Henry Kissinger is reported to have said “it may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.” Australia should take note, enmeshed as it is with US bases. The fallout may affect us too.
A recent report in The Guardian highlights how the US military controls 17 facilities on mainland Australia and has access to 75 more Australia-run military installations. The report was prepared by Richard Tanter, a senior research associate at the independent public policy thinktank the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability and an honorary professorial fellow at the University of Melbourne. Tanter says the US military’s expanding presence is not in service of its junior alliance partner but rather US interests alone.
“Over more than a decade, the United States has been preparing the capacity for high-tempo warfighting operations springboarding from Australia,” he says. “And that means we are aligning ourselves completely with American strategic planning.
“From a Chinese perspective, Australia is not so much hosting US bases on its territory, it’s a US base in its own right … Australia is a serious piece of real estate in the US warfighting machine.”
The issue of whether the US facilities are a base or simply a “rotational” exercise has become topical and controversial as the US bases in the Middle East have become the targets in Iran’s response to the US’ attack on it, to the extent that US forces have now withdrawn to safer locations further away.
This has led to a classic fudge: all these US facilities are not really US bases, just Australian territory through which US forces are “rotated.” Sam Roggeveen of the Lowy Institute and Professor Hugh White discuss the issue here.
I know the reality, as I was a temporary assistant chaplain to the USAF at RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk in the 1960s. The RAF badge was on the gate, but the USAF controlled what went on inside. There were squadrons of C-130s there on 90-day temporary duty rotation, but also RC-135 aircraft on 8-hour seven day roster carrying the back-up nuclear trigger.
Dr Emma Shortis, the director of international and security affairs at the Australia Institute, argues that the Trump administration has repeatedly demonstrated that the US is willing to jettison security commitments made to allies. US bases across the Middle East have been repeatedly attacked by Iran.
Shortis says:
Australia’s increasing integration with the US military has resulted in “an accelerating erosion of Australia’s independent, sovereign, decision-making power”.
“Instead of having the option of saying ‘no’ to involvement in United States wars, involvement becomes the default position.”
She cites the March attack by a US nuclear-powered submarine on an Iranian frigate, sinking it and killing more than 100 people. Three Australian naval personnel were onboard, part of the submarine’s crew: the US did not forewarn Australia of the attack.
“Australia might maintain the pretence of sovereign decision-making power, but that’s not the reality.”
The first signs that war is imminent in the minds of the military planners come with the logistic pre-positioning of fuel, arms and equipment. In June this year, Marles announced the establishment of a $30m US logistics base in Wodonga, Victoria. He says:
“We are seeing a growing US footprint in Australia that is important in terms of building our own military capability but also it’s very important for Australia’s national security.”
Marles said the “hugely significant American presence” in the region was a balance to China’s “very significant military buildup”
And we should not think that all of this has nothing to do with us. Just this week, we have seen Australian F-35 aircraft practising attacks at Waiouru with Ohakea-based RNZAF P-8 patrol aircraft, and also setting up a preliminary base for arming and refuelling these aircraft.
The problem this creates is any notion that we run an independent foreign policy as things stsand at the moment is just wishful thinking. Assistant Secretary for War Elbridge Colby spelled it out in Manila last month:
Consistent with the NSS, our priority is to field a fully operational, resilient architecture of denial defense stretching along the First Island Chain. This includes robust, distributed theater logistics and prepositioned assets in the Western Pacific. We are committed to building this shared logistics infrastructure alongside our allies and partners, ensuring we can sustain combat-credible power where it matters most. Yet this defense architecture cannot rest on American shoulders alone. It must be upheld by a network of highly capable, sovereign nations that have modernized their own forces and stepped up to secure their own territory — transforming our relationships into true partnerships of equals.
The reference to the first island chain means that this architecture is right at China’s maritime border. It is not an example of deterrence so much as pro[position of conquest; Colby makes that clear elsewhere in his speech: add in the Opium Wars and the Boxer rebellion to underline the point.
This is not a new observation. Indeed, this recognition of the importance of Asia is also a return to the deep roots of American foreign policy. Such an understanding of the rising importance of Asia and its economic heft goes back not only to the postwar period but to the 19th century — to the Open Door, the opening of Japan, and of course America’s presence here in the Philippines as well as across the Pacific in places like Hawaii and Samoa.
Our defence establishments are increasingly integrated and planning to be further so, our diplomatic and security agencies are also aligned, and our Prime Minister describes us as a “force multiplier.” The citizenry has no say, even as the evidence shows that its assessment is moving against the official stance that the greatest threat to our security comes from China.
