The commander of the occupation forces provides all the right language to welcome collaborators into his fold. The population is being "protected" and won't get it for nothing. They must produce supplies, food etc. Hermetians attacking the invaders were "subversives"! If so many naval personnel acted like that, then civilians too might commit sabotage or espionage or help the enemy!
There are two relevant situations in the later Imperial period:
Dominic Flandry organizes resistance to the Ardazhiro occupation of the human planet, Vixen;
Flandry directs the Intelligence operation during the occupation of Brae - search, inquiry, interrogation, exile of irreconcilables and incorporation of collaborators into a new governmental framework.
Nice work, Flandry.
36 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
But what made the Baburite occupation of Hermes so unusual was from Babur's alleged human "agents" much more extensively in Hermetian affairs than Babur really needed to do. Because those human "agents," like Bayard Strang, themselves manipulating Babur, to serve the ends of the Seven in Space. And Strang himself was manipulating the Seven so he could seize power on Hermes and set himself up as a dictator.
Ad astra! Sean
Wheels within wheels.
There are structural similarities between people in similar situations. My father-in-law mentioned later that he never disliked the Germans he fought, and he was in combat continuously from D-Day +2 to the end of the war, apart from time spent in field hospitals.
“Just another bunch of poor unfortunate bastards like us, doing what they were told and trying to stay alive,” was the way he put it.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Intrigues and wheels within wheels? I agree!
And I'm sure there were many men on both sides of WW II who believed in their causes and were willing to fight, and fight hard.
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean: basically, most of the combatants in WWII were straightforwardly fighting for their nation-states; for America, for King and Country, for the Fatherland, for La belle France, fighting -za rodinu-.
Note how Stalin pivoted on a dime in 1941 and suddenly started talking about Alexander Nevsky and the wars against Napoleon; he knew what actually made men willing to fight.
It was nationalism that defeated National Socialism; ditto Marxist-Leninism.
Ideology -sensu strictu- also played a role, things like democracy, though a subordinate one on the winning side.
Nationalism is itself an 'ideology', but a more elemental one -- the tribe writ large with fancy trappings.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I recall that, about Stalin, from reading Solzhenitsyn. All of a sudden, after Barbarossa began, Stalin dropped the nonsense about socialism and appealed to RUSSIAN patriotism.
I agree, the nation (and nationalism) will mean far more to the vast majority of people than laughable stuff like the "solidarity of the international brotherhood of workers."
Happy New Year! Sean
I believe that that international brotherhood is the hope of mankind with the power to end the era of international wars. It failed tragically in 1914.
Kaor, Paul!
And that kind of nonsense will always fail. It's not REAL for most people. It's just an empty slogan.
Happy New Year! Sean
Paul: the question is, why did it fail?
It turned out that even among the people who'd -consciously- subscribed to the solidarity of the international working class, the overwhelming majority actually prioritized their nation when push came to shove.
So the 'solidarity' that mattered was one of shared language, custom, territory and history.
An abstract theory based on social position turned out to be a bloodless abstraction for which only a few fanatics were willing to fight and die (and kill lots of other people).
All human social groups are 'imagined', in the sense that they exist because people believe they do.
But all imaginings are not created equal. The further the 'imagined' group gets from the primal face-to-face bonds of the extended-family/clan which is the default human grouping, the more fragile they are. The bonds grow stronger the closer the analogy which can be made between that default and the actual grouping. Dynastic loyalty or loyalty to a leader-figure can be strong, because it analogizes well to the pater-familias/clan chief; the nation is an imaginary extended family.
These are the sort of thing that actually move the hearts of human beings and call forth their capacity for commitment.
Push it further away, and it starts to unravel, to become unreal, to fade into mist.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I read these comments of yours twice, with complete agreement. You made clear and explicit what I felt or thought myself, even if I did not quite know how to say so. The question that then arises is why so many decent people refuse to accept that reasonably tolerable states needs to come in forms analogously derived from that primal default grouping of the pater familias and the clan.
And I'm reminded of how, before the French Revolution, the French thought of their kings as also being their fathers.
Happy New Year! Sean
I agree that's what happened.
Happy New Year.
Kaor, Paul!
But do you agree the argument I and Mr. Stirling made about empty or bloodless abstractions is true? Or that socio/political structures too distantly removed from the default pater familias/clan and tribal patterns are more likely than not to fail, and fail bloodily? If not, are any other structures you would prefer LIKELY to work?
