What do you think of when you hear the words “Nordic welfare state”? Government-run health care‚ with reasonable fees for regular check-ups but long waiting lists for certain life-saving treatments? Free university education‚ the proviso being that there may not be an opening in your chosen field of study? Rules that make it almost impossible to fire even the most incompetent employee? The ease with which some people  — including immigrants who’ve never even tried to learn the language or find a job — are able to collect social benefits throughout their adult lives? Or the high taxes that are needed to pay for the whole shebang? All of these are indeed major aspects of the Nordic welfare state. But in Norway‚ where I live‚ there are other aspects to the system that you may never have heard of. You might imagine‚ for example‚ that freelance writers operate more or less outside of the system. Au contraire‚ mon ami. In the lives of a great many novelists‚ poets‚ and playwrights‚ the welfare system plays an absolutely crucial role. (READ MORE from Bruce Bawer: Those Who Move to a Different State) I was reminded of this the other day when a quite extraordinary letter to the editor appeared in Norway’s largest newspaper‚ VG. Signed by several dozen of the nation’s critically acclaimed‚ prize-winning authors and headlined “The future of Norwegian literature is at risk‚” it was identified as an opprop — meaning “proclamation” or “announcement.” But I’m going to call it a manifesto‚ because that’s what it reads like. Think Declaration of Independence‚ although it was more like a Declaration of Dependence. You’ll see why in a second.  On the paper’s homepage‚ the story was promoted this way: “Great unrest in forfattar-Norge.” “Forfattar-Norge” literally means “Author Norway‚” which‚ yes‚ sounds odd in English. A proper translation would be something like “in literary Norway” or “among Norwegian authors.” But neither of these‚ especially the latter‚ really captures the corporate — or (better) communal‚ or (even better) collectivist – flavor of the original.  You see‚ in some countries‚ writers and other creative types actually think of themselves as individuals. I imagine some Norwegian writers do‚ too. But among a great many of them‚ something like the medieval guild mentality still reigns. You may recall from history class that in the Middle Ages‚ workers in various fields formed guilds to keep outsiders from practicing their crafts‚ thereby reducing competition and keeping prices high.  You’d think that knowing they’re living on handouts would give these highbrow scribblers a touch of humility. Nope. Such a mentality is utterly different in kind from merely being active on a literary scene. When I lived in New York‚ I went to book parties‚ took part in literary panels at bookstores‚ sat on the board of the National Book Critics Circle‚ and so on. But did I think of myself as part of “Author America” or “Author New York”? Hardly. I didn’t think of myself as part of anything. I felt like I was out there on my own‚ struggling to make ends meet by getting up every morning and spending the day banging out prose.  And I felt lucky — positively exhilarated — to be able to do so. Those book parties and such? They were just an occasional excuse to consort with my fellow free souls. The struggling writer or artist is one of the oldest clichés around‚ but when you’re starting out‚ especially‚ there’s definitely something exciting and romantic — and terrifying‚ too — about making that leap into the unknown‚ and trying to find out if you can pull it off.  In Norway it doesn’t work like that. Allow me to quote the subhead of the VG manifesto: “There is great unrest among Norwegian literary authors. We fear that the unique literary system in Norway‚ which even produced the most recent Nobel Prize winner in literature‚ will disappear. Now we ask that the politicians straighten this matter out.”   As noted‚ that’s just the subhead‚ but you may already have a question or two. What‚ for example‚ is this “unique literary system”? And what is it that’s threatening it? (READ MORE: Imperfect Criticism‚ Great TV: Remembering Siskel &; Ebert) First‚ as to the “unique system”: in Norway‚ a certain cohort of literary-type authors make their living‚ in very large part‚ through sizable grants from state-funded organizations. Some of these writers have to apply every year for their payouts. Others get guaranteed lifetime subsidies. In short‚ if these literary folk have a medieval guild mentality‚ the way that they make a living is right out of the medieval and Renaissance-era system of patronage. The difference is that today the Medicis who foot the bills are the workaday slobs who actually have to get up early‚ drag themselves from their modest homes in Nowheresville to some hated workplace‚ and scrape together enough mazuma to support their families — while also coughing up more than a third of their income in taxes‚ part of which ends up buying pinot noir for layabout littérateurs residing in the tonier parts of Oslo.  