What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The war is not ending

“A decade of war is now ending.”

Alas for our liberals, including the President and many among his formal opposition, a war cannot end without the consent of both adversaries. The Jihad will not end. It is the eternal war waged to bring infidels under the suzerainty of Islam. The origin of this war lies in the far distant past; its commencement touches and shapes virtually every era of history since; and the quickening of its spiritual antecedents by modern circumstances has inaugurated a new and terrible era.

Ours in the age of the high-tech razzia: Cell-phones, Semtex, coordinated strikes, multinational mercenaries bent on butchery, mayhem and terror.

At least two Britons are thought to have died but David Cameron still believes there have been “multiple” fatalities among British workers, who were either killed in crossfire or murdered by their kidnappers. [. . .]

But amid the horror were stories of incredible escapes as British workers thwarted the 32 kidnappers from the Masked Brigade.

Three Britons hid in total silence for two days, according to a Frenchman who was freed with them when the Algerian army fought their way through the compound. [. . .]

He said he heard a “huge amount” of shots when the terrorist attack began on Wednesday morning. [. . .]

He was eventually rescued late on Thursday after the Algerian army launched a ground assault. He said his Algerian colleagues had kept him hidden and did not betray him to the terrorists, who were stalking the buildings looking for Westerners.

One Algerian said that as the kidnappers smashed down doors they made it clear they were interested only in Westerners. [. . .]

Many of the hostages had explosives strapped to them so that the kidnappers, who had told Algerians they would kill all the “Christians and infidels” on site, could blow them up at will. They included Stephen McFaul, an Ulsterman who fled with a bomb strapped to him when a convoy in which he was travelling came under attack from army helicopters.

Those of a poetical cast of mind may recall the rumbling cadences of Chesterton’s “Lepanto” in reading this horrific tale of bloodlust, where he renders in spectacular imagery the predatory impulse of the Jihad:

”Break up the mountains where the hermit-folk may hide,
And sift the red and silver sands lest bone of saint abide,
And chase the Giaours flying night and day, not giving rest,
For that which was our trouble comes again out of the west.”

The unfolding of history, even of the grim and brutal sort, will always contain within it surprises. Even so robust a Francophile as Chesterton would not whitewash French perfidy. The sixth stanza of his great poem assays that nation in imagery marked by a sinister sensuality suggestive of perversion and treachery. But history, as I say, has its surprises. Did you, dear reader, expect to read any time soon of the French as liberators? Did you think that France under a Socialist prime minister would, quietly but determinedly, “go it alone” to wage war against Jihadists?

SEGOU, Mali — Malian and French troops appeared to recapture two important central Malian towns on Monday, pushing back an advance by Islamist militants who have overrun the country’s northern half.

French soldiers in armored vehicles rolled through the town of Diabaly, about 275 miles from the capital, Bamako, to cheers from residents, who flew French and Malian flags to welcome them.

“I want to thank the French people,” said Mamadou Traoré, a Diabaly resident. He said French airstrikes had chased away the militants without harming any civilians, a claim echoed by other residents. [. . .]

The fighters appeared to find little support among the local population, who said the harsh version of Islam they sought to impose had little resemblance to the moderate faith practiced by most people here.

“These guys, they are vicious,” said Oumar Diakité, Diabaly’s mayor. “It’s not Islam that they want. They want other things.” [. . .]

Residents who had fled to nearby towns returned to their homes on Monday after hearing that the militants had been chased away.

“They arrived, and they said they were going to bring Shariah here,” said Mohamed Tounkara, who returned on Monday. “We don’t want Shariah. That’s why I left with my family.”

He said he was grateful to the French military but had little faith in his own country’s army, which in the past year has let half of Mali’s territory slip away and ended two decades of democratic rule.

Vive la France!

Comments (70)

Apropos of Mali, the transcript here is informative, if I may so put it. (Hint: It includes Muslims shouting "Sharia for Mali.")

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/01/the-people-of-france-will-live-under-the-islamic-movement-even-if-you-dont-like-it-we-will-collect-t.html

From Lydia's link, this stuck out for me (as well as another commenter):

"What do we want?" [the cause] "When do we want it?" NOW!

This is of course the familiar cant of Liberalism and drives home the "About" section of this blog as civilization standing "Athwart two hostile Powers"

Knock me over with a feather. The French went to war versus Islamist terrorist. Quite exhilirating.

