Fire and Ice ~ By Robert Frost
"Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favour fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice."
The above poem is not only a nice poem but as with good poems it condenses the core elements of the content as much as possible, in this case the musings on "destructive emotions that shape the consequential external destruction invoked". In this spirit, it's also referred to by George R.R. Martin in his series of fantasy epic: A Song Of Fire And Ice and acts as the complete canvas to all the micro and macro dramas in that "tapestry"; involving multiple warring factions which itself is loosely based in historic events of The War Of The Roses (and other such conflicts fictional or historic):-
"The Wars of the Roses was a series of wars for control of the throne of England. They were fought between supporters of two rival branches of the royal House of Plantagenet, the Houses of Lancaster and York. They were fought in several sporadic episodes between 1455 and 1487, although there was related fighting before and after this period. The conflict resulted from social and financial troubles that followed the Hundred Years' War, combined with the mental infirmity and weak rule of Henry VI, which revived interest in Richard, Duke of York's claim to the throne."
Here was a war for control of the Throne of England. Subsequently power itself was fought over in The English Civil War:-
"The English Civil War (1642–1651) was a series of armed conflicts and political machinations between Parliamentarians ("Roundheads") and Royalists ("Cavaliers") over, principally, the manner of its government. The first (1642–46) and second (1648–49) wars pitted the supporters of King Charles I against the supporters of the Long Parliament, while the third (1649–51) saw fighting between supporters of King Charles II and supporters of the Rump Parliament. The war ended with the Parliamentarian victory at the Battle of Worcester on 3 September 1651."Here was a conflict between two factions: The Throne and the emerging power of Parliament itself.
Before moving onto the third and final "conflict" in this series on "Conflicts of Power by Internal Forces" centred on Political Power in our history, we need to take a view of another history neighbouring, a "Conflict of Power Amongst External Forces": Two relatively recent blog posts on this subject by Dr. RAE North at EUReferendum.com and in connection with the recent Introduction by Christopher Booker to FLEXCIT: The Movie:-
They are, how to express how essential these two summaries from The Great Deception, essential to understanding the genesis of forces acting on the Remain side of the question in the upcoming EU Referendum Question and as I asserted in the previous blog, any derivative motivations and intentions of the modern descendants or inheritors of this strand of feeling and thinking in how to "manage power":-
"What was especially interesting, though, is that Juncker and Cameron are pictured visiting a First World War cemetery on the Somme, despite the official hagiography of the EU firmly rooting its genesis in the post-WWII period.
In fact, the First World War was far more important to the intellectual genesis of the EU than the Second, something that Booker and I observed in The Great Deception (see p.14 et seq).
So vital is it that we start Chapter One with an account of how, on 22 September 1984, two portly middle-aged men stood holding hands in front of the largest pile of human bones in Europe. One was the President of France, François Mitterrand; the other the Chancellor of Germany, Helmut Kohl.
The reason why the two most powerful political leaders in western Europe were staging an act of reconciliation before tens of thousands of graves was that the site of this ceremony was the ossuary at Douaumont, just outside Verdun in eastern France.
And if there was one historical event which more than any other inspired what was eventually to become the European Union, it was the battle which had raged around Verdun the First World War. For the British the defining battle of that war was the Somme in the summer of 1916."
The Great Deception (2nd Edition Link)
And again in the subsequent blog but with a view not to the past (World War I) but to the future (World War III):-
"With Mr Cameron claiming on this of all days, "Europe Day", that leaving the EU would bring us closer to war, all he is actually doing is repeating the most insidious myth of them all in relation to the European Union - that this monstrous construct has helped keep the peace.
The myth finds is purest form in the EU hagiography, where the European Commission's asserts that "probably very few people in Europe know that on 9 May 1950 the first move was made towards the creation of what is now known as the European Union".Crucially, it would have us believe that this was an attempt at preventing a Third World War, but completely omits to tell us that the intellectual genesis lies not in the post-WWII period but in the 1920s, devised is response to the problems arising out of the First World War.
For the myth-makers, though, the origin of the EU was Paris on 9 May 1950. Against the background of the threat of a Third World War engulfing the whole of Europe, the then French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman (pictured above, right, with Jean Monnet) read to the international press a declaration calling France, Germany and other European countries to pool their coal and steel production as "the first concrete foundation of a European federation".
This was what was on offer was the creation of a supranational European Institution, charged with the management of the coal and steel industry, the very sector which was, at that time, the basis of all military power. The countries which Schuman called upon had almost destroyed each other "in a dreadful conflict which had left after it a sense of material and moral desolation". Thus, concludes the European Commission in its own history, "Everything... began that day".
Needless to say, the reality is very different. Far from the heroic Schuman standing at the centre of the "project", he turns out to be little more than an unwitting stooge, manipulated by one man who had made its his life's work to set up a "government for Europe"."
That man was Jean Monnet.
FLEXCIT THE MOVIE Intro by Christopher Booker. ~ Linking both sides of the argument and pointing out the difference between quality arguments and "destructive low quality emotions" that dominate the Referendum today.
What we see is that the widely held belief about the EU is itself a Myth taking the form of a "Creation Story" and that story is not factually/historically accurate, even if it's hyper-emotional. Far from seeing the genesis of obsolescence alone, we see the seeds of destructive emotion where perhaps "we least expect it" and indeed the European Union does not appear to have developed as perhaps so many in power set the peoples' expectations for it towards, only 10 or 15 years ago?
The "Creation Story" is very important, to forging an "origin of legitimacy for political union and power". Ultimately (that means eventually on this preset course!) however this requires a formation of an established "Demos" of some form as acknowledged perhaps under International Law? Indeed much of this is the thinking behind those who still support the further Political Union of the EU:-
So you see, the assertion in the previous blog for both sides of the argument, despite my personal support of one over the other, I think is still highly applicable, irrespective of my own opinions, the arguments themselves must be asserted.
And here is indeed where and why I part ways with the EU Remain side: Those destructive emotions we see in our histories and in our stories ultimately find their most potent form when the consolidate and centralized around power instead of dispersing or controlling that power or "kratos" as per The Harrogate Agenda:-
To be clear I'm not pitting the forces of "Good" on one side vs the forces of "Evil" on the other side. For some European Nations the EU may indeed under The Fundamental Law above be a very necessary next step for many possible reasons.
However, coming back to the UK, and those historic "Internal Conflicts" over the source and control of political power:-
- The War Of The Roses (Throne vs Throne)
- The English Civil War (Throne vs Parliament)
- EU Referendum (Parliament vs People)
If we take another model of understanding and apply it to this posited idea:-
What we see is that the basic necessities of life are much to are "First World Problems" chagrin catered for and we run up against another layer of problems. In fact "Safety" is a basic expectation of our own government and social contract with the state. But it is a basic "need" and one that I'm sure the UK is predominantly in control of. Yet the government failing at delivering "higher needs" inevitably overplay's it's hand concerning how valuable it is and indeed how valuable the EU is, doubly so given it's own "Creation Story" in this area. And so so much of the debate is bogged down via lower quality arguments and lower order needs without a positive argument that reaches towards more productive and creative and growth generating solutions:-
- Flexcit the Movie: The Plan - Part 1
- Flexcit the Movie: The Plan – Part 2
- Flexcit the Movie: The Plan – Part 3
I'd finish this overview of history and the "Remain" side of the question, by suggesting for the UK, clinging to "security and safety" is the least or minimum of our aspirations for progress. And driving that "expectation setting" is our own Parliament and politicians who in my opinion more than anyone appear to be holding back the UK's ability at creative thinking to solve our modern and very global problems.