Of course‚ those uncouth‚ semi-literate slobs whose taxes cover the costs in this scheme don’t get to decide which writers get their money. Who does? The writers themselves. Who else‚ after all‚ is more qualified? Here’s the deal: this year writer “A” is on the Writers’ Union board‚ and he votes for a stipend for his beloved mentor‚ writer “B”; next year “B” is on the board‚ and okays a subsidy for his brilliant protégé‚ “A.” One hand washes the other. These progressive literary elites‚ then‚ may claim to bleed for the great unwashed‚ but their “system” exists solely to squeeze cash out of the proles and share it among themselves — and make sure that none of it‚ not a single krone‚ is ever spent on a book that one of those poor louts might ever want to read.  Anyway‚ on to question #2: what’s the point of the manifesto? What are all these VIPs upset about? Well‚ apparently the Norwegian government wants to alter the stipend process. What’s amusing is that‚ for all the vaunted literary genius of the manifesto’s many signatories‚ it does a surprisingly lousy job of explaining precisely what changes the government is calling for. All that the manifesto gives us to go on is a quoted passage‚ its provenance unidentified and its contents patently disdained by the manifesto’s signatories‚ which argues that the recipients of literary grants should not just be chosen by writers but also — gasp! — by readers. And not just readers of the refined and récherché; no‚ all readers. While literature must “provoke‚ be difficult‚ set the agenda‚ and challenge conventional frameworks‚” reads the quoted passage‚ these goals “must be balanced with offerings that are widely viewed as accessible and attractive.”   For the manifesto’s signatories‚ those are fighting words: they “simplify” reality; they reflect “a neoliberal disdain for considering and treating literature with an eye to quality”; and if set into system‚ they will lead to “a devaluation of the artist” and endanger the kind of literature “that can’t make it on its own in a marketplace.” The signatories go even further than that: they also oppose granting money for specific writing projects; they want “artists’ stipends‚ not stipends for text production.” Got that? Not only shouldn’t a grant recipient have to have (ugh!) readers; in theory‚ that exquisitely delicate artistic soul shouldn’t even have to write anything. They are artists too‚ after all‚ who‚ instead of banging away at a computer‚ sit for hour after hour in this week’s cool café exchanging profundities with their equally idle literary compeers. (READ MORE: The Glittering Cast of Vienna’s Postwar Émigrés) In the end‚ the manifesto could well have consisted of two sentences: We know what great writing is‚ because we’re the ones who produce it‚ you philistines. So shut up‚ cough up the dough‚ and let us‚ your betters‚ pass it out among ourselves. You’d think that knowing they’re living on handouts would give these highbrow scribblers a touch of humility. Nope. Instead‚ they radiate arrogance and superiority. And audacity. They even claim that the work of Jon Fosse‚ the highly unconventional playwright who won last year’s Nobel Prize in Literature‚ wouldn’t have been possible without Norway’s “unique literary system” — the idea being that such offbeat stuff would never make it in the marketplace. But even before Fosse’s prize‚ he was widely published and produced. I’ve read profiles of him that make it clear he’s doing more than OK financially. Why should my tax money go to him?  Why‚ for that matter‚ should I support manifesto signatory Linn Ullmann‚ daughter of Ingmar — ka-ching! — Bergman? Or signatory Dag Solstad‚ an old Commie propagandist? I’ve seen pictures of these people in their elegant living rooms and gardens and on lavish vacations. Why should I be underwriting their luxuries?  There’s one last factor here. I’d suggest that part of being a truly interesting and worthwhile writer is having known some degree of suffering‚ or at least some tough times — i.e.‚ exactly the kind of existence that a life lived on a stipend is intended to insulate you from. Which is why most of their writing‚ far from being remotely fresh or challenging or provocative‚ is instead deadeningly familiar: each publishing season in Norway brings a new crop of grim novels about the inner lives of brooding‚ sedentary intellectual types. Particularly in a time of crippling financial hardship for Norwegians (among other things‚ insanely high electric bills)‚ it seems the height of gall for self-styled literary artists to be informing the proles that it’s their duty — to those very artists! — to foot the bill for their unread masterpieces.  