynous creatures with enormous accentuated eyes.
A few stories of deliberate starvation and drug abuse, some with lethal consequences, have shaken this comfortable debauchery. Pesky feminists took their cases with renewed vigor further emboldened by the fact that the new tabloid culture would discuss these cases with gusto. Finally, the realization that fashion models are simply the highest-remunerated strata of sex workers started to creep into public consciousness. There came prohibitions for superficially young models and demands for a minimally healthy body weight. The guidelines on the cross-border transportation and parental supervision of international travel and sexual images of the underage models are still absent. But, if feminists get their way—and it hard to imagine that they would not—unless women again are denied the right to vote, they are the next logical step.
Regulations on model agencies and shuttering down those, which are most obviously the institutional pimps, especially in Eastern Europe and Latin America, can be more difficult task but, if money laundering is the guide, it can be accomplished quickly and relatively painlessly with a necessary political will. The main obstacle is that, similar to the world of professional sports and academia, the world of fashion is highly stratified with the economic interests of (very visible) pinnacles of the profession being highly incompatible with the interests of those (invisibles) at the bottom of the barrel.
            The difficulty of modern jurisprudence to cope with these problems can be illustrated by a recent case of Russian tycoon and presidential candidate Prokhorov. He was arrested with a number of teenage models at the French resort of Courchevel and charged with pimping. While the fact of arrest obviously had political undertones attributable to the Russophobe French officials, the accusations of the multi-billionaire mogul of pimping raised a significant legal issue. If one considers an owner of a provincial strip club who gives his girls a heroine fix before sending them to serve his mafia “protectors” a criminal, there is no judicial reason to treat a tycoon who provides teenage fashion model with a pretty nest somewhere in Monaco for cavorting with important Senators and Duma Committee members to lubricate passing of important legislation any different. Yet, the French prosecutors failed to make this case and Prokhorov escaped scot-free and was even able to counter-sue.
When and if fashion models will acquire rights similar to registered prostitutes in some European countries, e.g. Germany, i.e. the right to public pensions and health care, police protection in case of abuse or cross-border trafficking, monitoring of work conditions, such as exposure to the elements and/or dangerous animals, their exploitation by the rich and famous might cease to be that much fun. Joining modern Hollywood and talk show circuit stars, fashion models can become another boring group of highly paid career women. The arms race between predatory alpha males and women rights advocates is to be continued.
            However, the powerful and the mighty have strong social tendencies in the Western society on their side. The monogamous marriage, which has been inviolable in Europe since adoption of Christianity is now under attack from above and below. First, the communities of Moslem immigrants, which established themselves in the centers of Western Civilization, such as London, Paris and Berlin practice de facto polygamy. Because, in many countries, especially England, Holland and Scandinavia, formerly France—but there Sarco “the American” fought it vigorously—established themselves as virtual enclaves with their own justice and customs, sometimes not even allowing the local law enforcement to enter their strongholds, Sharia-approved polygamy proliferated among Europe’s poorest classes.
On top, the upper classes of the Western societies live in virtual polygamy. The expressions “starter wife” and “girlfriend experience” appeared either in Wall Street and Hollywood to describe two different facets of this abandonment of the Christian-Germanic monogamy. In the former case, the upper-class men practically enter a contract with woman, who must support them at initial stages of their careers—run around the agents, type scripts and resumes, cook food and iron tuxedos—until they achieve some recognition and can drop her for a co-equal in their profession. Of course, nothing is new in this world, and the phenomenon of French grisette in XIX century provided an obvious template.  
On later stages they can part with the career wife as well, and start marrying long-legged bimbos decades younger then themselves. Or, if they cannot or would not abandon their social wife, they can be served by “a girlfriend experience”, i.e. a whore paid not only to perform tricks but also to provide the hustler a company to opera or social functions (here, life imitated art because “Pretty Woman” seemed to precede wide opening of this new market). These women obviously evolved from high-end escort services but unlike the latter, they are paid not only for playing tricks but also for faking emotional attachment and concern for her patron’s career being at the same time as disposable as the former.[2]
Among the new wealthy of Russia, “the oligarchs”, the following pattern became the norm. A middle-aged man marries a very young woman, typically a model and/or a winner of a beauty pageant (‘miss’ka’, a worldplay on ‘Miss something’ and ‘cooking pot’) who provides him companionship before their children go to school. Then the offspring followed by his mother is sent to the prestigious boarding school somewhere in Switzerland or UK and the cycle is repeated. Now, this is true, not a serial, polygamy, because these women usually must maintain relationship to their man at his pleasure to get support for their lavish lifestyle in London or Paris. While in the puritan US true harems are a rarity, such national treasures as Hugh Heffner and Ted Turner can maintain them in full splendor.
            Our post-Christian, American-centric world instead of becoming secular adopted Neo-Paganisms typical for the Roman Empire. The American elites under the guise of “Biblical Christianity” (heavily influenced by the Mormonism and Ultra-Orthodox Judaism of the Haredim) promote a cult of militaristic state as an extension of male-dominated units of nuclear families. There are even propagandists of such worldview, who abandon its religious shell for the reformed social Darwinism (Charles Murray, etc.). The lower orders largely hold heterodox superstitions mainly resulting from this “Biblical Christianity” but which also include New Age cults. The main underpinning behind all of them is the replacement of the Christian doctrine of Providence by the Pagan doctrine of “luck” (Fortuna) mostly associated with the worldly possessions. Feminists are right to feel that, despite all of their successes, they belong to the city besieged.