Happy New Year! Sean
Sean,
Abstractions do not motivate. Either people will come to experience the need for international solidarity or - something else will happen that is beyond my ken.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I simply don't believe that will or can happen. Because nothing in human nature or history makes me think otherwise. International solidarity is sheer fantasy!
Far more likely, some Napoleon type might arise to conquer the world. Or an alliance of nations, of the kind some have speculated about the "Anglosphere," will impose its own vision of order on the world.
Happy New Year! Sean
Sean,
I am very unsure what will happen.
There is a difference between what we think is most likely and what we think is worth working toward.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Broadly speaking, I'm fairly sure of what is UNLIKELY to happen and other things MAY happen which would not surprise me. And some things are matters I would oppose or support. That is about all I can say.
Happy New Year! Sean
Sean,
The main thing that IS happening right now is the irreversible ecological catastrophe. This seems to keep being forgotten.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Not forgotten. It's simply that NOTHING EFFECTIVE will be done quickly. And by "effective" I mean rapid expanding of nuclear power, a beginning in building a space based solar power grid, and large scale use of plain old rust for sopping up carbon dioxide from the oceans. I dismiss all other "solutions" as futile and counter productive.
Happy New Year! Sean
Sean,
Something effective must be done without delay.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And as Robert Zubrin discussed in his book THE CASE FOR SPACE, simple rust is one solution that could be used most quickly.
Happy New Year! Sean
Sean,
Whatever works, it must be done without further discussion.
Paul.
I think that it is insufficient to end a discussion by saying what you think should be done - especially if you add that it will not be done immediately. It has to be done immediately. The next questions have to be: Why are those with the power to take action not doing so? And what needs to be done about this?
Kaor, Paul!
The only way anything might be done immediately, right now, is by the gov't, in whichever nation, using dictatorial and harsh methods to do so. If you desire certain ends, you have to accept whatever the means might be to achieve them.
More realistically, I say nothing will be quickly done because if Faction A advocates Plan X, then Faction B will immediately oppose it, for both good and bad reasons. We will get what usually happens, years of wrangling, debate, wheeling and dealing, back scratching, log rolling, more or less squalid compromises, maybe some use of force or violence, etc.
Happy New Year! Sean
Sean,
But during those tears the irreversible catastrophe will be happening. Emergency measures are necessary now and they should not have to be dictatorial in the face of a global emergency. Can people not cooperate for survival?
Paul.
years.
Kaor, Paul!
Ideally, it should. But it won't because that is simply not how human beings behave. And nothing I've seen, here and now, or in the past, makes me think that will happen.
And, of course, some nations, like China or India, don't care!
Happy New Year! Sean
Sean,
And the US elected a climate change denier as President albeit for only a single term. Nations will be blaming each other forever more.
My only present point is that there is an urgent global emergency and we do not have the option of wrangling for several more years about it. Your contributions always seem to lack that sense of urgency. People will continue to wrangle for years to come? The years do not exist for them to do that in. Of course, if what you are really saying is that the catastrophe is happening and that it is certain that nothing will be done about it, then I have been misunderstanding you.
(BTW, it really was China and India that diluted the conclusion of that last COP conference down to nothing.)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Correct. You have been misunderstanding me. I believe a catastrophe may well be coming. And I believe any nations which pays attention to this will continue to argue and wrangle. Including arguing about and opposing the solutions I prefer. Your comment about China and India bears me out.
Happy New Year! Sean
Sean,
I think the catastrophe has started and the time to prevent it from becoming irreversible is now very short. I can only base this on statements by environmental scientists and the fact that reports of extreme weather events and temperature rises are bearing them out. There are still some people who deny even this much.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And others who don't care, like China and India. They want their brown coal now, and to heck with the rest of the world.
Happy New Year! Sean
Sean,
Sure they do but our governments need to do what they can, set an example, keep arguing their case, keep pointing out that it is not "to heck with the rest of the world," it is "to heck with the world."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No objection, worth trying. And the best way to set an example is for the UK and US to get serious about nuclear power, to show we really do mean it, about replacing fossil fuels.
Happy New Year! Sean
Sean,
I am not at this stage discussing what is the best way forward, either long-term or short-term. I am not an expert and a lot of people know better than me.
Paul.
According to an email that I have received, we have just 8 years left to cut carbon emissions by more than half, end the extinctions crisis and prevent ecological collapse. This does not mean that I advocate dictatorial banning of fossil fuels with no adequate replacement but it does mean what it says. Andrea thinks that it has been left too late.
Kaor, Paul!
And my view is that nothing is going to be rapidly decided on in those eight years. For reasons I've already listed.
Ad astra! Sean
Yes so we are in a mess.
Post a Comment