Incidents of Travel in Latin America

by Lars Holger Holm

  My argument follows the premise that a will to expansion is the imperative inherent in all territorial power. Lilliputian ‘nations’ like Andorra, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Monaco are historical fossils that have only been allowed continued existence because they provide bigger countries with some indispensable commodities, such as tax relief for all too rich citizens, cheap booze, weapon hideouts, casinos and brothels.

  Any budding nation obtaining a modicum of wealth and power instinctively strives to enlarge its territory. This leads to inter-national warfare in the course of which disputes over territory are finally (after many centuries) settled in such manner as to finally make the whole concept of nation states obsolete. In this situation massive immigration from outside, as well as regional claims to relative independence, are only some of the aspects of the dissolution of nation states at the behest of even larger political organisations, such as the modern empire of China, the federal union of the United States of America and the European Union.

  If we agree that an empire — by one of many possible definitions — is a nation state infatuated by delusions of grandeur, it follows that it must be driven by an even greater will to ingest neighbouring countries and territories (China’s relation to Tibet would form a case in point). The United States has not for a long time shown any apparent will to officially expand its geographical territory. By the definition given it is consequently doubtful whether the U.S. can be described as an empire. However, if financial expansion (war by economic means), military infiltration, political control over territories, (nominally remaining independent countries), can be considered imperialistic traits, then the U.S. too most certainly falls into this category.

  Let’s assume that we maintain the definition of a modern nation state as a democratic, open society in which the citizens are both accustomed to and know how to responsibly enjoy their freedom. Let’s also assume that we affirm the ideal that such sovereignty should never have to fear being the victim of aggression from outside its own legal perimetre, since it has signed international treaties under common law with all its neighbours to respect their territorial claims, just as much as it thereby has ascertained its own right to administrative control of its own ‘once and for all’ given geographical area. Well then.

  Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his Discourse on the Origins and the Foundation of Inequality among Men, envisaged more than 250 years ago a Utopian ideal that with the present day political and legislative unification of Europe has become a positive reality. I quote from his ‘Dedication’, addressed to the unnamed representatives of the Republic of Geneva: ‘I would have liked to choose a country [to live in] that, forced by a fortuitous incapacity, has turned away from the ferocious love of conquests, and, by a still more fortuitous position, has been spared the fear of becoming attached to another state.’

  Just as much as Rousseau imagined this to be a single, independent country, the fact is that in the larger Europe of today such guarantee to peacefully exist within the confines of a democratic nation state, exempt of the fear of being invaded by a neighbouring state coveting its riches, has only recently been created. It’s precisely the supra-national character of the EU which guarantees that no member state will be left to its own devices in case of being attacked from the outside. The national price to be paid for this security is the handing over of parts of the legislative power to a central, federal government, consisting of representatives for each and every member state in proportion to demographic density and industrial/financial importance.

  In my articles, though, I wasn’t trying to advance Jean-Jacques’ view to back up my argument, since nothing would have helped me gain popularity among the participants of the forum for as long as my conclusion remained, that the centralisation of power to a supra-national legislative body is a necessary price to pay for national security in the event of an exterior military aggression — whereby it should be kept in mind that the particular country they have in mind (Sweden) has long since scrapped its army and, although not formally a member of NATO, put its entire defence, in case it ever be needed, in the hands of the very same military organisation. Nor did I care to enumerate the advantages of no longer having to deal with elaborate customs and border controls, different currencies and national tolls to travel within Europe, since, unfortunately, to advocate such evident benefits of a European Union would have been in vain over and against a readership that to some extent actually seems to prefer seeing Sweden invaded by and integrated into Russia rather than tolerating a NATO presence on Swedish soil!

  In my opinion such conviction can at best only be regarded as a naiveté among members of a population that hasn’t suffered the immediate consequences of a war in over 200 years. Thus realistically, if also a bit pessimistically: in the name of a Pax Europaea (to be compared to the Pax Romana which inaugurated the drawn out decline of the Roman civilisation, as well as the Pax Americana upon which the current European model is ultimately based), I feel compelled to defend the integration into, and the eventual dissolution of European nation states within, the all-pervasive organisation of a United States of Europe, even if such union necessarily also entails common laws, taxes, budgets, as well as the social, racial, spiritual standardisation, homogenisation and nivellation of the European civilisation as a whole. (With hindsight it’s easy to see that, had it not been for the perseverance of American federalists, the U.S. would never have been able to successfully break its traditional isolationist stance. On the contrary, America’s role in international affairs would have been sorely limited, and it’s doubtful if she would have been able to even come to the rescue of the allied European countries in two world wars.)

  Hence my bottom line: it’s still up to anyone to enjoy the cultural particularities of any given European region because these, if encouraged to do so, will remain intact for some time to come. The price to be paid, however, for the continued internal peace of Europe is an ‘ave imperator’ in the direction of Brussels. The hypothetical dissolution of the parliament there would bring about a rapid annihilation of the already scattered remains of old Europe, even the dismantling of modern civilisation as we think we know it. To those who inversely, and quite justifiably, object that freedom of speech and press is presently compromised in many European countries — notably in some of those that fought the hardest to obtain it, such as England and France — I object that this has little to do with national policies per se, and much more with the influence and pressure which post World War II Jewish and Israeli interest organisations and lobby groups exert on European politics and legislation.

