The Philosophy of Wiping Your Own Ass

The Philosophy of Wiping Your Own Ass

Wiping your own ass is a challenge which most people would never admit to experiencing. "Of course I know how to wipe my ass! Do I look like a baby!?" may come the retort from someone asked if they knew how to do it. And for a long time I was one of those people too. But as I have become more comfortable in my body and also more comfortable admitting the things I do struggle with, I have come to admit that I do not know how to wipe my own ass. The only real teachings I received around the subject were to 'keep going until the paper comes back white' and this was not always helpful advice, for often times the paper would fade from brown to red and I would be perplexed by the contradictory evidence: brown means I am not done yet, but red means I have overdone it. So what does it mean when the two are mixed together?! I hypothesized that it meant I was doing something wrong and thereafter set out upon a personal ass wiping quest of discovery.

The ass of another person is an easier thing to deal with, because you can make first hand visual confirmation of the dirtiness or cleanliness of the ass itself, and if it is dirty then you know specifically which areas are and are not. The ass of oneself, however, is a totally different story! Now, suddenly, the visual cues of the state-of-the-ass are coming in secondhand (from the paper) and while this seems like a small and easily navigable jump in methodology, I have found that this crevasse is actually wider than it seems. I began my journey into the philosophy of ass-wiping when I began to experience various signs and signals that I was not as exquisite an ass wiper as I had once presumed. Now, many years into this journey of anal hygiene, I finally feel that I have enough information to come forward with. I am confident that, here during my 26th year of life, I finally understand how to wipe my own ass! I have discovered a three stage strategy of ass wiping which, when affixed by specialized hand techniques, wipes the ass better than any of the more traditional techniques alone.

The Traditional Techniques and their Associated Flaws

The first technique I learned was as a young child and has come to be known as the Front-to-Back. This technique is where the paper is gripped in one way or another, and the hand and arm take a long, and slightly awkward, route to the ass by twisting the torso to one side and stretching the arm over and around the hip and buttcheek. This technique, in my own experience, was taught as a standing technique. However, it grew into a sitting technique, which was even more uncomfortable, because then, alongside the contortions of the upper body, one must also lift one buttcheek off the seat for access and this is done by popping the hip up (even moreso into the way of the arm than it was to begin with). The benefits to this technique are that the ass is being wiped in an away-direction from the genitals and thus one need be much less cautious. The detriment to this technique is that it is uncomfortable, slightly awkward, and most of all the fact that the crack of the ass extends far beyond the butthole in this direction. This means that one is at risk of smearing the bulk of the  waste into the upper crack area, where it will begin to cause severe social disharmony.

The second technique I learned was through observation of my elders and it is a practice I implemented to fulfill my need to 'be grown-up'. This technique has come to be known as the Back-to-Front and it solves many of the problems of its predecessor, while yet bringing even stronger problems of its own. The Back-to-Front is a technique where the paper is held, in one way or another, and the hand reaches through the opening of the legs into the toilet bowl for access to the ass. When performing the Back-to-Front there is a very real danger of misjudging the air to water ratio available in the bowl, and thus dipping one's hand into the no-longer-potable water. However, this is a minor detriment compared to the true crux of Back-to-Front'ing, which is the friction-tear crux. You see, the butthole is not a perfectly formed piece of anatomy. If you look closely at the butthole, you will tend to find there is an imperfection near its bottom. This imperfection might be referred to as a knot. When performing the Back-to-Front the paper is typically dragged across this knot, and the repetitive friction upon this concentrated area often causes small tears to form.  This is a painful experience and remains so for long after the ass is wiped, but the true difficulty in the friction-tear crux is that the immediate pain of the wound severely inhibits continued wiping, and therefore tends to lead to a progressively less-satisfactorily wiped ass as time goes on. The last detriment to be spoken of is one which I refer to as the Social-Physical Problem. This problem arises due to the ass being wiped towards the genitals. So in males there is the risk of having a very socially-traumatic episode involving what was once on your ass, now being on your scrotum. Meanwhile, for females, there is the risk of having a very physically-traumatic episode involving a septic vagina. As the reader will come to see, the Three Stage Strategy does not necessarily attend to all aspects of the Social-Physical Problem, but I will address these shortcomings later in this paper.

The Three Stage Strategy and Hand Techniques

The true art of wiping one's own ass comes in the technique of the hand. The hand is the skeleton of the tool, it is the foundation of the ass-wiping structure. Without proper hand technique it becomes pointless to even wipe the ass. I have discovered two 'gripping forms' and three 'wiping forms', and when used in perfect unison these forms have the potential to inaugurate a particular passion for ass wiping. The grip is as important as the wipe because without a proper grip one is liable to have paper slippage and dirty the hand. We will discuss the first gripping technique and its associated wiping forms. After which we will cover the second grip and the third wipe.

