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. 

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. 

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 18^th 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. 

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.

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.