Distance is no longer our friend. Particularly if we turn ourselves into a logistics depot to serve the interests of the United States. They will not come to our aid; we should not be offering to support their strategic conquests.
Iran is the first and only war that Australian has not stood up right beside the Americas and fought. So there's most certainly a change in the alliance as it is.
But even in the midst of this current US trade war, China is the standout on how to really choke Australia around the neck and then issue the 14-point edict to the Australian Federal government on exactly what Australia needs to do to appease China as they feel they ought to be treated:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09512748.2026.2672990
The 14 written grievances and demands against the Australian government were:
Even after the government changed in 2022, the tariffs were only finally lifted in 2024 just 2 years ago.
Without the multiple US military bases to back their diplomacy up with hard power, these Chinese would have been impossible to resist.
Just in case we forget.
China may have demands, but Australia can choose to ignore them, as it has.
Reckon there's an equally-irritating series of demands from the US, especially Trump's US, have demanded of Australia. These are less ignorable. Recent rollovers include forcing Australia to drop a sub deal made with France, and well under way, in favour of a much costlier US sub purchase, of $370 BILLION.
https://militarymachine.com/aukus-submarine-deal-368-billion-explained
This seems to be the lynchpin of the AUKUS deal.
The US tariff rates are 12.5%, and the Chinese version was outright bans on the largest export items from Australia, with the published threats.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Add to that directly for us, Mike, NZ paying to refurbish a deep sea port in the Cook Islands, used by the US military in the Cooks. NZ is apparently stumping up $100mi.
NZ's government famously resisted US pressure for a military base here after WWII. It's a major factor in us being able to run an independent foreign policy.
This sneaky rollover hardly covered in the media, and only as a plus. The US sees it as a chance to snooker the Cooks’ talks with China last year.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2026/09/01/nz-and-us-to-build-major-port-on-former-military-base-in-cook-islands/
If you don't think that the greatest threat against NZ security comes from China – where do you think it comes from?
My opinion is that the greatest threat to NZ comes not from being an actual target of warfare/invasion – but being a victim of the breakdown in international order, and growth in piracy and warlord controlled domains.
Few people seem to realize just how dependent our civilization in NZ is on international trade. And how dependent trade is on an international rule of law. And how dependent that is on someone willing to enforce the laws (or make bad actors frightened enough of them, that they keep their depredations within limits)
Well, China as manufacturer for the world certainly is more invested in the rule of law and international trade stability than Trump, and there's still another 2 years of his presidency to go.
In fact, almost every international decision that Trump has made, from his trade tariffs, to the attacks in the Strait of Hormuz, to his ongoing support for the Gazan 'rebuild' plan, has significantly destabilised the international order. And there’s probably a 50-50 chance that another stage in authoritarian rule will begin when he loses control of the legislature in the midterm elections.
Trump is likely to die before 2028, based on his unhealthy appearance and behaviour. There’s no guarantee that those at the top (and I’m not talking about his incompetent cabinet) will allow a full democracy to return to the US.
If Trump dies, Vance takes over as Predident for the remainder of the term. This isnt controversial – and has actually happened several times in US history.
Elections will be held on schedule (this is entirely outside the control of the President).
The American system is designed to prevent dictatorship. Look at all the policy that Trump has announced and been unable to deliver on.
I’m not sure what shadowy cabal you seem to believe is really running things.
Now compare the authoritarian rule of Xi in China.
How many countries has China invaded (freed) in the last 40 years??
Ongoing aggression against the Phillipines in the South China Sea.
Continued butal occupation of Tibet.
Tearing up the agreed governance plan for HongKong and brutally suppressing dissent.
Ongoing threats, military buildup against Taiwan.
Economic coercion.
https://www.cfr.org/articles/understand-chinas-aggressive-foreign-policy-look-its-domestic-politics
More to the point, China is an authoritarian dictatorship, which brutally represses minorities (Trump's ICE are kindergarteners in comparison), and has successfully implemented a surveillance state on its own citizens.
We can anticipate the replacement of Trump, with another democratically elected President, in two years. We have Xi for life.
Trump's keen on taking control of elections: after all, Putin's Russia has elections.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/trump-says-he-wants-cancel-elections-here-real-threat
If you are really comparing the long-established democratic history in the US with the actual dictatorship with sham elections prevalent in both Russia and China – then there is little point in continuing the conversation.