[1] “Скучая вдовством, хотя и не целомудренным, он уже давно искал себе третьей супруги… Из всех городов свезли невест в Слободу, и знатных и незнатных, числом более двух тысяч; каждую представляли ему особенно. Сперва он выбрал 24, а после 12, коих надлежало осмотреть доктору и бабкам; долго сравнивал их в красоте, в приятностях, в уме.” V. Karamzin, Russian XVIII-XIX century court historian. Tsarist censorship excised the detail that the “brides” were paraded naked before him and his teenage son.
[2] There is XIX century anecdote of a village girl arriving in Paris who asked an established prostitute how it happens that men would pay such exorbitant sums for so little. Experienced hooker answered that the wealthy men pay you not only to come but also to leave quietly. 

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Emperor's New Clothes


Koch Brothers from the Right and Neocons from the Left make new clothes for the Imperial Pretender.


Sunday, October 21, 2012

Miracles in the Bible


           Exodus (Chapter 38) says: “And Judah said to Onan: ‘Go in unto my brother’s wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her, and raise up seed to thy brother… And Onan knew that the seed would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground… And the thing which he did was evil in the sight of the LORD.” What is the origin of this strange prohibition? In an overwhelmingly agrarian society, the main property was land and cattle. Judah by demanding that Onan “raises his seed to his brother” requested that, in case Tamar bears a son, he must transfer the inheritance from his family to the family of his brother. This was a heavy request, indeed! Non-compliance with it had to be published with utmost severity.
            This Biblical narrative, despite its unconventional nature contains all the elements of the modern criminal codes: declaration of the norm, description of the offense against the norm and the requisite punishment (death). Note that when the agriculture, sedentary life and progress in monetary accumulation created financial stratification in Jewish society, the opposite behavior, namely taking the widow of one’s brother as a wife began to be punishable by death: “None of you shall approach to any that is near kin to him, to uncover their nakedness, I am the LORD. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is your brother’s nakedness… For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people.”
            Now, when I got your attention, before I proceed to the miracles of the Bible, i.e. the supposed violations of the natural laws in the Biblical narrative let me discuss the perception of probability by the human mind. It has been known for a long time that people are very poor calculators of probabilities. For instance, many a people who would not live near a nuclear power plant fail to use a security belt in a car. Somehow, our species are “intuitive Bayesians” tending to ascribe lower probabilities to the events they seem to understand and/or control and higher probabilities to the unknown.
            The repeating random events (processes) tend to come in a few flavors. Some, for instance, tossing a coin, do not provide any glean of the future behavior by their past. Mathematicians call these processes martingales. Then, there are processes, which can be assumed to “even out.” For instance, an unseasonably cold week will be followed by a thaw and vice versa so that annual seasonal temperatures are fairly stable. This feature is called mean-reversion. Finally, there are processes which tend to increase their intensity with time. Russian proverb says: “Grief does not come once.” If there is a speeding mechanical clock, one expects it to increase speeding with time, until they become completely unusable despite frequent rewinding. These processes correspond to semi-martingales in statistics.
            For the processes of the third kind because humans and human populations have finite memory, they tend to register only the events, which happened during some period in the past. Hence, in a society, based on an oral tradition, there was likely an event exceeding in magnitude everything they could remember. Floods, earthquakes and other geophysical phenomena tend to be understood precisely in the same manner and one flood in the past will always be the Great. In two hundred years, the same population would again refer to the Great Flood, exceeding everything imprinted on human memory, though these could be completely different natural disasters.