The first gripping technique is one which I call the Guiderail. This is where the paper sits on the three primary fingers, while the pinky finger pinches down from the top. This pinky pinch is what keeps the paper from sliding out of place as soon as there is drag from the butthole. The thumb, meanwhile, rests on top of the far side. This thumb pinch is what keeps the paper from rolling or flapping away from the main structure of the hand. This grip is used with both the first and second stages of the Three Stage Strategy.

We come to the first stage now, this stage is intended to remove only the bulk and excess of dirtiness within the ass, and is focused on the butthole itself. Grip the paper using the Guiderail style, push the middle finger inwards from the other two and perform a Back-to-Front. So ideally it is the middle finger which contacts, through the paper, the butthole, and the wipe should start at the middle knuckle and end at the fingertip with a small scooping motion. The Back-to-Front can be repeated another time or two in the case of an especially dirty ass. Remember, you are just clearing the bulk here, there are still two more stages to a cleanly ass.

The second stage applies a variation on the Guiderail. It is intended to target the anal areola, where the majority of the filth tends to reside. Now, instead of pushing the middle finger in, it is both the middle and the ring finger which need to come forward; one should then perform a Front-to-Back. The two fingers, side-by-side, should contact either side of the anal areola. The wipe should start at the middle knuckle and end at the fingertip with a small scooping motion to avoid the Social-Physical Problem. I prefer to perform this stage in a standing position due to the ability to find the most parallel purchase with the buttcrack. Furthermore, considering the bulk was dealt with in stage one, there is little concern about the buttcheeks spreading the filth about when they close together as the standing is performed. The Front-to-Back should now be repeated until the report from the paper begins to show a significant decline in filth. While this report may vary from person to person I identify it with basically white paper, but still clearly some small signs of uncleanliness.

The second gripping technique is one which I call the Prizeclaw. This is where the tips of the fingers all come together at roughly the same point to create five equally-lateral supports. Imagine you are attempting to hold a golf ball with your fingertips. Where before the paper was manipulated into a multi-layered rectangle, with the third stage of the technique the paper is bunched up into a very loose ball, much like a luffa. This paper-luffa is then gripped with the Prizeclaw technique and used to scrub the butthole up and down. Typically one would not scrub up and down in the ass because the filth would simply be spread about. But with the three stage technique there is no longer enough to spread around. The ass is quite clean at this point, and the only remaining filth is held within the groovy wrinkles of the anal areola. Since both sides of each groove need to be attended to, the up and down scrub makes the most sense. Repeat this final technique a couple times and the paper should report full cleanliness of the ass. Congratulations you have done it: you wiped your own ass!

Other Considerations

I would like to dedicate a small segment here to the water versus paper argument. Many areas of the world use bidets for anal hygiene. I have had the privilege of trying some different bidet models out, and I found them all to be sorely disappointing. There are two issues that I found. The first was the lack of report, there is no realistically efficient way to determine the state-of-the-ass when relying on a bidet. The second issue I found was the lack of pressure, which did little, if anything at all, to clean the ass. At the times of my experiences I was under the impression that one need simply spray the butthole with the water and all would be well. As it turns out this is brashly incorrect.

As I discussed this issue with a friend of mine he was generous enough to enlighten me with his understanding of the ‘philosophy of bum-gunning’. One is to use the meager pressure to deal with the bulk of the filth. After which, one ought to soap one’s hand and proceed to utilize the bare, soapy hand to gently massage the butthole, cleansing it thoroughly with the hand and fingertips, and thereafter wash the hands clean of any residue. I am excited for my next foray into a part of the world which provides the water option, so that I can practice this new understanding and develop a firmer philosophy, and deeper understanding, of my own regarding the water versus paper argument.

The Social-Physical Problem

Earlier on we touched on the Social-Physical Problem, and the issue arose that the Three Stage Strategy does little to solve the ass wiping woes of women. I am not a woman and therefore I can only hypothesize about this issue, but hypothesize I shall! Based on my repertoire of understanding regarding anal hygiene, and the female anatomy, I shall now posit an alternative Three Stage Strategy to combat the female side of the Social-Physical Problem!

I believe that one should begin with the Front-to-Back while having the middle finger forward. Then, continuing on with Front-to-Back, switch the finger technique to the middle and ring-finger style. Tertiarily, switch to the Back-to-Front technique, but do not aim the wipe at the butthole and instead aim the wipe at the upper crack area to catch any filth the first stage may have relocated there. Finally, finish with the third stage Prizeclaw scrub.