Even the dimmest wit should be able to see that there is widespread open opposition to Trump, whereas dissent is rigorously oppressed in both Russia and China.
It also has a terrible history of opposition leaders ending up dead for various, officially inexplicable reasons.
Haha! What a joke! At the time the Chinese walked, yes walked into Tibet, those good ol boys from the US were flying their planes back from North Korea fully laden because they could literally not find a structure to drop their bombs on, because everything had been flattened into the mud, including civilian homes, hospitals, schools and all community buildings.
The Chinese walked into Tibet, fired three or four cannons and the Tibetan soldiers fled. It is well known, that Tibetan monks used the children that they demanded the peasants supply for their sexual gratification. This always occurs in theocracies that have celibate male priests. So at least this horror was spared for Tibetan children.
I doubt that you bother to concern yourself with the video coming out of the States of masked armed thugs (ICE) dragging people off planes or in the streets simply because they "look" Latino or shooting them at point blank range through their car window. But then you manage to look straight through the same and worse including rape committed by the IDF so I guess this is just noormal behaviour to you.
I have yet to see anything of this sort committed by Chinese against their own population. The police that faced the rioters in Hong Kong were unarmed.
I mentioned North Korea but this was only the beginning of a blood and gore rampage by the US through the non white world. Trying to compare China to US bloodlust is pathetic and just highlights the same racism that allows you to support the genocide against Palestinians by Israel
You mean China, the state that sent tanks against pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing? The China that invaded Vietnam in 1979 and fought a bloody border conflict with it for much of the following decade? The China whose Great Leap Forward contributed to the deaths of tens of millions of its own citizens, followed shortly afterwards by the political violence of the Cultural Revolution?
The China that invaded and annexed Tibet, violently suppressed resistance there, and has spent decades attempting to eradicate political opposition to Chinese rule? The China that imprisons dissidents while simultaneously insisting that political prisoners don't exist? The China that built perhaps the most sophisticated system of state censorship and internet control on Earth?
And yes, the United States also has an extensive history of appalling violence abroad. Korea was horrific. Vietnam was horrific. Iraq was a catastrophe. Central America is still a geopolitical hellscape partly because of American interference.
But none of that requires us to pretend the CPC regime is something other than what it is.
If you want to stan a repressive police state because you think it's edgy and anti-imperialist, go right ahead. But you don't get to simply gloss over its many and well-documented crimes because acknowledging them makes the comparison less convenient.
Sorry bud. The US history of violence abroad is unparalleled. It is uniquely violent in the modern world towards external states. And yet this is who you believe we should be allied with. Go for it.
The current violence in West Asia is the direct result of a US/Israeli attack on another country. The situation with Yemen was initiated by Obama and MbS in 2015.
Cubans are dying in hospitals that have no electricity because of a US blockade.
Anwhere the US goes, violence follows. And then the childish demonisation of the current "enemy".
Throw all your sticks at me. They don't really hurt.
Dude, these aren't sticks. They're facts.
Facts to which your best reply appears to be “bUt AmErIcA bAd LOL.”
It's possible for two things to be true: that the United States has committed evil acts, and that China is a brutal authoritarian police state. Neither proposition denies or cancels out the other.
And yes, as a matter of alignment, I think New Zealand is better off with the United States and other liberal democracies than with the CPC. Not because America is innocent, but because it is considerably less likely to threaten our sovereignty, security or strategic interests.
Nor am I particularly persuaded by the argument that America is somehow uniquely evil because it has behaved like a hegemonic power. Hegemons have been coercive since the Assyrians. Persia, Macedon, Rome and the European empires all used their power violently.
There is precious little reason to believe a Chinese hegemon would discover an unprecedented commitment to pacifism.
Foreign policy isn't about finding a great power with clean hands. There aren't any. It's about deciding which international order and relationships are most compatible with our interests and values.
Given that choice, I'll take the liberal-democratic one.
There is precious little evidence that China wants to be a hegemon. Hegemony is not a necessary condition for existence. It says a lot about you that you can accept the US as evil and also want to align with that evil.
The world envisaged by the tech bros of Palantir and Musk et al is the same one playing out right now in Gaza. It was they that ceated Lavender and Wheres Daddy to target Palestinians at the moment they were home with their wife and children.
I guess thats all just part of the thrill for you in being part of the hegemon. You get to be part of the decision makers that make the life and death decisions of those that are sueveiled about who should die nd how they die
Ouch!
I only compared you unfavourably to a toddler. No need to get nasty and accuse me of getting a personal thrill out of people being surveilled and murdered.