            Rationalization of Biblical events in modern times went through several distinct phases. The philosophes of the XVIII century refuted them as superstitions borne out of the imagination of a primitive people. Biblical criticism of the XIX century regarded them as coded messages, which had to be re-interpreted in a rational vein. For instance, the prohibition to eat pork could be viewed as a precaution against storing fatty foods in a hot climate for the fear of poisoning. The anthropological school of XX century could propose that, instead pig was a totem of a certain ancient tribe and could not be consumed. My treatise proposes another—not altogether incompatible point of view—that the ancient peoples were somewhat closer to us in their feelings and emotions.
           Some of the stories are easier to rationalize than others if one absconds a tendency to over-interpret everything, even the stories for which there is no surviving factual material. We cannot say for certain, what has been meant by the “plague of frogs”, including whether our current understanding of “frogs” is correct and did not appear from later interpolation. But the connection of hunger and epidemics with the invasion of vermin of different kind has been well established since antiquity, though many casual chains or coincidences were unknown before the modern biology took hold. For instance, unusually heavy rains and flooding of the land can increase contact of the agrarian population with reptiles and amphibians and, independently, be a cause of starvation. Corpses of the fallen animals and dead people foul the water but are also consumed by rats, which are the natural vectors for a number of infections, etc. etc. Human propensity to ascribe astronomical signs to earthly events was known not only in the Middle Eastern but also in Chinese or Hellenistic cultures.  
            There is no need to invent causation where there is none. Draughts, migration of agricultural pests, hunger and epidemics of waterborn infections were sufficiently frequent before the twentieth century that it was all too easy to attribute them to the positions of the stars or rare atmospheric phenomena. Usual consequences of the hunger-epidemic cycle were the migrations of human populations to supposedly greener pastures.
            Now, we approach the Sea of Reeds. Modern hydrological analyses of excavation data suggest that the Isthmus of Suez in ancient times contained a system of salt lakes and marshes. These lowlands were, probably, periodically flooded during high tides in the Mediterranean or rare, but powerful rain storms. Marshlands provided a cover for fugitives from the ancient times, to the late Romans hiding from mounted Huns in the marshes of the Venetian lagoon, to the Nazi-occupied Belarus where swamps impeded superior German armor.
            A flood in the desert is such a nasty occurrence, especially if this desert is a tiny slice between two seas, that a particularly large loss of troops during a security sweep could have induced powers-that-were to abandon hunting for fugitives beyond certain checkpoints. In quite similar dynamics, the groups of fugitives from Russia or Turkey congregating at (much more accessible and hospitable) Ukrainian steppes formed a new race of Cossacks in Early Modern times. What was described in the Bible as forty year-long wandering in the desert—PM Begin once said that Moses led Israelites to find the only place in the Middle East which does not have oil—was probably a gradual process of resettlement typical for the ancient world.
Some groups used armed violence to displace original populations, but this was not the only way. New arrivals could have taken over the settlements abandoned by occupants because of famine or pestilence, or even welcomed by a much-thinned population of a devastated district. What is erroneously assumed to be a momentary event was, in fact, a chain of peregrinations punctuated by armed conflicts, resettlement of the depopulated districts or gradual fusion of different tribal groups with mutual exchange of agricultural and artisanal techniques. From time to time, the reports of a better life in new places reached the original settlements causing another wave of settlers to risk a dangerous and uncertain journey. The latest and final exodus of the Jews from the Eastern Europe and former USSR to Israel and North America took the same forty years to complete.