Concluding Thoughts

I truly hope that my years of research and failed trials have brought a degree of enlightenment to your own philosophy of ass wiping. We were able to discuss quite a bit of information within this paper, yet still so much remains to be discovered. I would appreciate any appropriate thoughts regarding the subject of ass wiping, and I welcome any messages of gratitude you may have. I am particularly interested in hearing from any female wipers with comments or concerns regarding my theoretical solution to the feminine side of the Social-Physical Problem. Thank you so much for reading and I wish you the highest fortunes in your future anal endeavours.

Peace and safety,

Cyril C. House

chouse@ualberta.ca

A Functional Understanding

Cyril C House

Ancient Metaphysics

A Functional Understanding

    Aristotle, throughout his successive series’, builds up to what has come to be labelled ‘The Function Argument’. He begins leading up to this argument  as early as Physics and makes his ultimate statement(s) regarding his thesis in Nicomachean Ethics. The intention of this short paper is to identify and assess this Function Argument. I will begin by pointing to a few highlights throughout Aristotle’s reel of argumentation, and thereafter dip into one of the common criticisms of this argument. By the end of the paper I trust to find that Aristotle’s Function Argument will remain standing tall.

    In Physics Aristotle identifies four foundational causes of things: material, formal, efficient, and final. For the sake of brevity I will assume the reader is already familiar with these causes. Of these four causes, it is primarily the final cause with which we are concerned herein. Aristotle says, of the final cause, that:

[It is] in the sense of end or ‘that for the sake of which’ a thing is done, e.g. health is the cause of walking about. (‘Why is he walking about?’ we say. ‘To be healthy’, and, having said that, we think we have assigned the cause.) The same is true also of the intermediary steps which are brought about through the action of something else as means towards the end (194b)

So it can be understood that the purpose of some-thing is its final cause, and this ‘purpose’ may be otherwise referred to as its ‘function’. The function of a tree is the resultant phenomena of all the tree-activities working in harmony, and this function is understood as ‘to tree’, the function of the tree is to do tree stuff and when the causes of the tree are in harmony with one another it is only then that the tree is ultimately tree-like. Of artifacts there is typically a function which the artisan has in mind as she creates the artifact itself, so therefore the function of a guillotine is to cut the heads off of people. The guillotine is then ultimately guillotine-like only as it is cutting the heads off of people. This argument is the beginning of how Aristotle leads up to the Function Argument itself. It can be understood from the previous reasoning that a human is only ultimately human-like as far as it is able to fulfill its function, whatever that function may be.

    Moving on throughout the writings of Aristotle, we come across De Anima. In 413a through 414b he distinguishes between differing tiers of a nested hierarchy of being. The inner most nest is nutritive and is characteristic of plants (they are able to feed themselves). The middle most nest is sensitive and is characteristic of base animals (they are able to feel things), there is also reference to locomotive capabilities in this tier. The outer most nest is rational thought and is characteristic of humans. So the inner most nest is only capable of feeding itself, while the middle most is capable both of feeding itself as well as sensing its surroundings and moving about, and the outer most nest is capable of all faculties, feeding itself, sensing its surroundings, moving about, and thinking rationally. This is how Aristotle distinguishes the unique capability of humans as apart from other forms of life. It is this uniqueness which he presumes must be the unique function of the human animal, and therefore its function. For to simply feed oneself cannot be considered to be an activity which would make one ultimately human-like, for plants and animals also do this thing. The same considerations apply to sensation and locomotion, these are not ultimately human-like for base animals are also capable of these things. So we see that De Anima, in part at least, serves to flesh out the function(s) of different living things; this is the foundation of the thesis which Aristotle will render within the framework (from Physics) of final causation in humans.

    Finally, coming to Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle puts forth the Function Argument itself. In this book he is exploring the chief good of being human. He comes to rest upon the point that the chief good of any human is to be eudaimon, roughly translated as happiness. However, it is not just any sort of happiness, and certainly not the common conception of happiness. For happiness is often constructed in such a way as that “even the same person identifies it with different things, with health when he is ill, with wealth when he is poor” (1095a). Aristotle seeks a happiness which is ”always desirable for itself and never for the sake of something else” (1097a), and in the pursuit of such a thing he unveils eudaimonia which is more like a virtuous happiness, or else the type of well-being associated with living a virtuous life. What type of life is a virtuous life? He goes on to explain that “the function of man is to live a certain kind of life, and this activity implies a rational principle, and the function of a good man is the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed it is performed in accord with the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, then happiness turns out to be an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue” (1098a). He concludes that happiness, as is understood to be the rational exercise of virtue, is the ultimate function of the human animal..