READ MORE from Bruce Bawer: All Hail Cate Blanchett Bradley Cooper Is Leonard Bernstein — And I Am Marie of Romania The post Norwegian Authors’ Declaration of Dependence (On Government) appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Attendees of last week’s World Economic Forum in Davos experienced something not typically witnessed at the elitist conclave — full-throated critiques of the group and its aspirations. The recently elected president of Argentina‚ Javier Milei‚ in an electric speech condemning collectivism and the failure of Western elites to defend the economic model that lifted approximately 90 percent of the world’s population out of poverty in a little over 200 years‚ called business leaders “heroes” while imploring them not to be intimated by a “political class … [desiring only] to stay in power and retain its privileges.”  Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts sounded similar themes on a panel discussing what to expect from a prospective U.S. Republican administration‚ pointedly describing those at Davos as “part of the problem.” Neither the Rentiers nor the Marks are worthy stewards of the enormous benefits free enterprise has bestowed upon the world. While political leaders‚ international NGOs‚ academics‚ and other public figures comprise a significant number of Davos attendees‚ CEOs and other business leaders may be the largest group in attendance.  As such‚ the proceedings garner significant interest from CNBC‚ Bloomberg TV‚ and other business media‚ focusing on the “capitalists” present at a conference otherwise given over to myriad collectivist objectives.  Who are — or rather‚ what are — these “capitalists”? One might think business leaders have chosen their careers out of free-market convictions (as suggested by Milei’s characterization of them as “heroes”).  Similarly‚ one might also expect those engaged in any given profession or career (particularly those having ascended to leadership roles due to their success) to believe in the merit of their work.  In truth‚ many likely see such efforts as simply making a living‚ and subscribe to other beliefs. (READ MORE from Richard Shinder: The End of Financial Innovation?) Accordingly‚ what are thought of as “capitalists” sit along an ideological spectrum which generally adheres to traditional notions of economic “left” and “right.”  Along this continuum are clustered three general groupings of business professionals. The easiest to characterize sit at the left end of the spectrum: the “Rent Extractors” or “Rentiers.” These are mostly corporatists‚ viewing the commercial realm as but one societal group or faction among several‚ and who individually see commerce as a means to a straightforward personal end — making money.  They are sometimes derisively called “crony capitalists” and are not known to be fans of competition‚ individual merit‚ or the tenets of classical liberalism more generally.  They typically inhabit larger enterprises‚ and now‚ sitting at the controls of these sprawling institutions‚ support policies having the effect of pulling up the opportunity drawbridge behind them.  This group animates the business wing and donor class of the modern Democratic Party. Next are those businesspeople who play their part in a protection racket writ large — let’s call them the “Marks‚” as in victims.  These are capitalists of little conviction or philosophical introspection — while perhaps less hypocritical than the Rentiers‚ their primary professional objective is to be left alone to go about the business of enriching themselves. The Marks will feint in the direction of whatever fad holds corporate America’s attention at the moment — be it DEI‚ stakeholder capitalism‚ the “energy transition‚” or ESG — in order to advance their careers‚ and happily direct corporate and individual philanthropy to causes set on the Marks’ own destruction‚ failing to comprehend that the logical endpoint of these policies is anathema to their very existence.  As with other prey species‚ they manifest a herd mentality and seek safety in numbers.  While they’d be loath to articulate their goals as such‚ in practice their desire is to earn enough money to hopefully insulate themselves from a degraded culture and the consequences of the policies supported by their professional cohort.  It is the Marks that Lenin had in mind when he said “the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” Last are the actual capitalists‚ or “Old Believers.”  They not only believe in the economic advantages of free enterprise‚ but more importantly (as highlighted by President Milei in his WEF speech) its moral superiority.  This group is largely comprised of men and women running small businesses‚ along with a fair number of entrepreneurs.  They are accustomed to having to compete in order to succeed‚ and consider government’s impact on their business more burdensome than helpful. (READ MORE: The New Collectivism of Big Government Elites) The Old Believers are less visible as public figures and traditionally less politically active — likely ensuing from a distaste for politics and the demands of their professional lives.  