  My position — besides being fiercely individualistic and politically independent — has the awkwardness of being broadly ‘anti-Semitic’, since I regard even mainstream Islam (and not just its radicalised ‘elites’) as a political and cultural danger to the rest of the world.7 This stance, on the other hand, does not provide me with recourse to some parochial wish dream for national resurrection, ethnic purity and the like. Notwithstanding that ignorance is bliss, and that blondes presumably have more fun, You and I — taken as symbols of men without money and power — will always be regarded as non-entities by those who rule. The best we can ever hope for is for the dragon to continue feeding itself elsewhere and leave us to modestly pursue our self-imposed quest in the hope that other lonely souls will find a source of inspiration (perhaps even comfort and dialogue) in us, and thence gain the strength necessary to seek out an individual path worth travelling through the spiritual and emotional wasteland of our contemporary, technically perfected civilisation.

  I am, alas, painfully aware of the incompetence, egotism and wickedness of our politicians, making a single honest man or woman in this context the exception that confirms the rule. By personal experience I know politicians to be nearly the worst kind of people imaginable, but that’s why they are politicians and not something inherently more respectable, which is also why they will always be around no matter ho
w we toss and turn the coins. In view of this, the present European Union — though far from being an ideal assembly — is at least a reasonably realistic attempt at keeping Europe socially, financially and politically together. Notwithstanding the enormous difficulties associated with such an undertaking, the alternatives are most likely even worse. For the European nations to once again relapse into petty rivalry, skirmishing, or even war, would spell the beginning of the end of a Europe trying to assume its rightful place as a diplomatic mediator (dictated not the least by its geographical location) and to exert a stabilising, even civilising, influence on the political giant powers of the United States, Russia, and China.

  Having this opinion doesn’t prevent me from being an inveterate individualist in many other respects. All my life I have felt an aversion against arbitrary authority, as well as against rules and regulations aiming, in the name of security, at a limitation of my personal responsibility and freedom. My happiness always consisted in being able to slip through the cracks of the system, to stay away from the blinded Polyphemus as he fumbles after a new victim in the opening to the cave where he keeps us all imprisoned. Riding out undetected under the belly of an innocent sheep has often been my proudest act of chivalry, and I have — sometimes grudgingly but in the end with relief — preferred the anonymity and modesty of an itinerant and lonely, publicly unacknowledged existence, to the wicked compromise and life-long hypocrisy that so often has turned out to be the prerequisite of a life in the public eye.

  My solitary way of life has furthermore entrusted me with complete responsibility for my own actions, which also means I’m constantly exposed not only to the sweet fruits, but also to the very real dangers of freedom. I have the jealous conscience of a philosopher; jealous of every external being or circumstance infringing upon my freedom, mental deliberations and peace of mind. I don’t like too many comments on my habits, even when dictated by the best intentions and aimed at my potentially worst tendencies. And although to cautiously avoid getting mixed up with riches, men in power and treacherous women does not as such make anyone a grand philosopher, it certainly is the beginning of wisdom.

  As far as the European Union goes, I don’t like the idea of parking tickets and tax reports being freely exchanged between countries. I — who don’t even like to pay for parking garages and always, if I stand a reasonable chance to get away with it, tailgate other cars for free exit — still hope that language and other cultural barriers will make this exchange of personal data and infractions so difficult that it becomes impracticable. Inversely, I really cherish the idea of national populations remaining as eccentric and indomitable as they in reality are, or ought to be. Even so, my reason prompts me to remain a confirmed unionist, at least in theory.

  So far as political opinions go, and again in theory, I probably come closest to being some kind of Libertarian. In reality and practical life I’m an Anarchist, but I don’t like to boast of this in any way, since anarchy is only a good thing for the chosen few who naturally treat other people with courtesy and respect and in social intercourse are guided by a benevolent common sense. Although I never had a say regarding the formulation of the laws and their applications, I can go as far as to acknowledge that they seem intended, at best, to be the same for everyone. However, I do reserve the right to break against these same rules and laws on occasion, and to my own benefit, if it can be done without harm to anyone and, above all, go unnoticed and unpunished. But the main reason I don’t want to publicly advocate Anarchism, is that although it’s an appropriate political persuasion for a spiritually endowed man aspiring to be just and noble in his dealings with other people, it’s a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of an envious and resentful person. Adopted as a political ideology on behalf of the masses it would simply wreak havoc within society and end with the utter destruction of the same. Anarchism must be practiced as an individual regime. Only as such can it be successfully reconciled with a gentlemanly disposition.