Especially given that you're the one spending this thread making excuses for a brutal authoritarian government because you dislike the alternative.
https://apnews.com/article/iran-minab-school-children-killed-d1edcacd8bd3fc64badaa5a4caf184c9
Can you even imagine that? Searching through dead bodies to find your child? Perhaps your own 3yr old daughter? Indscriminate slaughter of children and civilians in war is a western thing. It is authoritarianism at its starkest. We will decide who liives and who dies and whose lives have any value.
[please don’t personalise this to the families of people you are debating with. Also, if you want to refer to someone’s beliefs, you can’t just assert random things to score political points or represent them as unethical, you have to quote their actual words and make an argument for why you think they believe that. Even then, it can’t just be ‘I’m calling you evil’. Your arguments are strong enough without all that.
Res Publica is an author here, so the standard is higher, meaning mods will step in earlier and harder (we protect authors here because we want them to write posts for TS) – weka]
mod note. Please reply letting me know you have read and understood.
Don't. Just don't.
If your response to having your political arguments mocked is to accuse someone of getting a thrill from people being surveilled and murdered, and then invoke the prospect of them searching through dead bodies for their three-year-old daughter, then perhaps political debate isn't for you.
Argue with me. Insult me if you really feel the need. Leave my daughter out of it.
Fuck off, or I'll ask the mods to do it for you.
And the "political re-education camps" for the Uyghur are simply vocational training centres. /sarc/
You sure have drunk the kool-aid….
China is a brutally repressive autocracy, with an appalling record of treatment of non-Han peoples.
The government has implemented a high tech, AI driven surveillance system of all citizens (even the favored Han) in order to repress dissent; and censors all information going into China via a highly effective firewall.
This is not to say the US is perfect (far from it), but China is demonstrably worse.
No, you are wrong. China is not perfect but the US is demonstrably worse. No other country has attacked more countries and left them in chaotic blood drenched misery than the US.
I have a three-year-old toddler at home, and even she has a considerably more sophisticated understanding of foreign policy than “this country has done more bad things, therefore that country is better.”
Thats interesting. So your daughter, like yourself, thinks, for example, that making Libya a failed state, through bombing and missiles, such that slavery and the slave trade is resurrected is good foreign policy? She should try another pre school.
Not interested in discussing China as an oppressive dictatorship, I see.
From Eugene Doyle:
Over recent years, I regularly ask people: “When was the last time China used its military to invade another country?” 1979 – in a short war against Vietnam. In the entire post-world war II period from the US nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to the present, what year wasn’t the US at war with one or more countries? According to a research paper published this year in The Lancet, the world’s leading medical publication, unilateral sanctions imposed by the US and EU since 1970 are associated with 38 million deaths. Think about that because you can judge people by the friends they keep.
1979! I'll leave it as an excercise for you to calculate how many warrs the US has started since 1979.
The 38 million is just from illegal unilateral sanctions. Then there's the actual wars…
Quoting Eugene Doyle? Weird flex… but OK.
And “China hasn't invaded another country since 1979” only works if we define the use of military force remarkably narrowly.
We'd have to ignore the continuing and sometimes lethal Sino-Indian border confrontation, China's seizure and occupation of disputed features in the South China Sea, the construction and militarisation of artificial islands there, and its increasingly coercive military activity around Taiwan.
But sure. If “war” means only a formally recognisable invasion of another sovereign state's mainland territory, I suppose China has been remarkably peaceful.
Much in the same way that the absence of an official opposition means the CPC is remarkably popular.
Oh please, you really are getting desperate now
"But sure. If “war” means only a formally recognisable invasion of another sovereign state's mainland territory, I suppose China has been remarkably peaceful."
Something that cannot be said about the US who have always, in every year since the civil war, been at war with someone.
The shadowy movers: those in The Heritage Foundation who drew up Project 2025, absolutely not Trump's manifesto. His only interest is in raking in money for himself and putting up monuments to posterity with his name on. Large sections of P2025 have been enacted already, loosening US democratic checks and balances.
There were Cassandras before Trump 2.0 who said, P2025 is dangerous when it surfaced a few months before the election. They were thought to be nutcases. Alas, they were correct.
To downplay the corrosion of democratic process under Trump 2.0 is also very dangerous, and well on the road to authoritarianism. With the icing on the cake being Trump has zero interest running in a functional state, where Xi does.
