Addendum to John Cleese on terror threat levels in Europe

The U.S. has raised the terror threat level from low to high opportunity. Congressional leaders are quoted as saying, "Never let a terror threat go to waste." The National Security Council immediately authorized the CIA to conduct drone strikes on Pakistani weddings. The CIA replied, "Consider it done," which was of course true.

Με ιδιαίτερη χαρά έλαβα ένα πολυ ενθαρρυντικό σχόλιο για την μετάφραση του βιβλίου μου, The Story of our People - Η Ιστορια του Λαου μας. Το σχόλιο απο τον γνωστό και φημισμένο συγγραφέα, Θωμά Κοροβίνη.

Αγαπητέ κ. Χίλλστρομ,

με πολλή χαρά πήρα στα χέρια μου και διάβασα αυτό το κομψό και πολύ ουσιαστικό βιβλίο σας, το οποίο είναι ένα τολμηρό και φιλόδοξο ποιητικό εγχείρημα, σαν  ποίημα-ποταμός με πολλούς παραπόταμους, χαρακτήρα σχεδόν βιβλικό, με απαιτήσεις αποκρυπτογράφησης, και που αφορά, νομίζω, μέσω  μιας στοχαστικής παραγωγικής σκέψης, την ανάκη για την  αναγέννηση του κόσμου μας και την γένεση ενός πιο λαμπρού και ανθρώπινου μέλλοντος. Το φαντάζομαι μελοποιημένο και θεατροποιημένο να παίζεται και να ακούγεται επί σκηνής, σαν ορατόριο.

Σας ευχαριστώ και πάλι και εύχομαι κάθε επιτυχία.

Θωμάς Κοροβίνης

KIRKUS ΑΝΑΣΚΟΠΗΣΗ 

  

Σε αυτό το λεπτό τόμο με το μικτού είδους ποιητικό έργο, ο Hillstrom διερευνά τις μεγαλύτερες δυνατότητες της ανθρωπότητας με ενθουσιασμό και σφρίγος. 

Μέσα από μια πόλη ερειπωμένη από τον πόλεμο, μια γιαγιά οδηγεί μια ομάδα ορφανών. Αναζητώντας καταφύγιο για τη νύχτα, ξεκόβουν από το ποτάμι των προσφύγων που φεύγουν για να σωθούν. Έτσι αρχίζει μια ιστορία μέσα σε ιστορία, με θεατρικές σκηνές ανάμεσα σε στίχους, που διηγούνται την ρημαγμένη πλέον ζωή όσων επέζησαν από τις μάχες. Καθώς πέφτει η νύχτα, η γιαγιά αρχίζει να λέει στα παιδιά την ιστορία ενός εξόριστου σιδερά, μιας γυναίκας και ενός ποιητή-τρία συμβολικά πρόσωπα που αντιπροσωπεύουν την ελπίδα να σπάσει η αλυσίδα των πολεμικών συρράξεων που πληγώνει τον πολιτισμό.  

Αναφερόμενος σε βιβλικές και σύγχρονες συγκρούσεις, ο Hillstrom δημιουργεί ένα κενό στον χρόνο, και με αυτόν τον μηχανισμό, η παραβολή γίνεται το όχημα μετάδοσης της σοφίας από γενιά σε γενιά μέσω του ποιητή. Πράγματι, κυρίαρχο θέμα του βιβλίου είναι η ανάπτυξη και η ωρίμανση του ποιητή, χωρίς όμως να επισκιάζονται τα άλλα πρόσωπα.  

Το έργο του Hillstrom είναι φιλόδοξο, επιτυγχάνεται δίχως επιδεικτικό βερμπαλισμό αλλά με προσεκτική πύκνωση αφηρημένων εννοιών. Με απόηχους αλληλεγγύης και κοινωνικής ευθύνης, ο συγγραφέας χρησιμοποιεί τον σιδερά, την γυναίκα και τον ποιητή ως δυνάμεις που, με ανιδιοτέλεια και θυσία, αγωνίζονται για την επίτευξη αρμονίας στο νέο πολιτισμό που χτίστηκε από τα ερείπια του παρελθόντος. 