            In general, among amateur historians there is a frequent tendency to conflate two realities: the reality of the text and the reality of geographical and historic events. For instance, they look for precise location of Plato’s Atlantis as if it were certain place to be discovered. Aegean is a seismic zone and Plato must have known about horrific disasters befalling some ancient city-states. However, for Plato it could have been only a convenient storyline to elicit his thoughts about an ideal society. Whether he himself believed in Atlantis will never be known and is immaterial. So, a single location might have never existed. But sometimes it did as in the case of the Schliemann’s Troy.
            Geography of Tolkien’s Middle Earth in entirely imagined but it incorporated Norse, Old English and Germanic myths. Does the fact that “The Lord of the Rings” is a work of pure fiction means that Burgundian Kingdom in the Nibelungenlieder never existed, or that Theodoric was not a historic personality? In our Internet age we tend to forget how fragmentary our knowledge about the past is.
            Imagine if, after a few millennia, the only remaining traces of late XIX century Europe would be archeological artifacts and Jules Verne novels. The amateur archeologists inspired by “500,000,000 of Begumah” will search in vain for the remains of the giant cannon in the jungles of Guatemala or Salvador. However, the facts of contemporary life: industrialization of warfare, the rise of Prussian militarism, Franco-Prussian War and rebirth of France after the military defeat were quite accurately described in the novel.
The impression of Jules Verne contemporaries of the artillery barrages of cities, where you do not see the enemy or his guns and the only sign of impending danger is a subtle whistle of the already passed projectile must have been indelible, despite very few actual casualties.  In fact, novels of Jules Verne would produce very clever picture of the late Victorian times: how people talked, what they ate, how and why they traveled, what was the prevailing state structure and what were their main concerns, though Hatteras and Ned Land were completely fictional and his novels described events that never happened other than in the mind of their author.
Modern archeologists are more charitable to this outlook than the XIX century historians with their penchant for single-minded “rational” explanations. Neither Minoan nor Trojan civilizations disappeared in a single instant in the wake of the natural disaster and/or military invasion but continued their existence albeit on a much reduced scale.
We approach the most controversial piece of my reasoning. I view Biblical narrative as a composition of two stories. One is the Abrahamic rejection of the human sacrifice and replacement it with the animal sacrifice but also with sacrificial symbolism without actual spilling of blood. This was a first resolute step on separating of the Jews from the nearby Middle Eastern people, to whom human sacrifice remained the way of life. The second story is Mosaic.
I argue that what has been described in the Bible as Moses being given the Law on the Mount Sinai is the first experiment of the nation building. History knows many firsts: Akhenaten’s experiment with monotheism, or the Hittites experimenting with two ideas—democracy and monogamy—one of which is obviously rotten while the judgment on the other is still open. In my view, supported by some modern studies, the Jews were the first self-conscious nation in history and this was the source of their exceptionalism. The others had to wait till XVI-XVII century Europe.[1] What this meant was that for the first time the idea of the nation was abstracted from tribal affiliations, a ruling dynasty, particular territory or a capital city. Instead the commonality of culture, religion, language, tradition and the myth of national origin became a more sustainable basis for the common government than ever-changing borders, rulers and dynasties.
Henceforth, Moses became the first national leader. His political power was founded not in the birthright—for most Jews he was a Egyptian—and did not belong to any dynasty, or in the right of military command and conquest. His power was based on acceptance of “his” people and the ability to express their “national” idea.
The fact that Moses appealed to the Powers-on-High to proclaim this endeavor should not surprise us more than references to it in the preamble to 1949 German Constitution or in the speeches of American presidents. His task was purely political and truly revolutionary because following more than twenty five centuries hiatus, the nation-state became the main form of human organization and remains with us now. So, we can with justice call the giving of the Law on the Mount Sinai as the most important event in human history. Whether one wants to attribute it to the divine intervention is another matter.



