Comments on: Review of “Global Catastrophes and Trends” (V. Smil)

By: Leo

Leo — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:42:25 +0000

AK,the first ten problems facing Western Europe (and perhaps later E. Europe) are immigration,immigration,immigration… Anyone been to Malta recently or the Aegean ? I do periodically travel to Europe and the changes in ,say, London and Paris are more stunning on each visit. What is happening today is better characterized as an invasion and if not treated as an invasion will result in the obliteration of the supine hosts. The author notes France is “demographically healthy” and now 10% Muslim(and growing).Excuse me, that’s openly impossible. As France becomes less French it is obviously not “demographically healthy” and the riot de jour around Paris displays the rot. I actually doubt the bulk of the European living space will be overtaken but only because many Europeans, especially but not only in the East, will see(or even today see) this for the invasion it clearly and deliberately is and react to survive.That means fight to survive,if necessary.I do not accept Steyn’s continental-wide apocalyptic doom but he has a better grip on today’s situation than Martin Walker’s ostrich pose.I agree with Derbyshire that contra Steyn Europe is more likely to survive the great Third World Invasion than America because frankly there will be a revival of “ethnonationalism” among the natives. I’ve seen that begin,too,say in Italy. As for the United States,there is no long term optimism creditable to me.America is so stridently “nationalist” to the rest of the world because deep down we fear whether we are even a coherent “nation”anymore.You know our pride;do you know our insecurity? “Abundant land and mineral resources ” are present throughout the poorest regions of the world;these factors cannot save us.What has made the United States previously great: a rational immigration policy that largely attracted the best and brightest–not the “huddled masses” of legend; a sturdy Constitution studiously honored for its actual content; a population remarkable for its hard work and firearms ownership; a system of governance loathe to interfere and coddle and strangle the American in his private and business affairs;a populace so Christian as to startle foreign observers (and a landscape only rivaled by pre-Revolution Russia in its abundance of churches) ,inter alia. None of this applies to “America” anymore–and can only survive in some parts that break off. Informally,we already are “seceding” from each other. I deliberately write “America” because it is the official policy of our government(s) that there is no longer an “American”.Compare that to say TR’s AMERICA of 100 years ago. Yet I am mid-term(not short-term) bullish about America because the Dems and Obama will be tossed out in 2010 and 2012.The projected tip of America into a “white-minority ” country will not much effect these backlash elections.There will be a sudden economic comeback based on euphoria. But long term the GOP will probably ramp back up the self-destructive imperialism, refuse to control the borders, fail to demolish “multiculturalism” and dare not restore the Constitution.And at this point our current recklessness has probably already established a future “debt bomb” that can no longer be defused. Go short on 20 year US Treasuries…real short. I doubt 2016 and on will be much good here.But I’ll be old and near the end of my race by then. Hopefully you’ll be living in peace and prosperity in Russia with a large family?

By: AK

AK — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:00:28 +0000

1. These are almost all Smil's opinions, though I happen to share most of them. I agree that the French model is looking decisively better now than it did five years ago, though it still retains a number of structural problems. 2. I'm bearish on Latin America. Though their societies tend be stable and enjoyable, they have huge obstacles to economic prosperity, namely: a) an appalling education system (see my cross-country analysis from a year back), b) extreme socio-economic inequalities (the Gini index of income inequality tends to be at 60+ with low social mobility, even "21st century socialist" Venezuela is at 41), and c) stifling bureaucracies and corruption with the exception of Chile. 3. Scotland is more important than it appears, I think. It hosts the UK's major naval bases and ship-building facilities. It would be the rough equivalent of the US losing the Mid-West or the USSR losing eastern Ukraine. 4. Russia is resurgent in a major way relative to the 1990's, which is what Smil is talking about. He considers the chances of Russia reaching the influence of the old USSR vanishingly small. And I would agree, even if Russia reconstitutes its empire. 5. The main US problem is medium-term, namely its imbalances and what it will mean for the $. If it falls then the US could be in for a classic emerging market currency crisis, import crunch, and big fall in living standards. In the longer-term I am much more optimistic because of its still abundant land and mineral resources relative to the rest of the world.

By: Gregor

Gregor — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:31:50 +0000

Interesting review Anatoly; I am myself as a historian very doubtful about predicting the future. But it sounds like he makes interesting points. A few quick points of my own.

Whilst I have not read the book (and don’t know the context) his comment about the global middle classes seems true. As John Gray once said (I forget his exact words so this is a paraphrase) ‘free market capitalism achieved something that communism couldn’t: the destruction of British middle class culture’.

That is correct. Whilst class hatred in Britain must be at a century long high, the British ‘middle classes’ are just people who earn a bit more, though they have the same abysmal taste in clothes, music and television. Maybe the word ‘bourgeoisie’ (with its cultural connotations) would be closer to what he means.

As for some other points, I would disagree that Russia is truly resurgent. I hope it manages to secure its borders and stop demographic collapse, but I doubt if it will have much influence outside the fragile nations in the former USSR.

As for the USA, I think it is intellectually vulnerable. Its economy and the status of the dollar means that it will still be strong and Hispanic secession is vastly overhyped. But frankly, an empire needs very clever people in charge, and America does not have these (or it might but for political reasons they will be unlikely to receive promotion). Also neo-liberalism cannot sustain an empire because it is based on the idea that empires provide good short term profits and ‘shock therapy’ works. Even oil rich Iraq has let a hole in the American pocket. And the civil war there is as much the result of economic shock therapy in socialist Iraq as it was of Shia/ Sunni rivalry.

I do not think that secession movements will have much impact on Britain. Even if we Scots get independence, that is just 5million people in a nation that could have as many as 70 million inhabitants. Due to the vast media consensus concerning neo-liberalism, and their abysmal civil liberties, I can see England turning into a 80s South American style nation with a generalissimo and his plutocracy going through barrios in bullet proof landrovers. Yet I think it will still attract skilled migrants. Still, the flip side is that Tory party members are dying out, and the Labour party members are following them. Who knows what British politics will be like in future?

(Largely OT, but this is an interesting chart concerning Britain/ neoliberalism which could be of future interest: http://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/even-thatcher-didnt-cut-public-spending-like-this/ )

From your review, he does not seem to mention Latin America much. Yet I think for demographic reasons, it may be a place to watch. (especially if Europe changes drastically, as it might, to Afro-Asian immigration, it may look to closer Latin American relations).

Lastly, I think you are a bit harsh on France. They have problems but the dirigisme has served them well so far.