   

    So what is so problematic about this view? Turning now to a criticism of the thesis, Micha Gertner tells us that “[i]t is difficult to see how this reasoning follows. Just because a thing has distinctive properties in relation to other like things does not mean that these distinctive properties are its function. Consider a tall tree in a forest of shorter trees. Is tallness the purpose or function of this tree?”. There are two things which I find flawed about this particular claim. The first is that tallness is not a distinct property, plain and simple. All things have a certain height and therefore it is flawed to assume that just because some particular tree is tall-er than other things around it that this tree’s particular tallness somehow makes the property unique to it. Secondly, if we are to assume, for a moment, that this tree’s tallness is in fact unique to it then it could follow that tallness is indeed the function of a tree. For when we consider trees we will recall, from the first paragraph of this paper, that the end goal of a tree is to do tree stuff like photosynthesis and reproduction. So if we consider a tree which performs the act of tallness poorly we can project that this tree, being buried beneath taller trees than itself, will hardly catch any sunlight, therefore being unable to photosynthesize, therefore being unable to feed itself, therefore being unable to reproduce. Is this tree truly a tree? Is it able to realize its ultimate potential? No clearly not. So to go back to Gertner’s example: the tree which performs the act of tallness well will tower above the rest and thus be able to catch the lion’s share of sunlight, therefore photosynthesizing extremely well, therefore reproducing at a greater rate than those smaller trees around it. So to perform the act of tallness well enables a tree to be the best tree it can be and such tallness actually brings about its ultimate state of tree-ness. Following this line of reasoning it is plain to see how ‘tallness’ could be considered to be the function of a tree. This is identical to the idea Aristotle actually proposes: that, for humans, to perform the act of rationally exercising virtue well enables the human to be the best human it can be, eudaimon in other words. The function seems to be the act by which the chief good is realized, and therefore any property of a thing which enables it to realize its chief good is perfectly applicable as that thing’s function.

    Throughout this short paper I have done my best, in the space available, to assert, identify, and layout the buildup towards and execution of Aristotle’s Function Argument. We first visited the Physics in which Aristotle lays out the blueprint for all things by means of the four causes, and he seems to leave the final cause of the human animal open for interpretation or guesstimation. After which we sojourned in De Anima, wherein Aristotle lays out the blueprint of the souls of all living things. We discussed the nested hierarchy of plants to animals to humans and reiterated their unique properties. For plants this property was nutrition, for animals these properties were sensation and locomotion, and for humans this property was rational thought. Leading onwards into Nicomachean Ethics we were briefed on what the two previous paragraphs had to do with one another, that was that the unique property of humans from De Anima was being fed into the partially empty blueprint from the Physics, the final cause being solved for. We saw how comfortably the two fit together and briefly examined why this seemed to be the case. Finally we departed from the exposition of the topic to consider a critical reply against the thesis. A critique which I hope to have succeeded in either shutting down, or at least weakening the resolve of. Aristotle remains a canon of philosophical thought and discourse today and this is not for no reason, and I believe that other criticisms of the Function Argument could also be readily resolved by adamant Aristotelian advocates.

Works Cited

Aristotle, and Richard McKeon. The Basics Works of Aristotle. New York: Random House, 2001. Print.

Gertner, Micha. “Aristotle’s Dysfunctional “Function Argument””. The Distributed Republic. 19/11/2004. Web. 05/04/2017.

Killing In The Name Of..

Cyril C House

International Relations

Killing In The Name Of..

    In March of 2011, in Syria, pro-democracy protests erupted which contested the autocratic regime being led by Bashar al-Assad. Assad responded to the protesters with lethal force, and in doing so sparked the brewing powder keg of revolution. The war that followed has been catastrophic. More than 250,000 Syrians have been killed in the conflict, more than 11,000,000 have been forced from their homes. In a three-sided civil war between the country’s government, pro-democracy rebels, and Islamic State jihadists, there seems to be no end to the savagery and atrocities being committed. The power struggle has lost any strong tether to one side or another and is now up for grabs, and it seems that the world powers have begun to take notice.

