Dear Bertil, Whilst we are on 'gut reactions', I note that I have become an apologist for and supporter of the Soviet Union in your post (solely to bolster my own sense of self importance, naturally). This is, of course, clap trap. If you read my post, you will see that at no point do I argue for the Soviet Union, nor do I deny the presence of vast piles of unbelievably destructive weaponry aimed and ready. I too lived in a military target zone - (in many ways it was probably safest to be close to a nuclear armed sub, its target was not usually nearby).
The threat of destruction was indeed real and sometimes perilously close (through brinksmanship or just stupidity. Cuba, anyone?) However, this is not the same thing as 'the soviet threat', the hallucinatory image of a Soviet Union determined to bring down the west by any means and expand its empire (Red Army tanks rolling through the FDR etc.) As I said, the evidence is now that this was never planned by the Soviet Union (from the period of Stalin's 'Socialism in One Country' onwards). The evidence also is that both the military strength and the intentions of the S.U. were wilfully misrepresented by the US military, CIA etc, with the eager support of the arms industry. No doubt something similar was happening in the S.U with regard to the US. Hence my point that the cold war was a charade and the 'threats' to be defended against were invented. The very real threat of destruction was the result. I'm not sure how these being 1960s 'left-wing phrases' disqualifies them from being in accord with the documentary evidence. Perhaps 1960s phrases are the only suitable response to 1950s rhetorics? Cyclical history strikes again. Thanks for the gloss on 'the west', although I'm still not sure if it is a religious, political or cultural entity (or a mix of all three?) that you are concerned with. The *idea* of freedom, yes - agreed, if not its practice. You do not, I note, pursue your nervous vision of a Sino-Islamic alliance. >Your reaction could have anything to do we the fact that it was the >British >who handed over HK to the regime in Beijing ? No, it couldn't - at least not if you are implying I am fuelled by imperial nostalgia. Personally, I found the 'ceremony' very funny, and the rain was a nice touch. As to the rest, the UK government's refusal to give passports to Hong Kong citizens (or was it subjects?) was a disgrace. >Many people don't like cyclical thinking: Ibn Khaldoun, Giambattista >Vico, >Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee. It is sort of gut reaction of some. >The cyclists have a right of hearing, though. Cyclical thinking is daft, if frequent. Cyclical histories, on the other hand, as you say are at least worth hearing and considering. But when they come attached to neat and recurring time periods, I place about as much trust in them as I do the Age of Aquarius. >So what about EJs World State after the collapse of the communist >Chinese >regime ? Would that be something to discuss ? It would indeed, although this is quite a change of territory from the 'new cold war'. Yours, bemoaning his loss of influence in the media, Giles