Στη σωκρατική / πλατωνική παράδοση, ο ποιητής-φιλόσοφος είναι ο μάντης, ο οραματιστής μάρτυρας που διώκεται και θανατώνεται επειδή διαδίδει την γνώση. Επικαλούμενος ιδέες που κυμαίνονται από την αρχαία Βαβυλώνα έως τον εργάτη-ακτιβιστή Joe Hill, και ζωντανεύοντας εικόνες της Εδέμ με την αρχετυπική γήινη γυναίκα και τον παντογνώστη ποιητή, οι σελίδες καίνε  με τα υπέροχα αλληγορικά θέματα και εγείρουν το μεγάλο ερώτημα εάν η ανθρωπότητα μαθαίνει από την ιστορία. 

Κατά την άποψη του Hillstrom, η καταστροφή του πολέμου γίνεται μια ελπιδοφόρα ευκαιρία για αναδημιουργία και η διαφώτιση του πολιτισμού είναι ο τελικός στόχος του ποιητή-φιλόσοφου. Όμως, στο τέλος, τα παιδιά είναι εκείνα που θα καθορίσουν τις εξελίξεις του μέλλοντος.  

Επιδέξια γλώσσα υφασμένη με διορατικές ιδέες, στίχος ελκυστικός και ζωντανός. 

My poetic drama, The Story of Our People, was released in the US and UK a few years ago. It is now available in Greek translation by Gavrielides Books. You can view the book at the link below.

Το ποιητικό μου δραμα εκδόθηκε λίγα χρόνια πριν στις ΗΠΑ. Τώρα διατίθεται σε ελληνική μετάφραση (δίγλωσση έκδοση) απο Εκδόσεις Γαυριηλίδης. Δείτε το βιβλίο στην σύνδεση εδώ.

www.gavrielidesbooks.gr/showtitle.aspx?vid=1830

Amazon vs Publishers & Authors

Paul Krugman has regrettably taken a position in the Amazon vs Publishers debate. Yes, monopolies can obstruct progress as can monopsonies. But what we have had for a very long time is an old boys' club of publishers and selected authors who charge too much for their books and restrict entry to their club. This is, I would suggest, an evident fact. Amazon is only now challenging  the status quo due to their ebook technology. Books should become much cheaper! And authors should be able to enter the market more easily without the screening and selective pressures of a narrow industry! This should be a self-evident goal. So, which side of the argument should a thinking individual support?

Krugman oddly enough misstates some of the facts and talks in generic terms about the evils of monopsony. But when new technology disrupts established markets it generally means that there will be rising productivity and efficiency. This is the cornerstone of economic progress. Yes, of course, during such market shifts one needs to be watchful of emerging power blocks that could dominate markets and become negative forces. But the argument regarding Amazon is stretched. In general fears of new technologies developing into monopolies have proven to be illusory in recent history. Remember IBM and Microsoft? And those companies did have near monopolies. What is Amazon's market share? Why doesn't Krugman tell us?

My guess is that Paul Krugman belongs to the old boys' club and wishes to protect his privileged position as one of the select group of authors.

World Humanist Congress: Poem Dedication

The World Humanist Congress convenes on Friday in Oxford. The event held every three years holds promise for a more rational society across the world. In the spirit of the humanist effort I am dedicating a poem set out below. Let me simply say with regard to the poem's theme that I would hope that mythology could keep pace with developments in science and our overall knowledge base.

Best wishes to all of the delegates to the congress. May you have fruitful meetings.

Genesis RW

Born in a surreal cauldron

No Land for flesh or bone

Prior to Lucretius' Legos.

Simply sparks, energy in flux

Pregnant with fleeting strings, fetuses

Invisible to ultrasound. 

How can we see?

Spaceless place

Time an empty quiver

Constellations faceless

And Logos a barren womb.

Of such singular inferno

Of these exotic loins 

How can we speak? 