  It follows that I have an instinctive and deep seated aversion against the unprovoked intervention of the state in the private life of citizens, and hold the opinion that the power of the state should never be allowed to exceed a certain limit. But there has to be some state surveillance, in particular as regards the present financial and industrial system, in which individuals are crushed anyway, and would be so even easier if there were no regulations at all — our recent so-called recessions and capitalistic crises should provide more than ample proof of the necessity for state vigilance on behalf of the majority of the population suffering at the hands of ruthlessly greedy banks and corporations.

  What I fear the most, however, as far as the European Union is concerned, is that the Swedish political model combining unlimited immigration from culturally backward Arab and African countries with widespread social fear and repressive tolerance — I spent my entire childhood and youth in its stifling atmosphere — will be allowed to unduly influence the rest of Europe. Socially speaking the Swedish society is a nightmare come true, dominated by a monumental officially sanctioned hypocrisy, requiring any man participating in public life to line up — as in the ancient Near Eastern cult of the great Mother goddess Cybele — to have his balls cut off before being allowed to join the choir. My hope was always that Sweden, influenced by the rest of Europe, was going to experience an enforced change for the better. Meanwhile I have sincerely wished for all important general decisions regarding the future of the country to be taken in Brussels, since no such decision can possibly be any worse than the insane political policies carried out to this date by our nationally appointed representatives.

  I can hardly think of anything so utterly horrifying as a ‘Made in Sweden’ feminist worldview on export to the rest of the world. For this reason I prefer to underscore my European heritage and lineage, realising that this same old Europe, notwithstanding centuries of wars, crises and convulsions, culturally, if not actually politically, has striven to become one and indivisible practically since the fall of the Roman Empire. With hindsight, the nation states were the stepping stones to reach this supreme realisation, the profound significance of which, in spite of many previous auguries, is only beginning to be grasped in our day and age. As mentioned above, a nation state with once and for all fixed geographical borders is a horror vacui, even a contradiction in terms. Sooner or later it has to seek to merge with a larger political body, and that’s why the now allegedly peace loving nation states of Europe, at their present stage of development, are in real need of some kind of Pan-European Union to be able to influence the political, social and economic evolution of our planet.

  Inversely, my critique of the existing European Union is that it’s not European enough, meaning that it simply doesn’t make enough to defend the individual European citizen against his enemies — external or internal, whereby I consider many national governments, hiding behind the non-committal tern ‘EU-regulation’ in order to cover up their local banditry, to be some of our worst oppressors. For example, the reckless admittance into the European Union of countries such as Romania and Bulgaria has become yet another unwarranted social and financial burden for the taxpayers in more efficiently organised unionised countries. It’s no less than scandalous that Romania and Bulgaria are unable, even unwilling, to deal with their own widespread social misery. Instead they appear relieved to see their beggars and social pariahs migrate to the richer countries of the north, where they subsequently become entitled to all kinds of support and subsidies thanks to well-developed social security systems based on a willingness, and a capacity, on an individual level to actually pay taxes — the present grave financial crisis of the Greek society is mainly due to its maintaining of the most generous pension system in all of Europe for state employees without sufficient tax money to back it up. If alone letting Greece into the club finally appears to have been a mistake, what then about Romania and Bulgaria — possibly the next European nations to declare bankruptcy — n
ot to speak of the frivolous idea of extending an invitation to join the EU to Serbia, Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia and Turkey?

  The ‘original’ EU, the one I truly respected, was conceived of primarily as a defensive military strategy (the original coal-steel union between Germany and France specifically served that purpose) with possible economic and social benefits as a secondary effect. With a vainglorious contemporary France being what it is, and a Germany comparatively recently risen from the dead and at present seemingly determined to accept any amount of Arab and African ‘refugees’, it’s of course inevitable that the present EU, while governing us is in turn ‘governed’ by still mightier forces. Among these one might casually mention the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Bilderberg Group, the Rothschilds and their many financial affiliates, as well as the Economic Consultative Committee (ECC) of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). What this means in practice, is that the national politicians of the Parliament in Brussels are in the end perhaps little more than puppets dangling in the strings of global high finance.

  Notwithstanding that the domestic interests and needs of individual EU member states and their populations have been seriously compromised by multi-national corporations and financial institutions, it’s important to remind ourselves that the influence of these wouldn’t just begin to wane because some European country ostentatiously exits the EU and again proudly proclaims itself a free and independent nation state, now closing its borders around the poor devils caught inside it.

  There is no guarantee that a so-called ‘nationalist government’ would in the long run be any better for the citizens of any given country. In addition, it’s highly unlikely that any nationalist European party, once in power, would actually realise its often repeated threat of taking the country it represents out of the European Union. That would be to jeopardise the future of the entire nation. Instead it would be much wiser for any such national polity to work towards a change of our dependency on the international high finance through the institutions and inroads provided by an already existing EU. The changing of the name of the game is not the prerogative of an individual nation but requires worldwide reform, not to say global upheaval and revolution, and this is not going to happen from one day to the next. The gains and losses at stake are simply too enormous to allow for a smooth transition from the dictatorship of the filthy rich to an empowerment of the filthy poor. As matters stand right now, you can’t even point your finger in the general direction of the masterminds behind the global casino without incurring the wrath and vindication of its owners.