Today there are multiple layers to the Syrian Conflict, there  are now rebels fighting the government, rebels fighting the jihadists, and jihadists beheading anyone they come across. Additionally, the Syrian governmental regime has several ‘big sock supporters’, Russia among these, while the rebels have their own ‘big sock backing’, the United States among these. Is this a coincidence, the fact that old time Cold War rivals find themselves on rivaling sides of a conflict which has little to do with either of them? I assure you it is no coincidence. This is a proxy war between the two great powers and if there is a state which has little to do with this conflict that state is, ironically, Syria. This is a power struggle which goes far beyond the borders of Syria to encompass the entire international power structure of the modern world. There is a battle against corruption playing out, and corruption’s name is ‘America’. I will argue that the primary reason for Russian support of the Assad regime is to push back against, what has become, the American bid for global domination in a world that no longer views  ‘the conqueror’ as legitimate. The neorealist lens is the tool which will best aid your understanding of my argument as I delve into the murky waters of American power strategies over the last several decades. This should provide ample backing to support my secondary claim, that America is vying for global domination while attempting to maintain its facade as one of the world’s ‘good guys’. I will then conclude by addressing my primary claim, that Russia is proxy warring in Syria as a means of pushing back against the American hegemon. Guerisoli suggests that the Syrian Civil War is not really a proxy war due to the major military powers’ direct actions in the conflict, rather than just simply supporting one or another side. However, in this paper I will be referring to it as a proxy war due to the context of my thesis which suggests that the major powers are fighting in Syria as an indirect means of combatting each other, and as such I find the war to remain worthy of the proxy qualification.

Framework

    Allow me to touch on the conceptual framework, of neorealism, within which I will be working herein. Neorealism evolved out of classical realism, both realist blocks are still in popular use to this day and each of these two blocks also has myriad sub-blocks of itself. Realism, as an overarching term meant to encompass all the blocks and sub-blocks, is a style of thinking that bases itself primarily on the concept of power; power as is divided into three key distinctions: 1) Statism, 2) Survival, 3) Self-Help (Dunne). Statism meaning that states themselves are the only actors of relevance and states are defined by sovereignty. Survival meaning that the continuation of the state as a sovereign power is the fundamental end towards which all means are aimed. Self-Help meaning that states must rely on themselves to provide their own security. Security, from a realist perspective, is primarily defined in terms of military capacity. Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz are popularly seen as the most influential proponents of classical realism and neorealism, respectively. “Morgenthau and Waltz both see the international arena as a competitive and hostile stage where power is the main currency. That is why the concept of power is at the heart of their analysis of international politics” (Pashakhanlou). Pashakhanlou also identifies several key differentiations between classical realism and neorealism. Two, of which I find pertinent to my use of the term, are: 1) Classical realists believe that the root of the realist power struggle can be traced back to the imperfect nature of human beings, while neorealists believe it traces back to the anarchical structure of the international system. 2) Classical realism differentiates between status-quo powers and revisionist powers, what is to say those states who wield their power primarily to maintain themselves and those states who wield their power in an effort to alter, or revise, the structure of the system itself; meanwhile neorealists believe that a state is a state and there is no point to contrast how and why it wields the powers it does. Further along in this paper, in the section entitled ‘Competitive Thought’, I will take a moment to discuss why I believe that neorealism is the way in which we should be thinking about this issue.

King of the Hill

    The Cold War was a dark time in international history, with tensions taut as the world’s inhabitants could only guess at how much time they may have left before nuclear winter descended upon them. In ‘89-’91 these tensions would relax, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the implicated dismantling of its Communist Empire. However, it seems that the tensions’ tautness, for the American government, did not ease. They were now concerned with the reemergence of some power or another which would contest their apparently decided hegemony. On March 8, 1992, a document called Defense Planning Guidance was leaked by a top U.S. official to the New York Times. This document shows stringent concern with the return to power of Russia and its allies, stating:

American strategic nuclear weapons will continue to target vital aspects of the former Soviet military establishment. The rationale for the continuation of this targeting policy is that the United States "must continue to hold at risk those assets and capabilities that current -- and future -- Russian leaders or other nuclear adversaries value most" because Russia will remain "the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States” (Tyler)

The Americans were clearly not satisfied with Russia’s surrender to the capitalist ideal. In fact the document goes on to state that American policies "must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role" (Tyler). So America did not feel comfortable with countries ‘even aspiring’ to play larger roles than they already played. There seems to be little room for other kids at all in the post-Cold War American sandbox. This seems like an extremely oppressive mandate to enact, it brings up the question of exactly how they intended to enforce such a policy?

Big Kid on the Block

    America has just come into uncontested supremacy in the global system, and is now seeking not only to fortify its claim to power, but also to snuff out any potential future threats to their decisive hegemony. But just how can they do this, in a war-weary world striving towards peace, without looking like they are stirring up the pot unnecessarily? Well the easiest way to do so was to incite the public aggression, to take the war-weariness of the American population and turn it into a bloodthirst. By creating a pretext, upon which to rest the public opinion, they could more easily gain the public support they needed for an ongoing campaign. It is important to note that the use of pretexts was going on before the end of the Cold War, such as the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Incident, which would pretext the invasion of Vietnam (Johnson) . In fact the Cold War itself was largely based on pretext considering “Harry S.Truman was encouraged to [‘]scare the hell out of the American people,[‘] since this was felt to be the only way to elicit their support for conflict with the Soviets” (Gibbs). Americans would use similar tactics to achieve their politico-military goals up through the turn of the millennium: Iraq in 1998, Yugoslavia in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, and Haiti in 2004 (Cordesman1). But in a world striving towards peace and resolution such tactics could not work forever, and so after exhausting the ‘old tact’, American foreign policy makers came up with a ‘new tact’, although there was not much new about it, it was simply the same old tact but this time it had an extra layer of dirt and deception on top of its already decrepit face.