Inflating ripples, tidal waves,

Disdaining Light's borders

Conceive room to stretch.

A cooling brew, but left

Gasping for oxygen,

Vital to nurse the unborn             

Or rust still absent ore.

Swirling gas dervishes

Drunk on hydrogen

In ecstatic embrace

Fuse elements, first

To twinkling starlight, then 

Herculean outbursts

Viewed by none.

A universe flutters its wings

Abandons its fiery nest.

Dice rattle incessantly

Supernovae, meteors, orbs anew.

The lost cauldron's embers

Crackle from the depths.

Penzias, listen! 

Spinning galaxies

Spiraling solar tails

Entangled with satellites

Dance round dark sink-holes

Merciless, congested prisons

Shadowless Lands.

No escape!

Light, undefeated, races on

Surfing Nature’s memoirs.

Beam on Isle Earth

Its gurgling volcanos.

Come Spring rains reset 

Clocks to geology time.

Slow, slow hands.

Tiny replicators, jiggling 

Seeking minerals, sunlight,

Synthesize cloned twins.

Oceans green with algae

Smokestacks spewing oxygen

Gift predators breath to feed, breed.

Charles sets sail.

The Beagle tacks in trade winds

Tracking eukaryotes, pioneers,

Autotrophs and cannibals,

Gliding, drifting migrants,

Littering fossils, new tricks              

Of survival in brutal fields. 

A tangled course ensues.

Phenotypes proliferate, diffuse

Reptiles crawl from seas

Birds flock to the skies,

Aerial invaders 

Terrorizing feeding grounds,

Chirping in harmonic tune.

Song blossoms.

Great Rift Valley, plains, 

Rivers and smoking rock.

Clans of pithecines scavenge

Challenge parched nomads at ponds.          

Chip stone tools, hand axes,

Rippers and scrapers.

The armed thrive.

Trees aflame on the horizon

Fire stampedes in reckless fear.

Erectus hides in streams

Surveys smoldering remnants

Exhumes simmering meat, red coals

Builds model kindlings, vigilant guards.

The dragon is tamed.

Mt-Eve and Y-Adam,

Nurtured in these wilds,

Bond in flickering cave-fire

Through grunts and phonemes

Whittle words, a recursive phrase.

Memes taste glacial ice

Atop snowy peaks.

Spirits and gods assail the Land

Each bush and tree glows

Ghosts hover ominously.

A shaman poisons Adam

Priests lead throngs in hymn

Rally masons to stone wrenching grinds.

Temples reign.

Seeds fall on fertile minds,

Land mines bursting with corn,

Gardens are tilled, flooded, sown,

Aurochs corralled, penned. Villages

Camp on crescent banks 

Canoes shuttle currents.

A bridge is crossed.

Walled cities, braced by cedar

Transplants, tower over fields.

Chiefs seal pacts with priests

Perch on high thrones gleaming 

Newly mined gold under the sun.

Scribes bake myths in clay.

History hatches.

     “The universe has a voice," you boast.

     "And you, hubristic fellow, 

     Would portray its spokesman?"

Smelted metals shine

Swords and shields adorn men

Warring States Carpunt Diem.

Pillars quake, ignite, 

Collapse in clouds of ash.

Empires wane, wax anew

Neath untroubled stars.

     “All the Earth is a stage

     And all the players tragic soldiers.”

Crimea

Crimea:

A Neutral Analysis

The vote is in. Now the question is whether calmer heads will prevail or whether we are heading for new confrontations. Of course we must examine and analyze the events of the recent and more distant past. No serious discussion to diffuse the crisis can take place without an appreciation of the facts. Unfortunately, the media in the West is not helping. It almost appears as though the media today is behaving as though they are living in a James Bond movie scenario where they are fueling tensions in order to ‘sell’ the news.