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/trump-threats-vote-first-amendment-authoritarian-risk-a65747
As for Vance, he is openly Thiel's puppet, but also hugely uncharismatic and unpopular. Can't imagine him lasting long.
Tinfoil hat time.
Oh no Belladonna, that is very much the discussion among many different people and organisations in the US, you just hang out with a different mob. Here's perfectly reasonable MOR commentators who are seroously worried about Trump’s interference in the election (long-running in various posts).
Maine historian: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/
Independent law and national intelligence experts: https://bsky.app/profile/lawfaremedia.org
Here's a Wiki description of Project 2025, which aims to concentrate power in the executive branch. Much has very obviously been implemented already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
And here’s a clip from Trump's speech at his Trumpalooza convention yesterday, who got attendees to swear, regarding voting: "I pledge to the greatest president in the history of the United States. Who loves us so much that he can't even breathe. That I will go out with my family, my friends, I'll do it any way, I don't care if I'm registered or not – I'm going to try to cheat like hell like they do"
https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3mv7l7wbass2v
And here’s Vance’s grooming by Thiel.
https://thelefthook.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-groomed-jd-vance
Kinda difficult to ignore the hard evidence, eh? No tinfoil necessary.
And an article on the Cassandras:
https://newrepublic.com/article/204254/survey-2024-election-cassandras-trump-2025
Interestingly, often what got them concerned was overtly racist and misogynistic language.
Greatest security threats we face are climate change, biodiversity crisis, planetary resource overshoot, increasing wealth inequality and power.
How about you unpack that into how each actually provides a security threat to NZ.
Bd How about commenters be encouraged to put up reasonable thoughts without being chided for not doing exactly as you expect?
They’re encouraged to put up reasonable thoughts. But there’s no expectation that the rest of us respectfully accept every argument someone makes and treat it like gospel.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask someone to provide some evidence for a claim. Or even just demonstrate the reasoning that led them to it.
I don't see why commenters should be addressed as if they are students expected to write an essay justifying every small thought.
'It's not what you do but the way that you do it' comes to mind. Bananarama and Fun Boy 3, who are a bit funky or something. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOHfn2m9nlU
If you are in charge of the site and want to achieve better political outcomes than in the past – which we need – then it could be best to encourage people not give curt replies.
It is awful that NZAO citizens have worked all these decades trying to get a good political outcome and decent conditions as permanent policies yet when halfway to goal, have this unwinding of what we have done.
So tread softly because you tread on my dreams – of a better informed and more involved citizenship running and managing our country, before it gets legislated, devastated, sold off, or washed away.
Nobody is asking for an essay.
Andrew made a fairly sweeping claim about what New Zealand's greatest security threats are. Belladonna asked him to explain how he gets from those issues to that conclusion.
That seems like exactly the sort of discussion an informed and involved citizenry should be having.
I'm not a mod or anything, but I'm pretty sure the idea of robust debate involves… well, debating.
If you are following a routine method of responding to comments before elections and you consider you are achieving something, have you been happy with the results on previous election nights of your favoured political group?
You seem to be dominating the post, sometimes there's just you two. The trouble with we Kiwis is we don't know enough and think enough, and get the chance to discuss and understand different POV. How can we find where to make a difference, both in politics and our thinking and our agency? Show us how to advance, don't just sit in superiority on thoughts not well explained or rounded off. If you are good, then bring your skills and break through the denseness of those who need to up their game.
The feeling I get from the posts at the moment is the blog is like a betting shop in old UK where people gather to discuss the horses and track conditions. How to pick winners, and are we getting the best info from the stables? Is it time to clean out the Augean stables? What formula will get the nags moving and sort out the losers and stragglers, the halt and the lame? Heracles we pray for your attention.
Here's an interesting link to NASA's HANDY model for civilisational collapse. It sets up population cycle between ELITES and COMMONERS (or other types of social stratification), with an introduced cumulative parameter WEALTH, and a limited resource NATURE.
They model all sorts of societies and failure due to to depletion of labour or of resources.
"The scenarios most closely reflecting the reality of our world today are found in the third group of experiments… where we introduced economic stratification (significantly wealthier elite). Under such conditions, we find that collapse is difficult to avoid, which helps to explain why economic stratification is one of the elements recurrently found in past collapsed societies. "
More equal societies, even ones with a high proprtion of non-workers, can reach longterm equilibrium states where catastrophic collapse is less likely.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000615
Hotel California has a definite message for us enmeshed in this mercantile madness; I keep returning to the words and great guitars.