This low profile in comparison with the Rentiers and Marks has contributed to the belief in our contemporary politics that businesspeople are largely leftists‚ leading to rising anti-business sentiment on the populist right. What many observers fail to appreciate is that the critique of “Davos Man” made by Milei‚ Roberts and others comes from the Old Believers‚ and is directed as much at the Rentiers and Marks masquerading as Milei’s “heroes” as it is at the NGOs and outright collectivists in attendance‚ who make no pretense of their opposition to economic freedom and individual liberty. Those who enjoy the fruits of free markets while failing to protect them from predation either don’t understand the damage of the philosophies they promote (or at least tolerate)‚ or cynically believe they can remain a step ahead of the executioner by playing both sides‚ as with the businessman Viktor Komarovsky in “Dr. Zhivago.”  Neither the Rentiers nor the Marks are worthy stewards of the enormous benefits free enterprise has bestowed upon the world. In the U.S.‚ the institutional left’s contempt for commerce and embrace of collectivism make clear it will never again be a vehicle for promoting the classical liberalism embodied by the Old Believers.  But it is not too late for the political right — in the U.S. and globally — to fully embrace the message of Milei and Roberts‚ and not seek to outdo the left in a counterproductive populist rage directed at free enterprise that only bites the hand that feeds us. Richard Shinder is the managing partner of Theatine Partners‚ a financial consultancy. The post Capitalists Who Believe In Capitalism Are The Good Guys appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Savile Row‚ located in central London‚ was once the home of the Royal Geographical Society (RGS). Lord Curzon described the building as “cramped and rather squalid‚” but on January 25‚ 1904‚ the audience heard a paper read by Halford Mackinder entitled “The Geographical Pivot of History‚” which was later published in The Geographical Journal. After the reading‚ Spencer Wilkinson remarked that he “looked with regret on some of the space that is unoccupied here‚ and I much regret that a portion of it was not occupied by members of the Cabinet.” It was arguably the most important paper ever written on global geopolitics‚ and some of Mackinder’s ideas remain relevant to the 21st century world. It is rare that an article or policy paper on international politics maintains its relevance even for a few years. Born on February 15‚ 1861‚ in Gainsborough in Lincolnshire near the Trent River‚ Mackinder at an early age was drawn to history and geography and according to biographer Brian Blouet‚ he “was fascinated by the Franco-Prussian War” of 1870-71. Mackinder studied at Epsom College and in 1880 entered Christ Church in Oxford‚ where he joined the Oxford University Rifle Volunteers. He later studied geology‚ historical geography‚ and law. Mackinder became a member of RGS in 1886‚ and one year later delivered a lecture there titled “The Scope and Methods of Geography‚” in which he noted that “we are now near the end of the roll of great discoveries.” The future work of geographers‚ he said‚ was to study the relationship of geography and history and to trace the “causal relationship” between the two. In several papers that foreshadowed his “pivot paper‚” Mackinder noted the centrality of Eurasia to global politics and wrote that “the greatest events in the world’s history are related to the greatest features of geography.” (READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: The Arctic Thaw‚ Sino-Russian Partnership‚ and Control of the World-Island)  Mackinder was not just an “armchair” geographer. He participated in the first ascent of Mt. Kenya in 1899. Mackinder wrote a book about the expedition‚ and a scenic route on the mountain is today named “The Mackinder Valley.” He was instrumental in founding the School of Geography at Oxford. He authored several books on the geography of England‚ continental Europe‚ Asia‚ Africa‚ and other regions of the globe. He was also a Conservative Member of Parliament between 1910 and 1922. In Parliament‚ he urged Britain’s government to crush Russia’s newly installed Bolshevik regime which‚ if left alone to spread its virulent ideology‚ he predicted‚ would become a threat to the democracies.  