The Crimea, like all of Europe, has a checkered past of human migrations and shifting empires. But since the Crimean war the territory has been controlled by either Russia or the USSR. In 1954 the territory was ceded to the Ukrainian Socialist Republic within the USSR. This was during Khrushchev’s tenure as leader of the USSR. Following the collapse of the USSR the territory remained within the Ukraine, but as an autonomous region. This small detail is continually overlooked by the Western media. Instead they consistently stress that President Obama has called the referendum over the future of Crimea unconstitutional. And the media concentrate on so called human interest stories of individuals or minorities who are opposed to joining Russia, but are afraid to voice their opinion or to vote their conscience.

There were significant numbers of Russian troops on the territory before the crisis. Russia maintains a huge naval base in Sevastopol under an existing agreement with Ukraine. The Ukrainian government receives benefits under that agreement including subsidized prices for its natural gas from Russia. Despite these benefits there are nationalist sentiments in Kiev in favor of canceling the accord. This conflict of interest between the Russian Federation and the Rising nationalist groups in Ukraine lie at the root of the present crisis.

One further fact is that the majority of the population on the Crimean peninsula happens to be Ethnic Russians. These ethnic divisions within Ukraine are well known. Now are the Russians without fault? Certainly there have been troop movements within Crimea, as well as standoffs between troops and camps of differing persuasion. Admittedly that is not an ideal situation for holding a referendum. Was the vote really 97% in favor of joining Russia. Probably not. But no one seriously doubts that a strong majority of the population in Crimea does favor this step. 

Given all of the above facts does it make sense for President Obama to talk about a breach of international law and to insist that the referendum is unconstitutional? The truth is that allowing regions of countries to break away from existing nations has multiple precedents in recent history. Yugoslavia broke up into multiple pieces with the support of the US and Germany. Czechoslovakia split into two, fortunately peacefully with mutual consent between the Czechs and Slovaks. And South Sudan has now been recognized as an independent state by the West. Indeed such geopolitical changes are often actively supported under the policy known as responsibility to protect. So what determines which cases are to be acceptable and which a breach of international law?

Clearly the answer to this question lies solely within the realm of the strategic goals of the US government and the analysis of the think tanks that support those goals. In the case of Crimea there is an evident double standard being applied. And that double standard has its roots in the continuation of US policy following the collapse of the communist block in Eastern Europe. The US had for decades pursued a policy of containment and encirclement of the Soviet Union. Ultimately that policy succeeded in bringing down the communist system. There was an opportunity for peace across Europe and the world at that juncture in recent history. But the US decided to continue its then existing policy. And the European Union was complicit in this renewed policy push. As the new regimes in Eastern Europe struggled to reorient and rebuild their economies, they turned to the EU for financial support. Also, being on the rebound from the Warsaw Pact, they sought to join the EU. The EU was open; it shifted toward a rapidly expansionary policy quite quickly. But the condition for every candidate state for EU membership was that it should first join NATO. Why was this step required?

NATO had been formed within the policy dictates of containing the USSR. But the USSR had just broken apart and the Warsaw Pact had been disbanded. What possible purpose could NATO have at that point. Of course various rationalizations were suggested: to maintain the successful cooperation between European and North American countries, to support the US in its confrontation with the terrorists of September 11, or to create a shield against Iran. But actions always speak louder than words. As Eastern European countries joined NATO, one after the other, the military line of control was increasingly pushed to the East up to Russia’s border. Now, it is apparent that the next goal was to force the closure of the Russian bases in Crimea. This is not a reset of relations. It is aggression pure and simple.

The scenario we are now facing is that positions will harden and Europe and the world will move again toward a cold war along a frontier that will be far more difficult for Russia to defend. The alternative, the only alternative that would allow a peaceful direction, would be for the US and NATO to reverse their confrontational strategy and to open honest negotiations toward disarmament. Within the political scene in Washington Obama was probably the best hope for such a shift. But he has given up any pretense favoring such a policy shift. He has joined the cold warriors who are back in the ascendency. So, the only possible source for a shift in policy at this point is Europe. The EU finally needs to differentiate itself from US strategic goals. It needs to stand up and reject those goals and insist on new directions and honest negotiations with Russia. Parroting US propaganda is not a solution.