Hotel California Song by Eagles ‧ 1976
OverviewLyrics Lyrics
On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair
Warm smell of colitas rising up through the air
Up ahead in the distance, I saw a shimmering light
My head grew heavy and my sight grew dim, I had to stop for the night
There she stood in the doorway, I heard the mission bell
And I was thinkin' to myself, "This could be heaven or this could be hell"
Then she lit up a candle, she showed me the way
There were voices down the corridor, I thought I heard them say
"Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place (such a lovely place)
Such a lovely face
Plenty of room at the Hotel California
Any time of year (any time of year)
You can find it here"
Her mind is Tiffany-twisted, she got the Mercedes-Benz, uh
She got a lot of pretty, pretty boys that she calls friends
How they dance in the courtyard, sweet summer sweat
Some dance to remember, some dance to forget
So I called up the Captain, "Please bring me my wine"
He said, "We haven't had that spirit here since 1969"
And still, those voices are calling from far away
Wake you up in the middle of the night just to hear them say
"Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place (such a lovely place)
Such a lovely face
They're livin' it up at the Hotel California
What a nice surprise (what a nice surprise)
Bring your alibis"
Mirrors on the ceiling, the pink champagne on ice
And she said, "We are all just prisoners here of our own device"
And in the master's chambers, they gathered for the feast
They stab it with their steely knives, but they just can't kill the beast
Last thing I remember, I was running for the door
Had to find the passage back to the place I was before
"Relax, " said the night man, "We are programmed to receive
You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave"……………….In the 2013 documentary History of the Eagles, Henley said that the song was about "a journey from innocence to experience … that's all,' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_California
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09839DpTctU or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkAAxeFOj0Y
A song I grew to loath when it was saturation played in the 70s. Definitely not a classic, as overplayed classics rehabilitate themselves after a couple of decades. This song and its whiny lyrics never have for me.
I know that whiny can irritate. I have been reading some columnist in Sunday Star Times adopting a vexed, superior tone about NZ life and politics. However you are 'too quick to heave half a brick' about Hotel California. The song is about matters that affected all then, was sung and played well, and if it didn't mean anything then or even now, you aren't in touch with others experiences.
People are whiny now too, many with good reason, about rising prices and dropping conditions. You have had time since the late 70's to learn and understand more about life.
We talked about 'the beast' last night in the pub with reference to Yeats' poem 'The Second Coming' where "the centre cannot hold"- one of our pundits said that the centre of politics no longer was where the power to change governments lay.
Yeats at the end of his poem after "twenty centuries of stony sleep" asks
"And what rough beast its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
Yeats wrote his poem during and after the 'flu epidemic of 1919 while his wife's life was threatened, just after WW1 and during the Troubles in Ireland. The time then was in flux, as it is again now with wars, Covid, 'flu still with us, AI technology and robots, the rise of the Right in Germany and elsewhere.
What "beast" indeed does Hotel California refer to? Is it the same that Yeats foresaw? Can we kill it? The poets and the songwriters ask the questions about the society we live in. Do we listen?
Yes poets, songwriters, philosophers, playwrights. They interest us and we might draw near, but then fly away with a memory of the event, but not pierced with its meaning beyond the outer skin. It pains me to think of all those people down the known ages who slaved over their thinking but weren't able to get people's minds onto different tracks.
I was interested to read of Descartes, French philosopher who spent much of his life in Holland. Later in life 59-60, the imperious Swedish young Queen become a fount of learning and invited him to visit but he politely refused. Then she sent transport, a naval ship, offering an institute for philosophy and he was transported north late 1649.. She decided to start an early day with lessons at 5 am but the cold journey to the palace, though not far, and unheated library were hard on an older man and he contracted pneumonia and died five months after arriving. I think France sent a sharp note to Sweden for the death of one of their noted intellectuals.
I have to admit, I generally listen to melody and rhythm, and probably only to the chorus lyric. I am often amazed at the actual song 'story' when finally reading the lyrics.
Here's a favourite song I do know the lyrics to.
Still loathe Hotel California, lyrics or not.
@weka
There was no reply button on your moderation above so replying here.
I have read and understood your moderation note.
I apologise unreservedly for any offence taken by Res Publica or caused to The Standard in general
thank-you.
The reply button disappears after the 9th indent on comments for obvious reasons.
The GCC nations are reading of lot of Kissinger's works at the moment.
The EU & UK should do the same.
Pacific Oceania is next in line as the western regime on Capitol Hill declines into an Americas krasnov trying to rule the world via god & AI (God and mammon).