But it was the paper he delivered to RGS in 1904 that immortalized his name and his ideas. Mackinder in the “pivot paper” drew a geopolitical sketch of the globe‚ identifying the vast Eurasian landmass as the seat of a potential world empire. He expressed dismay that Britain’s empire forged by sea power could be supplanted by a power or alliance of powers that gained hegemony in Eurasia and used its human and natural resources to become the world’s dominant land power and sea power — a 20th century version of the Roman Empire at its zenith. Technology was enabling continental-sized states to cohere politically and to expand physically. He foresaw that Germany‚ Russia‚ Japan‚ and possibly China could‚ either separately or combined‚ challenge the British world order. And he urged democratic statesmen to adjust their philosophical ideals to geographical realities. He was not‚ as some later argued‚ a geographical determinist. In the “pivot paper‚” he wrote that the global balance of power was shaped by technology‚ economics‚ relative population‚ and organization. Geography presented both challenges and opportunities to the world’s great powers. The ideas of the “pivot paper” would influence policymakers and statesmen throughout the 20th century. Some of those ideas remain relevant to 21st century geopolitics. Mackinder has influenced the strategic thinking of generations of scholars‚ analysts‚ and practitioners of geopolitics. In the 1920s‚ German geopolitical thinkers‚ led by Karl Haushofer‚ imbibed Mackinder’s theories‚ leading some scholars to blame Mackinder’s ideas for Hitler’s quest for lebensraum (“living space”). In 1942‚ Life magazine published a piece by Joseph Thorndike urging America’s leaders in the midst of World War II to study Mackinder. Mackinder’s book Democratic Ideals and Reality‚ which in 1919 expanded on his “pivot paper‚” was reissued in 1942 (and later in 1962‚ and then again in 1996 by the National Defense University)‚ and one year later the editor of Foreign Affairs asked Mackinder to discuss the relevance of the ideas in the “pivot paper” in the context of the Second World War‚ which Mackinder did in “The Round World and the Winning of the Peace.” In that 1943 essay‚ Mackinder foresaw a world divided between the continental empire of the Soviet Union‚ a North Atlantic alliance (six years before it was actually formed)‚ and the rise of the Asian powers of China and India. The best anyone could hope for‚ he explained‚ was a “balanced globe of human beings.” (READ MORE: The Folly of Empire‚ 20 Years Later) In the 1970s‚ Colin S. Gray revived interest in Mackinder with The Geopolitics of the Nuclear Era‚ which placed the U.S.-Soviet Cold War struggle in the context of Mackinder’s global analyses. Gray followed that up with The Geopolitics of Superpower (1988). In 1994‚ former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger concluded his book Diplomacy noting the continuing relevance of Mackinder’s ideas. In 1997‚ former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinksi wrote The Grand Chessboard‚ which used Mackinder’s ideas to discuss the geopolitics of the post-Cold War world. In the 21st century‚ Robert Kaplan in The Revenge of Geography and in a brilliant paper he wrote for the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment entitled “The Return of Marco Polo’s World‚” examined the U.S.-China conflict in the context of Mackinder’s geopolitical ideas. It is rare that an article or policy paper on international politics maintains its relevance even for a few years. Mackinder’s “pivot paper” stands apart as a timeless analysis of the factors that influence — -and that have nearly always influenced — the global balance of power.  The post Mackinder’s ‘Pivot Paper’ Still Relevant 120 Years Later appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Imagine my surprise upon learning‚ contrary to popular belief and received opinion‚ that the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle never existed. The vast Corpus Aristotelicum‚ including the Metaphysics‚ the Politics‚ the Poetics‚ and the Nicomachean Ethics — all medieval forgeries. Aristotle’s studies at Plato’s Academy‚ his founding of the Peripatetic school‚ his botanical and zoological research alongside Theophrastus on the isle of Lesbos‚ his stint as the head of the royal Academy of Macedon‚ his tutorship of the future rulers Alexander the Great‚ Ptolemy‚ and Cassander — all fabrications. His falling out with Alexander‚ his flight from Athens‚ his death and burial in Chalcis — never happened. The bronze sculpture of Aristotle cast by Lysippos around 330 bc — evidently a misattribution by the German archaeologist Franz Studniczka in his 1908 treatise Das Bildnis des Aristoteles. All this came as a rude awakening for me‚ and likely for you as well‚ dear reader‚ for it would seem that the very origins of Western philosophy and political science have been invented out of whole cloth. Is the better part of Western history itself a tissue of wanton falsehoods? And how could we have been so naïve for century after century? (READ MORE from Matthew Omolesky: November Nights: The Legacy of Henry Chapman Mercer) This groundbreaking revelation‚ which could shake our civilization to the very foundations‚ comes courtesy of the distinguished