Color Me Crooked

    At the turn of the millennium the world would begin to see what has come to be known as the ‘Color Revolutions’. Some examples of these are: the Rose Revolution of 2003 in Georgia, the Orange Revolution of 2004 in Ukraine, and the Tulip Revolution of 2005 in Kyrgyzstan. These ‘color revolutions’ can be defined as “various political upheavals [which] happened following allegations of electoral fraud in national elections [of post-Soviet regimes] since 2000 [which] seem to indicate democratic breakthroughs” (Thien). Color revolutions have been extremely troublesome, however, considering they cause general instability in large regions, they encourage further instability in neighbouring regions, and they have been breeding grounds for terrorists, such as in Libya. John Breuilly supports this claim in telling us that “the [Western dominated] system preferred dysfunctional states”. Russian military leaders feel that the color revolutions and all their inherent consequences are a direct result of the West, and in particular the US hegemon, attempting to unilaterally impose their culture and ideology onto others throughout the world, and that this imposition, more often than not, fosters radical Nationalist attitudes (Cordesman1). So how does the US do this precisely? How do they impose their culture and ideology onto others throughout the world? It was previously mentioned that the US had developed a newer, dirtier strategy for achieving their politico-military goals. That strategy is a three-step plan as described by senior Russian military officials and summarized by Cordesman1. First incite a revolution, or what has come to be known as a color revolution. Second, if the revolution meets resistance from the government, then apply a ‘concealed use of force’ such as supplying the revolutionaries with arms, training their soldiers, or even hiring out private military companies to go in and lend combative support. Thirdly, if the revolutionaries continue to meet government resistance, then search for a pretext to feed the public and put the US military on the ground. Neorealists agree that one of the main sources of global international instability are bids for global hegemony and unipolarity; Emmanuel Guerisoli throws his hat in this ring, and in doing so points also to Bull 2012, Gilpin 1983, Mearsheimer 2001, Walt 2005, and Waltz 2010.

   

The Russian Responsibility

    Before ‘89-’91, and the end of the Cold War, the Russians (Soviets then) were one of two major hegemonic powers in a bipolar world. And if we go even further back into the age of imperialistic conquest, Czarist Russia was yet a dominating force, albeit one of many. The way this information can be viewed is as a sporting game, that is to say that we (the world) started out with a great deal of hegemonic potential. Then after many decades of competition the weakest potential hegemons were beat out by their stronger opponents, and those who were left competing moved up a bracket. Eventually we came to the semi-finals and we witnessed the great battle (the ‘finals’) for the leading world hegemon, otherwise known as the Cold War. The United States was crowned World Champion those days in ‘89-’91 and we have been moving forward ever since. But I believe that as time went on and America continued along as the uncontested World Champion of hegemonic sport, that the power began to go its head. The photographs of an intoxicated America hanging out in a dingy part of the city, with friends of a questionable nature and background, have begun to pop up in the fourth estate. The world has begun to see America as more than just the decisively-infallible victor from some decades-old competition, but rather as a real State, with real-State problems, real-State concerns, and real-State shortcomings.

