Why did we go to war?

One hundred years later, we are still discussing what caused the First World War, and who is to blame. What we should have learned is that while isolated incidents and the reaction to these in itself may have seemed rational and understandable, the sum of these incidents became a catastrophic leap into death and destruction. With this hindsight we could have avoided a similar chain of events one century later.

In the escalation of tensions in Ukraine, we have seen the following critical incidents:

1. Interference in domestic affairs
If Ukraine was a sovereign state, an intervention in its internal affairs could only have been justified in the case of severe violations of human rights. But what was under discussion were the country's international relations. The EU support for protests against an elected president was a casus belli - not for Russia but for Ukraine.

A Big Data Police State?

If you look at the long term future of social media, I do not believe that privacy is the main concern. It is of course not the best place to share those things you would not want to be public. But the larger part of 'posts' will be hardly compromising for its users.
That is, if taken separately. The long term trend in social media appears to be building search algorithms that can make sense of all these posts, and attach a meaning behind them to individual users. As Facebook developer Rasmussen explains in a BBC-interview about the value of newsfeed posts:

"It's by far our biggest data source. The engineering challenge of building a search index that can manage that volume of data is big. We're well underway to making the system scale that far - we just aren't there yet."
It means a friend searching for "Friends who like football" could identify you if you had once written something like "Come on United!" in your feed.
[...]
"There are really interesting techniques around sentiment analysis," Mr Rasmussen says, "where people try to take text and figure out whether it's someone saying they like something or don't like something.
(See: BBC News - Technology, "Lars Rasmussen: the brains behind Facebook's future")

 A few months ago, when we started an ETFI-project on the future of social media, I spoke of a scenario in which both industries and governments would adopt a more repressive attitude. The fact that social media as Twitter have created temporary openings of free speech in totalitarian countries is a matter of technical unpreparedness rather than a feature which is inherent to the new media. On the contrary: indepth indexing of newsfeed posts will be an unprecedentedly powerful tool for repressive organisations.

The abandonment of democracy

In our history books we have studied how economic crises and abandoning democratic principles go hand in hand. It is fascinating and frightening to see, currently, how this mechanism is being set in motion.

Originally, democracy was the sovereignty of the will of the people. The people are free to decide and join forces to defend the common good by majority vote. But now there appears to be a footnote: the people may be wrong. Mistaken. EU Commissioner De Gucht raises the question in an interview with the Belgian Standaard: Greece remaining in the Euro-zone will only be possible "if the Greek people will be able to judge rationally in their elections. But they are desperate people... " (De Standaard).

If economic austerity is the only rational thing to do, why do we still have to vote? And why do people fail to see what is good for them? Is there an institution which prevails over democracy and which may judge what is rational and what is not?

And what can we do if the people give the wrong answer?

The Tipping-Point of Radicalization

Why would anyone put a tattoo in their face? If you get a tattoo to identify with a certain subculture, the surprise or shock-effect that the picture inspires is part of the motivation. The image will remain but the surprise will gradually fade, unless you keep drawing attention by the amount, nature and placement of new tattoos.

The growth of fascist movements is fed by the mobilization of social frustrations insufficiently covered by mainstream political parties. Their success – putting these frustrations on the political agenda – will therefore lead to a further radicalization. If there are no further frustrations to be uncovered, the fascist movement can only dissolve and become part of mainstream politics. The Dutch ‘Freedom Party’ PVV initially voiced anti-islamist sentiments invoking liberal principles; now that these thoughts have become part of parliamentary debate, the movement abandons these same principles and launches a website to incite overt anti-immigration anger (“Have you lost your job to a Pole, a Romanian or a Bulgarian?”).

There is no turning back. Once you have written hatred on your face, you can no longer approach a nice girl in the park and ask her out.

A 10 against fascism

A Bachelor dissertation read at Tilburg University, identifying right-wing PVV as a contemporary fascist party, was awarded the highest grade (10). This unusual qualification made national press and has sparked controversy.

The debate about the underlying hypothesis has become a political one. Unlike others, I do not object to linking PVV to fascism, and I believe it is extremely relevant to study how the far right will evolve in the next decade. I am hesitant though about the academic perfection attributed to the paper and about the publicity that was sought. The grade seems to be a statement. It means no favour to the student, nor to science, nor to a political cause.

It reminds me of a curious judgement I received when I was a student. I wrote a small paper about a movement inside Italian fascism. I analysed its ideological origins, and I could use the findings in later work on the effects of censorship. My supervisor (at the Dept. of Contemporary History) looked puzzled and asked: "But where does it say that you are against fascism?"

I still wonder whether medical students are also required to state that they are against cancer.