7-Sep-10 News -- Europe's bonds return to crisis levels

[John]

7-Sep-10 News -- Europe's bonds return to crisis levels

** 7-Sep-10 News -- Europe's bonds return to crisis levels
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 07#e100907

Contents:
"Europe's bonds return to crisis levels as summer season ends"
"Belgium is close to total dissolution"
"Additional links"
Some economists want to let housing prices fall
France's labor untion strike over pension reform
Suicide attack in northwest Pakistan kills 19

[shoshin]

Here's an interview with a favorite writer of mine (Michel Houellebecq) who seems to have an instinctive understanding of generational theory. I'm putting here because of the comments he makes about Belgium. It's quite a long interview, but worth it. I will paste in some of his comments here:

INTERVIEWER

They say that you are on the right politically because in The Elementary Particles you seem to be against the liberalism of the sixties. What do you think of that interpretation?

HOUELLEBECQ

What I think, fundamentally, is that you can’t do anything about major
societal changes. It may be regrettable that the family unit is disappearing. You could argue that it increases human suffering. But regrettable or not, there’s nothing we can do. That’s the difference between me and a reactionary. I don’t have any interest in turning back the clock because I don’t believe it can be done. You can only observe and describe. I’ve always liked Balzac’s very insulting statement that the only purpose of the novel is to show the disasters produced by the changing of values. He’s exaggerating in an amusing way. But that’s what I do: I show the disasters produced by the liberalization of values.

INTERVIEWER

You have written that you are “not only a religious atheist but a political one.” Can you elaborate?

HOUELLEBECQ

I don’t believe much in the influence of politics on history. I think that the major factors are technological and sometimes, not often, religious. I don’t think politicians can really have a true historical importance, except when they provoke major catastrophes Napoleon-style, but that’s about it. I also don’t believe individual psychology has any effect on social movements. You will find this belief expressed in all my novels. I was speaking to someone this morning about Belgium, a country that doesn’t work at all. And nobody understands why, from a psychological standpoint, because Belgians themselves seem sympathetic and willing to make it all work. And yet it doesn’t. The country is going to disappear. So we have to believe that there are powerful sociological forces at work that cannot be explained in terms of individual psychology.

[John]

Dear David,

> Here's an interview with a favorite writer of mine (Michel
> Houellebecq) who seems to have an instinctive understanding of
> generational theory. I'm putting here because of the comments he
> makes about Belgium. It's quite a long interview, but worth it. I
> will paste in some of his comments here:

> INTERVIEWER

> They say that you are on the right politically because in The
> Elementary Particles you seem to be against the liberalism of the
> sixties. What do you think of that interpretation?

> HOUELLEBECQ

> What I think, fundamentally, is that you can’t do anything about
> major societal changes. It may be regrettable that the family unit
> is disappearing. You could argue that it increases human
> suffering. But regrettable or not, there’s nothing we can
> do. That’s the difference between me and a reactionary. I don’t
> have any interest in turning back the clock because I don’t
> believe it can be done. You can only observe and describe. I’ve
> always liked Balzac’s very insulting statement that the only
> purpose of the novel is to show the disasters produced by the
> changing of values. He’s exaggerating in an amusing way. But
> that’s what I do: I show the disasters produced by the
> liberalization of values.

> INTERVIEWER

> You have written that you are “not only a religious atheist but a
> political one.” Can you elaborate?

> HOUELLEBECQ

> I don’t believe much in the influence of politics on history. I
> think that the major factors are technological and sometimes, not
> often, religious. I don’t think politicians can really have a true
> historical importance, except when they provoke major catastrophes
> Napoleon-style, but that’s about it. I also don’t believe
> individual psychology has any effect on social movements. You will
> find this belief expressed in all my novels. I was speaking to
> someone this morning about Belgium, a country that doesn’t work at
> all. And nobody understands why, from a psychological standpoint,
> because Belgians themselves seem sympathetic and willing to make
> it all work. And yet it doesn’t. The country is going to
> disappear. So we have to believe that there are powerful
> sociological forces at work that cannot be explained in terms of
> individual psychology.

That's a great quote.

It goes along Leo Tolstoy whom I've quoted many times from War and
Peace.

Here's one quote: "In historic events, the so-called great men are
labels giving names to events, and like labels they have but the
smallest connection with the event itself."

Tolstoy was completely baffled about how Napoleon's invasion of Russia
could even have occurred, since it makes no logical sense at all.
Here's what he wrote about one of the battles:

"Had Napoleon then forbidden [his army] to fight the Russians, they
would have killed him and have proceeded to fight the Russians anyway,
because it was inevitable."

John