[1] Ironically, after the thousands years of diaspora, the national identity of the modern Jews is unclear. But history knows many ironies of this kind. For instance, Jewish alphabet which was one of the first to use diacritical marks, now omits them altogether, except for the poems and the Bible. 

Sunday, June 10, 2012

My Ode to the Great Generation

My Ode to the Great Generation

A. S. Bliokh


Merchant Marine is just like the Navy
With the German torpedo-bombers and Japanese strafing
Only with fewer guns.

You wrote many books; now all forgotten,
And flew dingy airplanes all over waters
Of your drug-infused imagination
What has become of you?

I am not anti-capitalist, not an anarchist,
I not a pacifist; not that I like war.
I am structured and straight; not a gay
Like a many of you.

Your greatness is now more visible than before
I met Ferlinghetti in Prague being too proud
To introduce myself.
You got through war; I got through shame.
So I guess we are even now.

With you, now lying in state
Of your dusty bookshelves; vermillion
Was the color of your youth now gone
Forever.
Yet the curses and hurrahs
Join in Heaven. 

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Martin Sixsmith Russia: A 1000-Year Chronicle of the Wild East, Overlook Hardcover, 2012.


As I already reported (http://oldpossumsbookreview.blogspot.com/2009/01/t-j-binyon-pushkin-new-biography-knopf.html) in a post-Blairite England the qualification for public intellectual to write Russophobic rug became the only necessary qualification. Now Martin Sixsmith, former BBC chief in Moscow, had to join the crowd.
First 900 years of history of Russia occupy 250 pages of his 600+ page book. There is nothing there, which cannot be extracted from any Soviet-time middle school textbook. The author is obsessed to classify Russians as “Asiatic” whatever this means—current Russian middle school textbooks provide much more nuanced view of its political history—not really stand out from current (or past) British jingoistic propaganda. The only surprise is how little Sixsmith has learned during his years in Russia. Characteristically, in the acknowledgement section, he does not mention a single Russian historian or archivist he interviewed for his magnum opus. [1]
In particular, he frequently refers to “Asiatic despotism” [2] as an antonym of the “Western democracy.” This racialization (and modernization)—for how democratic Spain or Italy were for most of their history—is not only the ugliest but also the stupidest part of his book. Moreover, “representative” institutions of medieval Poland and Holy Roman Empire were not forerunners of modern democracy but, vice versa, the relics of the pre-modern statehood. In fact, modernizing politicians of both states—beginning with king Kazimir and ending with Joseph II, worked as hard as they could to undermine these liberties.
The rest 350 or so pages is a garbled account of the Soviet and post-Soviet period covered most unevenly. [3] There is no attempt of conceptualization beyond usual lamentations of “Asiatic” turgidity of the Russian people and its supposed love of authority. With every Briton outside of their homes is currently on simultaneous view of several security cameras, this sounds nasty.
As usual, racial prejudices cover up deeply seated insecurities of the British public. With the prime ministers of the formerly mighty British Empire crawling and cringing before Australian Prince Ruprecht, clearing with him ministerial appointments and the questions of war and peace, they need all assertion they can muster to convince themselves that UK is still a “democracy.” 


[1] Characteristically, you would not find generals, industrialists, merchants, statesmen, explorers, engineers or scientists on its pages: only the rulers and cultural dissidents. 
[2] Asiatic despotism is a Marxist term not so much wrong as abused to the point of meaninglessness. It applies to every regime since ancient Sumer to Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore and everything in between. 
[3] Another trait peculiar to British elite with prevailing classic education is a conflation of history with the history of public intellectuals and their opinions. In a much more serious book of Ronald Blythe "The Age of Illusion: England in the Twenties and Thirties", the history of England is largely reduced to the opinions of intellectuals with political, economical, military and technological developments reduced to a minimum. 

Friday, April 13, 2012

Neil Strauss. The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists. It Books, 2005.