Chinese scholar Jin Canrong‚ Professor and Associate Dean at the School of International Studies of Renmin University‚ former visiting professor at the University of Michigan’s Gerald Ford School of Public Policy‚ and author of some one hundred academic papers‚ six hundred mass media articles‚ and seven books. Jin is no mere dry-as-dust academic‚ however‚ serving as he does in the capacity of Chair Professor of the Forum of Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference‚ Adviser for the United Front Department and Organization Department of the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee‚ and Adviser on Public Diplomacy for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He is thus a public figure of considerable consequence‚ and while he is admittedly not a classicist‚ but rather a specialist in Sino-American relations‚ we can be sure that he has done his research‚ which he revealed in an October 2023 post on Douyin (China’s version of TikTok) laying out the evidence against Aristotle’s existence.  Jin’s line of reasoning was attractively straightforward. Simply put‚ Aristotle “wrote too much.” He “just popped up‚ and what made it more suspicious was that he seems to have an all-encompassing body of knowledge‚ ranging from optics and ethics to economics and politics.” How could one man‚ Jin wondered‚ have written three million words in just one lifetime? Such prolixity raises practical questions‚ since “according to the analysis of some experts‚ three million words means that‚ even if all the sheepskins produced in one hundred years across the whole region — from the Mediterranean‚ Europe‚ to the Black Sea — were given to Aristotle‚ the materials would not have been enough.” We have long been fed the story that Anselm of Canterbury‚ Thomas Aquinas‚ Maimonides‚ Averroës‚ and other medieval intellectuals based their critical organic method of philosophical analysis on the pioneering work of Aristotle. If Jin Canrong is to be believed‚ then those philosophers were actually the ones inventing Aristotle. Pierce the flimsy veil of Western history‚ Jin suggests‚ and you will doubtless find more insidious‚ heretofore unquestioned lies. It is not hard to see why his social media post went viral in communist and Han chauvinist circles.  Now‚ if you wanted to quibble with Jin’s confident assertions‚ you might counter that Aristotle did not just “pop up” fully-formed‚ like Athena springing from the forehead of Zeus‚ but was instead born in the city of Stagira‚ and studied at Plato’s Academy from the age of seventeen to thirty-seven before being hired by Philip II of Macedon. You might point out that his body of work was really more like one million words‚ and that he was the head of a philosophical school and thus had access to a legion of research assistants and scribes. You might add that Aristotle would not have required “all the sheepskins” of the known world‚ since he would have been using abundantly-available papyrus. And you might note that‚ as the University of Pennsylvania’s Jeremy McInerney did in the aftermath of Jin’s controversial video‚ that “there is copious evidence of philosophers engaging with Aristotle’s ideas and even quoting his texts as early as the 3rd century [B.C.]‚” which would make it very difficult indeed for him to be an invention of the Middle Ages. Faced with those facts‚ you might even conclude that Jin’s Douyin post is one of the most ignorant and least convincing pieces of anti-Western communist propaganda you have ever encountered‚ and that Tsinghua University‚ the University of Michigan‚ and Renmin University should be ashamed for ever having employed someone who is either a shameless‚ mendacious ideological troll‚ or an imbecile. “there’s a myth about Chinese culture — that it’s different from Western culture in its static nature and durability.”   The sort of pseudo-historical nonsense being peddled by Jin is reminiscent of the notorious “New Chronology” advanced by the oddball Russian triumvirate of Anatoly Fomenko‚ Gleb Nosovsky‚ and Vladimir Kalashnikov‚ amateur historical researchers who maintain that the civilizations of ancient Egypt‚ Greece‚ and Rome never existed‚ that written history began in 800 A.D.‚ that Aeneas‚ while real‚ did not found Rome until 1380 A.D.‚ and that Jesus Christ and Byzantine Emperor Andronikos I Komnenos were one and the same. These outlandish claims‚ proof more of a state of forensic lunacy than anything else‚ have evidently made their way to Red China‚ where He Xin‚ quondam researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences‚ published his Research on the Pseudo-history of Greece in 2013‚ thereby inspiring other nationalistic historians skeptical not just of the achievements‚ but of the very existence of the classical world in the West.  