Russia in particular has begun to view America in this way, and as such has discovered an opportune moment to make its long awaited comeback in the hearts and minds of the world. After all, Russia was the silver medalist from the Cold War and that clearly gives it a degree of power and authority. A degree of power and authority which has been futile to attempt to exert for a long time, simply due to the aggregate infatuation of the world with the American munificence. Still so, does much of the world stand in awe of its American master, but a time comes along when that no longer matters, and that time is now. With the ongoing incitations of color revolutions throughout the developing world America has begun to destabilize the entirety of social, economic, and political order upon which this globe has come to depend. Through the incessant proliferation of politically-unstable hotspots throughout the world America has come to breed terrorists and terrorism in droves throughout their awe-ful wake (Cordesman2). It is no longer reasonable, for those who can do something about it, to not. No longer can idle players stand-by and watch as the world is destroyed around them. No longer is it permissible, either ethically or morally, for those with power to not wield it with responsibility; for it is precisely such responsibility which is the defining point of the authority of power (Parker). Should someone not step in and assert themselves before this onslaught of subversive democratization, what has become a staple of the American reign of power, then surely the world will ceaselessly tumble towards some undefined precipice of no return. Perhaps such a precipice could be a unified democratic world in which all states are at peace with one another and too busy foddering their economies and human happiness indices to actually care about whether their neighbouring state is Christian, Muslim, Pagan, or Atheist; White, Black, Brown, or Red; Heterosexual, Transexual, Homosexual, or Asexual. But this utopia is not a scenario which the current evidence of the situation seems to suggest. Rather, when looking at what is happening in the wake of the color revolutions: what is observed is instability, chaos, and a deepened sense of hatred and xenophobia. If we should we take this picture, the actuality of reality in the here and now, and project that into the future then the resulting image of politically upturned, hate-centric, ultra-ethno-national states seems to suggest a Hobbesian dystopia in which life becomes “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes). I am not suggesting, necessarily, that should America continue on its trajectory without a check on power that the world as we know it is destined to become some Hell-on-Earth ethno-blood feud of state interactions. I simply seek to clearly define the line, between ethical and unethical endgames, so that there is a poignant understanding of the affairs at hand. And again, I do not intend to imply that by inciting color revolutions throughout the world that America is intentionally striving for chaos, but rather I seek to point out that their reckless fragility (remember that they seek to democratize in fear that some power will rise up to challenge their authority) is very likely to have rather vicious consequences down the line. Russia now has begun to assert itself more prominently in the world theater, perhaps as a means of saying ‘Hey America, settle down please, the Cold War is over’.

Competitive Thought

    Is there any other way to look at this problem? I have spent the last number of pages taking quite a dig at American foreign policy from a neorealist perspective and have managed to draw quite a vivid picture of the American intention and character. However, it would be irresponsible of me to claim that this is the way that things are and if you have another opinion then you are foolish. There are, in fact, many other ways of looking at the problem of the Russian-US Syrian proxy war, and many other ways of looking at the color revolutions of the last 15 or so years. Not only are there alternative views, but they are actually quite strong views. I possess neither the time, nor space herein, to address all the various alternative perspectives but I would like to take a short half paragraph to at least tip my hat to the myriad opponents. Liberalists would be likely to argue that Russia and US are simply doing what it appears they are doing on the surface, that is: helping people with whom their belief systems align. Liberalists will likely bring up the point, in response to the color revolutions, that the people of these countries are making free decisions to rebel against the authoritarian regimes in place above them, and that it is specifically the oppression of these regimes which incited the people to revolt. Social Constructivists may argue that the color revolutions are a result of the portrayal of the happiness, freedom, and luxurious lifestyles of the West in popular media and thus that the people of these countries are striving towards achieving a similar collective ideal for themselves. As for the proxy war I think that a Constructivist might point back to the Cold War and say that it has not yet been long enough for the social construction of fraught bipolar tensions to be replaced by something more progressive, and therefore that Russia is in Syria to ‘oppose the Capitalists’ just as much as the US is in Syria to ‘oppose the Communists’. Post-Colonialists, I believe, would indicate that the color revolutions are a result of colonial subordinates final breaking free from the reigns of their masters, and likewise that the proxy war is simply two colonial masters attempting to maintain control and authority in the system. Now these are just three of many, many viewpoints on the situation; why should we understand this problem from a neorealist perspective, rather than any of the others? I am of the firm opinion that power corrupts, it is so very improbable to maintain power for any extended period of time without developing a thirst for more; more power, more authority, and more recognition. Another thing which I believe to corrupt is ultimacy. That is to say that when one is not checked and balanced by some greater authority than itself, this tends to lead to discrepancies in the ethics by which it asserts its own dominance. I commented previously on the long-standing history and authority of the Russian Empire. The US does not have quite such a long standing history to be able to show the same thing of it; but the US has had now nearly 30 years of uncontested ultimacy, and it is this which corrupts it as a state. What I am saying is that Russia and the US are capital ‘P’ Power Players, and that whenever and wherever Power Players are acting, such situations must be viewed in the context of power itself. Neorealists believe that security is provided by the structure of the international system; by this reasoning it follows that insecurity also flows from the structure international system.

In this paper I have done my best to point out that the international system is becoming progressively more unstable with each advancement of US foreign policy. That is why I believe neorealism to be the correct lens with which to view the Russia-US proxy war in Syria, and also the US incitement of color revolutions, because the US assertion of power has led to an instability in the international system which has now resulted in instability and, resultantly, another state has stepped in to ‘ease the waters’, as it were. Guerisoli lends further support to my suppositions by telling us that the situation “has to be seen through a neorealist prism that prioritizes balance of power between nations and considers any non-inevitable loss of spheres of influence as a direct attack on national interests”. Guerisoli also suggests three primary reasons for Russia’s involvement in Syria, two of which are: counterbalancing US hegemony, and preventing the emergence of stateless zones of destabilization.