I bought a book by Neil Strauss as a present to my twenty-something relative. I cannot claim much experience in this department—but the advice, which I got from “natural” PUAs in my late twenties-early thirties—albeit, too late for me to use it, suggests that the material in his book is sound. Furthermore, it is a novel, a work of fiction and should not be viewed as completely documentary.
            Neil Strauss has been labeled a misogynist, a fraud and a bevy of other names. My problem with his narrative is more literary and philosophical. Let me first refer to another, much more famous work of fiction, namely Casanova’s “memoirs.” Namely, what I read there, rarely qualifies as seduction. This is a story of a wealthy gentleman (fake, in Casanova’s case) who simply procured underage girls for money or the glitter of it. This had been a little problem in 18th Century Europe with its agrarian overpopulation, incessant wars and beginning urbanization. Mothers and fathers peddled their surplus daughters to rich travelers as a way to assure some semblance of prosperity for other members of their family or simply to stave hunger.
            When I read “The Secret Society of Pickup Artists”, I had the same feeling, especially because I remembered PTA’s “Magnolia” loosely based on some characters in his book and because looked up him being educated in Vassar College on Wikipedia. I would not be surprised if he came from the stock of banker and diplomat Lewis Strauss, who headed Atomic Energy Commission in its golden years and stripped Oppenheimer of his security clearance, or any other illustrious Strauss.  
O’K registered I, he describes the case of the fraternity of upper-middle class Hollywood guys—syndicated columnists, screenwriters, etc.―preying on poor and vulnerable trailer trash girls (a.k.a. strippers and centerfolds) and maladjusted Eastern European exports. Boring, and old as the world itself. But he is a decent writer. 

Monday, March 26, 2012

Liz Cheney, Richard B. Cheney, In My Time: A Political Memoir, Threshold Editions

"...It's lonely,
No one else to torture.
Give me absolute control,
Over every living soul
And lie beside me, baby,
That's an order."

Leonard Cohen


Robert Burns. Epigram On The Laird Of Laggan

When Morine, deceas'd, to the Devil went down,
'Twas nothing would serve him but Satan's own crown;
"Thy fool's head," quoth Satan, "that crown shall wear never,
I grant thou'rt as wicked, but not quite so clever."

1793


The "New York Times" (08/26/11) reviewer Michiko Kakutani started her review of the new-fangled Cheney memoirs by the rhetorical suggestion: "In an interview on NBC's ''Dateline,'' former Vice President Dick Cheney says that his new book, ''In My Time,'' will have ''heads exploding all over Washington.'' Whatever readers think of Mr. Cheney's politics, their heads are more likely to explode from frustration than from any sense of revelation. Indeed, the memoir -- delivered in dry, often truculent prose -- turns out to be mostly a predictable mix of spin, stonewalling, score settling and highly selective reminiscences. " Because Cheney, before his health problems, was not a psychopath he is now but, on the contrary, presented a voice of reason within the conservative wing of Republican Party, I am of opinion that circulatory problems erased some essential structures in his brain. [1]  In the words of Murky Muffley, the President in the Dr. Strangelove epic, "there is nothing to explain. That man is psychotic." Indeed, there is nothing to explain [2].


Footnotes

[1] According to hearsay, after the end of the Cold War, Cheney as a defense collected CEOs of the largest Pentagon contractors and told them that the country does not need 20-25 major arms manufacturers anymore and can sustain only 6-7. Another fit of reason happened to him when asked by a Polish defense minister when Poland will be included to NATO he answered: "Never." Defense minister said that Poland will nevertheless become a member of NATO, with or without his goodwill, and he responded, in a characteristically cynical manner: "Good luck." Of course, NATO was enlarged during the Second Clinton Administration turning America into an old style colonial Empire. Cheney, as a VP, presided over the largest enlargement of NATO thus saddling the US with a set of practically untenable defense obligations for a quite obscure gain.

[2] Cheney and his daughter seem to gloat from the curses by the liberals. The problem with him not only that his policies were immoral and sadistic but that they were unsuccessful and, ultimately, disastrous. There is a difference you know, between the Cardinal Armand Du Plessis Richelieu and Joseph Goebbels. Both were immoral and faithless cads. Richelieu could also be very cruel. Reportedly he invented the phrase "Justified by the reasons of the State" after soldiers whom he sent on another security sweep pillaged a convent and raped the nuns. Yet his policies led to the glory of his country and its people. Goebbels' policies led to ruination of his nation and the complete destruction of heinous ideology he supported.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Russian Elections (itogi)

The net result of all protest demonstrations heavily sponsored by US and, especially, European taxpayers was a real consolidation of the Russian electorate behind Putin. Whatever narrative will be invented now to describe his victory, the simple fact is that he received the mandate on legitimacy, which was hardly achievable before the views and behavior of the opposition leaders had less popular exposure. There are many ways policy can be changed in a dictatorship: street protests, armed rebellion, palace coup, foreign pressure on the leader, etc. Policy can be changed in a democracy in only two ways: one is a formation of a popular party, which can challenge the ruling consensus, another is infiltration of a ruling party by people with different views. And that's it.

