<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Speak Victorian, Think Pagan: The Original&#160;Definition</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cominganarchy.com/2008/07/08/speak-victorian-think-pagan-the-original-definition/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cominganarchy.com/2008/07/08/speak-victorian-think-pagan-the-original-definition/</link>
	<description>Speak Victorian, Think Pagan</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:13:32 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: von Kaufman-Turkestansky</title>
		<link>http://cominganarchy.com/2008/07/08/speak-victorian-think-pagan-the-original-definition/comment-page-1/#comment-384465</link>
		<dc:creator>von Kaufman-Turkestansky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:43:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cominganarchy.com/2008/07/08/speak-victorian-think-pagan-the-original-definition/#comment-384465</guid>
		<description>It is certainly a thought-provoking piece. I like his descriptions and many parts of his analysis; he explains many of the tides and forces acting on the world scene really well, but I don&#039;t think that he is able to reconcile the contradictions. I found I could agree with, for example, some of his statements about the role of the media today in Rule 9 - the ambitious pundits of today&#039;s media do influence policy without sharing responsability (one might use that to describe Kaplan himself!) - but the conclusions that I come to from that are totally the opposite of the ones he comes to. Those who speak out against going to war are of course painted as naive, not understanding the price that their ability to protest entails. The masses are ignorant of the source of their prosperity. Kaplan writes:

&quot;... global economic growth in the twenty-first century can be expected to create mass societies even more deluded than the ones we have nowâ€”the very actions necessary to protect human rights and democracy will become increasingly hard to explain to those who have never been deprived of them. The masses &quot;show no concern for the causes and reasons&quot; behind their own well-being, observed the Spanish philosopher JosÃ© Ortega y Gasset in The Revolt of the Masses (1929), a book that was equally prescient about the Fascist rallies of the 1930s and the youth rebellion of the 1960s. Indeed, the peace demonstrators last February appeared to have no idea whatsoever that their very freedom to demonstrate had been won by war and conquest in the service of libertyâ€”precisely what the U.S. and British governments were proposing to do in Iraq...&quot;

I am not saying that Kaplan has changed a position or anything like that, but subsequent events have provided him with a lot of explaining to do, which just serves to highlight the need for the media and &quot;the masses&quot; to ask questions of those who are making policies for them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is certainly a thought-provoking piece. I like his descriptions and many parts of his analysis; he explains many of the tides and forces acting on the world scene really well, but I don&#8217;t think that he is able to reconcile the contradictions. I found I could agree with, for example, some of his statements about the role of the media today in Rule 9 &#8211; the ambitious pundits of today&#8217;s media do influence policy without sharing responsability (one might use that to describe Kaplan himself!) &#8211; but the conclusions that I come to from that are totally the opposite of the ones he comes to. Those who speak out against going to war are of course painted as naive, not understanding the price that their ability to protest entails. The masses are ignorant of the source of their prosperity. Kaplan writes:</p>

<p>&#8220;&#8230; global economic growth in the twenty-first century can be expected to create mass societies even more deluded than the ones we have now&acirc;€”the very actions necessary to protect human rights and democracy will become increasingly hard to explain to those who have never been deprived of them. The masses &#8220;show no concern for the causes and reasons&#8221; behind their own well-being, observed the Spanish philosopher Jos&Atilde;&copy; Ortega y Gasset in The Revolt of the Masses (1929), a book that was equally prescient about the Fascist rallies of the 1930s and the youth rebellion of the 1960s. Indeed, the peace demonstrators last February appeared to have no idea whatsoever that their very freedom to demonstrate had been won by war and conquest in the service of liberty&acirc;€”precisely what the <span class="caps">U.S. </span>and British governments were proposing to do in Iraq&#8230;&#8221;</p>

<p>I am not saying that Kaplan has changed a position or anything like that, but subsequent events have provided him with a lot of explaining to do, which just serves to highlight the need for the media and &#8220;the masses&#8221; to ask questions of those who are making policies for them.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ralph Hitchens</title>
		<link>http://cominganarchy.com/2008/07/08/speak-victorian-think-pagan-the-original-definition/comment-page-1/#comment-384462</link>
		<dc:creator>Ralph Hitchens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:18:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cominganarchy.com/2008/07/08/speak-victorian-think-pagan-the-original-definition/#comment-384462</guid>
		<description>I really wish we could get away from all this &quot;imperial&quot; rhetoric.  While the US has, indisputably, the greatest military potential of any single or aggregate geopolitical entity, the world system is far different than it was during the days of Curzon et. al.  The &quot;trouble factors&quot; in the world today are, principally, terrorism and energy security -- troubles that all of us face, and require collective solutions.  The current US administration is at once mendacious and horribly, terribly obsolete in its thinking, and once it passes away we shall return to the sort of American worldview that Bill Clinton inherited and tried to foster.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really wish we could get away from all this &#8220;imperial&#8221; rhetoric.  While the US has, indisputably, the greatest military potential of any single or aggregate geopolitical entity, the world system is far different than it was during the days of Curzon et. al.  The &#8220;trouble factors&#8221; in the world today are, principally, terrorism and energy security &#8212; troubles that all of us face, and require collective solutions.  The current US administration is at once mendacious and horribly, terribly obsolete in its thinking, and once it passes away we shall return to the sort of American worldview that Bill Clinton inherited and tried to foster.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: IJ</title>
		<link>http://cominganarchy.com/2008/07/08/speak-victorian-think-pagan-the-original-definition/comment-page-1/#comment-384458</link>
		<dc:creator>IJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:53:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cominganarchy.com/2008/07/08/speak-victorian-think-pagan-the-original-definition/#comment-384458</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;we may be able to nurture a loose set of global arrangements that have arisen organically among &lt;b&gt;responsible&lt;/b&gt;and like-minded states&lt;/i&gt;

Great article.  And it begs the question of what happens when most of the world agrees that an empire is extracting too much from them.  Moreover the existing international institutions can&#039;t correct the imbalance.
  
The empire can of course argue it is exceptional and most of the world is irresponsible. However the hostility simply builds and builds.
 
Big states must surely be bound by international norms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>we may be able to nurture a loose set of global arrangements that have arisen organically among <b>responsible</b>and like-minded states</i></p>

<p>Great article.  And it begs the question of what happens when most of the world agrees that an empire is extracting too much from them.  Moreover the existing international institutions can&#8217;t correct the imbalance.<br />
  <br />
The empire can of course argue it is exceptional and most of the world is irresponsible. However the hostility simply builds and builds.<br />
 <br />
Big states must surely be bound by international norms.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