Conclusion

    So we have been discussing a couple of things by this point: that Russia is proxy warring the US in Syria as a means of pushing back against the slightly narcissistic hegemony of the US, and we have also dug quite deep into the idea of what America is/has been doing, why they are doing it, and what exactly the issue is with their continuance of such tactics. We touched on the Cold War, the ensuing US concerns regarding the re-rise of Soviet Russia and the terrifying implications which that may have to their own authority. We also spelunked into the murky caverns of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War, and how those policies were primarily concerned with the belief that Russia would rise again. We were also able to check in on the Russian viewpoint of the American invasions of, and support towards, underdeveloped countries as they experience political turmoil. So I hope that it is plain to see that, although this is not the only way of viewing things, it is in fact a warranted argument that the US has been unilaterally destabilizing the non-West world in an attempt to, not only cause chaos and confusion in the would-be/could-be allies of Communism but also to sway civic opinion, within these states, in US favour as a means of creating a network of support for the American hegemon throughout the world, and also as proxy buffer states to ‘Soviet’ (Russian) expansion. Also it should be concisely understood by this point that Russian expansion is of concern to the US because they do not want to share the power of global hegemony with any others, and Russia is seen as the one state with any true potential to contest American domination. Following the appearance of this global bully (America), it was only a matter of time before some underdog or another stepped up to push back against them, and it is fitting that this underdog is Russia because of its once prominent position in the international system. In fact it is extremely ironic that it should be Russia to push back against the US, considering that it has been America's concern over Russia’s potential to be a competitor that led to the American behaviour which resulted in Russia stepping up and speaking out.

Works Cited

Breuilly, John. “Nationalism”. The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations. 6 ed. Baylis, Smith, Owens eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Print.

Bull, Hedley. 2012. The Anarchical Society: A Study of World Order Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.

Cordesman1, Anthony H. “Russia and the [‘]Color Revolution[‘]: A Russian Military View of a World Destabilized by the US and the West (Full Report)”. Center for Strategic and International Studies. 28/05/2014. Web. 08/03/2017. URL = https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/140529_Russia_Color_Revolution_Full.pdf

Cordesman2, Anthony H. “Russia and the [‘]Color Revolution[‘]: A Russian Military View of a World Destabilized by the US and the West”. Center for Strategic and International Studies. 28/05/2014. Web. 08/03/2017. URL = https://www.csis.org/analysis/russia-and-%E2%80%9Ccolor-revolution%E2%80%9D

Dunne, Tim. “Realism”. The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations. 6 ed. Baylis, Smith, Owens eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Print.

Gibbs, David N. “Pretexts and US Foreign Policy: The War on Terrorism in Historical Perspective”.  New Political Science 26.3 (2004): 293-321. Web. 08/03/2017. URL = http://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/sites/dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/files/pretexts_0.pdf

Gilpin, Robert. 1983. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Guerisoli, Emmanuel. “Russia’s Game in Syria: Security, geopolitics, and a balance of powers”. Public Seminar. 09/10/2015. Web. 19/03/2017. URL = http://www.publicseminar.org/2015/10/russias-game-in-syria/#.WM7Y26JMGM9

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Print.

Johnson, Lyndon B. “President Johnson’s Message to Congress”. Avalon Project. N.d. Web. 08/03/2017. URL = http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/tonkin-g.asp

Mearsheimer, John. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton.

Pashakhanlou, Arash Heydarian. “Comparing and Contrasting Classical Realism and Neorealism”. E-International Relations: Students. 23/07/2009. Web. 20/03/2017. URL = http://www.e-ir.info/2009/07/23/comparing-and-contrasting-classical-realism-and-neo-realism/

Parker, Benjamin. N.a. Downtown Library, New York. N.d. Lecture.

Thien, Poh Phaik. “Explaining the Color Revolutions”. E-International Relations: Students. 31/07/2009. Web. 09/03/2017. URL = http://www.e-ir.info/2009/07/31/explaining-the-color-revolutions/

Tyler, Patrick E. “U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Ensuring No Rivals Develop”. New York Times. The New York Times Company. 08/03/1992. Web. 07/03/2017. URL = http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/world/us-strategy-plan-calls-for-insuring-no-rivals-develop.html

Walt, Stephen. 2005. Taming American Power: The Global Response to US Primacy. New York: Norton

Waltz, Kenneth. 2010. The Theory of International Politics. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.