Friday, January 27, 2012

Russian Blogosphere

Russian blogosphere is mostly divided between two camps and the Russian Government is not in any of them. One camp is Stalinist with a heavy degree of antisemitism. The other camp are the "demchiza" people who demand immediate occupation of Russia by the NATO forces and the like. Imagine how popular they might be with simple people in the street.

Seems that the Russian bloggers are locked in the Georgian triangle of Dzugashvili (Stalin)-Saakashvili-Chkhartashvili (pseud. B. Akunin, a detective writer who fashions himself a public figure) with no exit. Below I recite a humorous verse which I downloaded from Russian blog and which probably came from a few authors retaining overall sanity. Because it refers to several nursery rimes unknown to the English-speaking reader, I supply my translation in a modified limerick form.


Кошка бросила котят.
Это Путин виноват.
Зайку бросила хозяйка.
Кто виновен, угадай-ка!

Вот кончается доска
У несчастного бычка.
Наша Таня громко плачет.
Рядом Путин, не иначе.

Свет погас, упал забор,
У авто заглох мотор,
Зуб здоровый удалили,
Иль залез в квартиру вор,
Не понравилось кино,
Наступили Вы в г…но.
У любого катаклизма
Объяснение одно:

Знает каждый демократ-
Это Путин виноват!

If your wife is a bitch,
And the movie was kitsch,
If you stepped into shit,
Or your son is a twit,
Every creative mind
Would not be so blind
There is Putin behind all of it.

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Comment censored by Farid Zakaria's Global Public??? Square




This comment of mine has not been posted on your Dec. 18, 2011 blog for unknown reasons despite compliance with the Terms of Service, so I try to post it, belatedly,

Dear Fareed Zakaria,

You mention that "Historians have pointed out that the Russian nation was literally the property of the Czar, that serfs were more like slaves than simply peasant workers..."

For your information, Russian Empire abolished serfdom in 1861, more than fifty years before
the revolution and two years before emancipation proclamation in the US. For comparison, serfdom
was abolished in Austrian Empire, at that time ruling much of the Central Europe, in 1848
and Brazil empancipated its slaves in 1889.

Local self-government and trial by jury were established in 1864. By contrast, French Napoleonic
system of prefects was dragged long into the twentieth century.

Russian Empire became a constitutional monarchy in 1905 and by 1914, the start of the Great War, its
institutions were not particularly different from contemporary Germany and Austro-Hungary. A significant
fraction of the population of the Empire, namely, Congress Poland (1815-1831) and Duchy of Finland
(1814-1905) were endowed with separate constitutions written under heavy influence of Jeremy
Bentham. These constitutions at the time were simply the most democratic than any in
Europe, pre-1832 England included. No European country before the mid XIXth century had
universal male suffrage. Since 1906, Finns enjoyed universal suffrage (the only country after
Iceland and New Zealand).

All that said, Russian Empire was similar in level of development to contemporary Continental European
monarchies and far ahead of the European periphery (Balkans, Iberian peninsula, etc.).

You are either ignorant of textbook Russian history of which you allow yourself such absurd generalizations
as above, or, what is even worse, are consciously telling untruths for the sake of ideology. This is sad because
millions of Americans view you as one of the few remaining public intellectuals in the mass media.

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Lies and Obfuscations. Condolezza Rice. No Higher Honor. A Memoir of my Years in Washington. Crown publishers.

Lies and obfuscations

In her memoirs, Condolezza Rice glosses over at least four glaring failures of her as a national security adviser and secretary of state. First, is of course, the failure to observe the rise of Taliban and the danger Al Qaeda presented to the United States. She writes: "Yes, everyone knew that bin Laden was determined to attack the United States... We were not told how he might carry out such an attack, only that he had been impressed by the partially successful attach on the WTC.” (p. 69)
She already explained that in her congressional testimony that (in light of the above quotation) there was no specific information about the attack. It seems that nothing short of the map of the Manhattan with drawn planes approaching World Trade Center and the letters “Caboom! Caboom!”—in English, not in Arabic because few people in our National Security apparatus knew it—would convince her to take seriously threat from Osama bin Laden. With the warning above only a single meeting with the president was spent on the impending threat.