Mainstream Chinese scholars like Peking University’s Gao Fengfeng have rightly dubbed these eccentrics “academic yihetuan‚” in reference to the fanatically anti-foreign members of the Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists who fomented the 1899-1901 Boxer Uprising. That a public figure with the resume of Jin Canrong has joined the modern-day yihuetan is disturbing and embarrassing in equal measure‚ and bodes ill for China’s future intellectual climate. (READ MORE: China’s Cultural Revolution: Has Its Violence Come to America?) What is more‚ there is a distinct irony in this Chinese attack on Aristotle’s existence‚ as the dissident journalist Zhou Kexin‚ writing in the pages of Bitter Winter‚ wryly pointed out: “Aristotle seems to be much better documented than Confucius‚ whose existence is never put in doubt by the CCP and Xi Jinping himself.” It is a claim that would likely send Jin Canrong into an apoplectic state‚ but it is true all the same. Indeed the husband and wife team of E. Bruce Brooks and A. Taeko Brooks‚ translators and editors of The Original Analects: Sayings of Confucius and His Successors (1998)‚ have argued that only sixteen of the sayings traditionally attributed to Confucius in the Analects can be traced directly back to the Master‚ with the rest accruing over the centuries. Taking a different approach‚ the University of Notre Dame’s Lionel Jensen‚ author of Manufacturing Confucianism: Chinese Traditions and Universal Civilization (1998)‚ considers Confucius to be more of a “literary trope‚” one initially exalted not by the Chinese but by Jesuit missionaries‚ making him essentially a product of “centuries of relationship between China and the West.” The story of Confucius‚ according to Jensen‚ is the story of “how the sixteenth-century Chinese supplied the raw material‚ with storied forms of Kongzi that inspired the Western celebrity of Confucius and lent novel form to a contested European representation of science and theology; and how the imported nineteenth-century Western conceptual version of nationalism‚ evolution‚ and ethos lent a dimension to the nativist imaginings of twentieth-century Chinese‚ who reinvented Kongzi as a historicized religious figure.”  These provocative arguments have not been well-received in China‚ for obvious reasons‚ but one Chinese professor‚ Aihe Wang‚ has acknowledged that “there’s a myth about Chinese culture — that it’s different from Western culture in its static nature and durability. It’s a kind of Orientalist myth. Anything that contributes to demythifying this point of view is very healthy.” Yet nowhere is that “Orientalist myth” more popular than in China itself. Xi Jinping is fond of saying that Chinese civilization is “the only uninterrupted one in the world‚” so different from the West‚ with its dark ages and barbarian invasions and revolutions. Xi’s use of the word “uninterrupted” is certainly interesting‚ given the repeated invasions of the Chinese heartland by the Xiongnu‚ Jie‚ Qiang‚ Di‚ Xianbei‚ the Tangut‚ the Khitan‚ the Jurchen‚ the Shatuo Turks‚ and many other peoples besides‚ culminating in the Mongol Yuan dynasty and later the Manchu Qing dynasty. This is not to deny China’s remarkable cultural and linguistic continuity over the millennia‚ but there is an obvious reluctance on the part of the communist and Han chauvinist Chinese authorities to recognize the complexities of their country’s history‚ as evidenced by a recent controversy involving the Nantes History Museum. Back in 2020‚ the curators of the Musée d’histoire de Nantes‚ located in France’s Pay de la Loire region‚ were laying the groundworks for a temporary exhibition of Mongol art — “Fils du Ciel et des Steppes: Gengis Khan et la naissance de l’Empire mongol” — when they received word from their Chinese partners at the Inner Mongolia Museum in Hohhot that Yuan-era artifacts would not be made available if the French museum insisted on making reference to Genghis Khan‚ the Mongols‚ the Mongol Empire and its Pax Mongolica‚ or China’s Mongol-dominated Yuan dynasty. Bertrand Guillet‚ director of the Nantes History Museum‚ later described the ludicrous Chinese demands: They told us‚ ‘Don’t use the words Genghis Khan‚ don’t use the words Mongol empire. You’ve used the phrase Yuan dynasty (which ruled China for a century from the time of Kublai Khan‚ grandson of Genghis Khan) — don’t use it.’ Well‚ that’s difficult. You can’t have an exhibition about Genghis Khan without mentioning Genghis Khan. An alternative text provided by the Chinese authorities was filled with blatant historical revisionism‚ which Guillet deemed “unacceptable in terms of professional ethics‚ of historians’ ethics.” And yet‚ in the case of the Nantes Mongol exhibit‚ we encounter a textbook case of what we might call “red fragility‚” an inability to cope with the reality of Chinese history. The Nantes History Museum opted to cancel the exhibition‚ and then worked with Mongolian institutions including the Shoroon Bumbagar Karakhorum Museum‚ the Erdennechuluun Purevjav &; Nemekhbayar Nadpurev Collection‚ the Chinggis Khaan National Museum‚ along with the National Palace Museum in Taipei and other international collections‚ to put together an even more impressive and propaganda-free show‚ “Gengis Khan: Comment les Mongols ont changé le monde‚” which opened on October 14‚ 2023 and will run until May 5‚ 2024. (READ MORE: Xi’s Counterfeit Confucian Dream) How strange it is for a nation with an “uninterrupted” history to object to any mention of the Great Yuan‚ who ruled China from 1271 to 1368. It was under that dynasty‚ mind you‚ that some of the greatest works of Chinese theater were produced‚ masterpieces like The Orphan of Chao‚ The Soul of Ch’ien-Nü Leaves Her Body‚ A Stratagem of Interlocking Rings‚ and (my personal favorite) Autumn in Han Palace. And it was under the Yuan that landscape painting flourished as never before‚ owing to the genius of Zhao Mengfu and the Four Great Masters of the Yuan (Huang Gongwang‚ Ni Zan‚ Wu Zhen‚ and Wang Meng). There is one particular work of Yuan-era art‚ Wang Meng’s 1354 Dwelling in Seclusion in the Summer Mountains (夏山隱居圖)‚ now part of the Freer Gallery of Art’s collection‚ that I seek out as often as possible. It depicts an appealingly sequestered environment in the wilds of Zhejiang Province‚ in which there lies a placid lake surrounded by a profusion of rounded mountain peaks and steep intervening valleys‚ all characteristic of the present-day Wulingyuan Scenic Area. As you run your eyes over this modestly-sized silk scroll (only 22-3/8 x 13-1/2 inches)‚ your gaze will occasionally settle on a charming cottage nestled into a cove or hollow and sheltered by ancient cedars‚ pines and maples‚ and less often on a human figure — a man traversing a plank bridge‚ a mother and child peering out a doorway‚ a couple seated in a lakeside pavilion. Wang Meng’s supreme artistic achievement is to be found among the mountains‚ hills‚ and rocks looming above‚ which have been textured with virtuoso pima cun (披麻皴‚ or “hemp fibre”) brush-strokes‚ as if the painter had dragged strands of raveled rope across the scroll. It is an absolutely stunning landscape‚ one produced‚ if I may be permitted to belabor this point a bit more‚ under the Yuan Dynasty‚ during the reign of Toghon Temür‚ the last Khagan of the Mongol Empire‚ whose predecessors included Kublai Khan and Genghis Khan. These are historical facts‚ as undeniable as the existence of Aristotle‚ however much some cynical or benighted communist officials might object. There is talk of the Nantes Mongol art exhibition traveling to museums in the United States‚ Australia‚ and elsewhere‚ which would be a welcome cultural development and a necessary rebuke to China’s genocidal regime. (Perhaps streets in the host cities could be renamed after Genghis Khan or the Great Yuan‚ much as European streets that run by Russian embassies have been given new names like Free Ukraine Street‚ Ukrainian Heroes’ Street‚ Kyiv Road‚ Plaza of Heroic Mariupol‚ and the like‚ although this may be too much to ask.) In recent months we have seen Chinese so-called Wolf Warrior diplomats like Lu Shaye spout historically-illiterate nonsense about the sovereignty of post-Soviet states or the history of Chinese dominion over Taiwan‚ while academic yihetuan like Jin Canrong advanced pseudo-historical theories that would struggle to meet the scholarly standards of Ancient Aliens. And yet‚ in the case of the Nantes Mongol exhibit‚ we encounter a textbook case of what we might call “red fragility‚” an inability to cope with the reality of Chinese history‚ doubtless stemming from a profound insecurity at the pathetically shallow historical roots of Marxism–Leninism–Maoism in comparison with the far deeper roots of traditional Chinese or Western history. Marxists are by their very nature unable to reckon with the lessons of history — Nicolás Gómez Dávila once observed that “a vocabulary of ten words is enough for a Marxist to explain history [un léxico de diez palabras basta al marxista para explicar la historia]” — and this is a weakness‚ I would suggest‚ that should be ruthlessly mocked and exploited going forward. READ MORE from Matthew Omolesky: The Cohesion of Error: Russia’s Rationales for War ‘Mere Memory’ Is Not Sufficient to Prevent Genocide The post Aristotle Never Existed? The Chinese Aversion to History appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

"Peaky Blinders" and "Oppenheimer" star Cillian Murphy took method acting to the next level when he took on the role of bloodthirsty gangster Thomas Shelby.

by Michael Snyder‚ The Economic Collapse Blog: We live in an environment of complete and utter lawlessness.  When predators boldly roam the streets without fear but good people are literally afraid to leave their own homes‚ that is clearly a sign that our societal collapse has reached a very advanced stage.  Even in the rare […]