She mentions that the planning of war with Iraq was set in motion in the spring of 2002. Aha, that means that Bush already decided to go to war early in 2002 and all hullabaloo in the United Nations and leaks to the American media were just a smokescreen to justify invasion. "There was a sense of urgency to do something about Iraq but we wanted to get it right." (p. 177) Did they?
Rice writes about the motives, which brought G. W. to this pathetic conviction but much later, on p. 187. "We invaded Iraq because we believed we had ran out of options. The sanctions were not working [towards which goal?--A. B.], the inspections were unsatisfactory and we could not get Saddam to leave by other means..." I.e., the reason the pressure on Iraq was never to make it to comply with weapons inspectors but to change regime in Baghdad. But to what purpose?
The only thing clear is that she never admits her own influence in bringing about Bush's conviction that he is destined to remake Iraq—but how could that be that this poor man with zero experience and zero interest of foreign countries could have congealed this idea without bouncing it off his trusted national security adviser?

A failure to exploit Khatami presidency to try to stop Iranian nuclear program was another disaster in the making. Drunk by the neocon moonshine speciously provided by John Bolton, she insisted that nothing short of Iran developing something reminiscent of Swiss level of democracy will justify talking to Tehran. To add insult to injury, Bush (and, by the way, Clinton) administrations were incessantly haranguing on the intolerability for Iran to develop nuclear technology thus overblowing its usefulness in the minds of the mullahs. Screams by neocons after the purported “success” of Iraq invasion that Iran would be next target hardly could provide them any reassurance.

Fourth foul-up, may be of the least importance, but of the greatest stupidity was to replace quite docile and pro-American Shevarnadze in Republic of Georgia by the militaristic nut Saakashvili and arm him to the teeth with the purpose of attacking Russia [Comment1]. She repeats the Saakashvili story of some unspecified Russian provocations preceding his murderous attack on the sleeping city of Tshinvali: "Despite Georgia's unilateral ceasefire earlier in the day, South Ossetian rebel forces continued shelling ethnic Georgian villages in and around the capital Tshinvali." (p. 686). Yet, even the EU fact -finding mission prejudiced about the Russians did not find anything to bolster the story of Russian premediation. In fact, it was disavowed on CNN by none else than ex-Secretary of State Colin Powell. 
Georgian project demonstrated her tunnel world vision dominated by Washington power politics with little if any understanding of the world policy. Yet, even liberal well-minded but little versed in foreign policy commentators such as John Stewart bought her lies and obfuscations and lionized her as a wise senior politician. They never asked her questions like: “What particular readings in Russian history suggested to you that the Russians can be cowed, lest by a nation half the size of Switzerland and fifty times as poor?”

            Condolezza demonstrates spectacular ignorance in the matters she professes to be an expert: "...the ever-simmering Russian hatred of Georgia." (p. 681) Georgia, unlike many other territories was never conquered and was incorporated into the Russian Empire by petition of its Christian nobility to be saved from the forced conversion and/or genocide by the Turks and the Persians. Since then, Georgians beginning with Prince Bagrationi and ending with Stalin played important roles in the administration of Russia proper.
   Another feat of bizarre. "Sobchak and his wife were royalists..." (p. 61) What does this mean, in particular, for a country which never had royalty? Once, a Russian humor column ridiculing her haughty ignorance registered her surprise to Putin that she did not see bears on Moscow streets. Next, she asks him why on the negotiation table there is no samovar with vodka because as an expert on Russia she knows for sure that the Russians precede all formalities by drinking vodka from a samovar.
            An expert on the Middle East probably would notice in her memoirs similar glaring combination of self-assurance, haughtiness and ignorance so typical of Condy. Together with Justice Clarence Thomas she belongs to the cadre of affirmative action bureaucrats who cried racism any time anyone questioned their professional competence or personal integrity but now advocate policies of throwing away the ladder, which lifted them to the highest orders of the State.