I wonder what Lydia would say, if I attached a link to pastor Fred Phelps' website (Hint: It includes Christians shouting, along with other niceties, "God hates America & is killing our troops in his wrath.")
She would be outraged - and rightly so.
Yes, I know, radical Islam is a problem, and it is dangerous in a way pastor Phelps' lunacy is not. But still: at least in Western countries Salafists etc. are nothing more than a very tiny minority among Muslims. To suggest otherwise is a form of alarmism which, in the end, will needlessly offend peaceful muslims and prove more harmful than beneficial.

We've heard all that before, Grobi. Funny thing, that. That "tiny minority" just took over Egypt. (A woman *and her children* were just sentenced to 15 years in prison for reconverting to Christianity.) That "tiny minority" keeps engaging in terrorist acts and terrorist plots all over the world. Even Phelps & co. don't do that. That "tiny minority" includes a whole bunch of people in Dearborn, MI, who want people arrested just for standing around having a peaceful convo. about Christianity (and have succeeded in doing so, because as a "tiny minority" they have that much clout in a town that has developed into an enclave). The "tiny minority" has produced sex trafficking gangs in England that have been using girls for years, and the English police covered it up for fear of appearing "racist."

I could go on and on and on and on. Meanwhile, as well, the supposed "majority" are strangely reticent about stopping, condemning, and opposing these things.

I just did a useful thing. I did a site search at Jihad Watch for "tiny minority." It's a phrase we hear so often.

Here is the entire google list of links that came up.

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fjihadwatch.org+%22tiny+minority%22&rlz=1C1CHJW_enUS481US481&oq=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fjihadwatch.org+%22tiny+minority%22&aqs=chrome.0.57j58.8019&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Here are a few specifics:

"Tiny Minority of Extremists rally in the thousands to uphold Pakistan's blasphemy laws"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/12/tiny-minority-of-extremists-rally-in-the-thousands-to-uphold-pakistans-blasphemy-laws.html

"Tiny Minority of Extremists update: 65% Pakistanis support Osama"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/03/tiny-minority-of-extremists-update-65-pakistanis-support-osama.html

"Tiny minority of extremists update: Indonesia survey shows wide support for radical Islam"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/11/tiny-minority-of-extremists-update-indonesia-survey-shows-wide-support-for-radical-islam.html

(That shd. come as a surprise to anyone who thinks Indonesia is such a great example of moderate Islam.)

"Tiny minority of extremists heckles moderate Muslim at UCSB"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/04/tiny-minority-of-extremists-heckles-moderate-muslim-at-ucsb.html

"UK Poll: 37% of Muslims in Britain think British Jews are a 'legitimate target'"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/02/uk-poll-37-of-muslims-in-britain-think-british-jews-are-a-legitimate-target.html

Tens of thousands in Nigeria rally shouting "Death to America," "Death to Israel" and "Death to the enemies of Islam."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/nigeria-tens-of-thousands-of-muslims-protest-muhammad-film-shouting-shouting-death-to-america-death.html

Did I say I could go on and on? I could. Good for Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch, who do. There is literally so much data here that you could spend forever reading it. I just went through the first few pages of the results set there and picked out a few. That's all. Sometimes I think that liberals and leftists become more determined to deny evidence the more evidence there is.

Lydia,
Do you disbelieve the Presidents when they say that America is NOT at war with Islam?. Are they lying or are they are self-deluded?
Islam is at war with Christendom but America is not a party to that war.

I think it would be difficult, and not particularly wise, for America per se to be at war with Islam per se. What, are we going to take on the entire Dar al Islam all over the world singlehanded? However, our presidents are in fact much too sanguine about Islam, and this has many bad consequences even for protecting our own citizens on our own soil. These consequences range from open immigration policies from Islamic countries to allowing Muslims with familial ties to radical groups to have access to sensitive information, the full admission of Muslims without any extra scrutiny to our military (leading to the Fort Hood massacre), refusing to do any profiling in our airport screening, and more. Our policy here is very poor, and I have always criticized it. Indeed, I proudly bear the label of an "American loon" from some leftist anonymous blogger (he also has placed that label on Ed Feser and Wesley J. Smith, so I'm in excellent company). In my case the label was bestowed in part for my views on Muslim immigration.

Dunno if you have heard about this latest Iranian Christian to be arrested.

http://aclj.org/iran/pastor-saeed-trial-iran-uphold-obligations-protect-religious-liberty

The war will not end until Islam conquers the world. See the Koran 24:55. A tactic that has helped Islam overcome the EU is multiculturalism. This doctrine was begun by the EU to soften the blow of the formerly sovereign nations to come together under the banner of the EU. Islam has used and continues to use multiculturalism to its advantage because they will not assimilate anywhere in the world and so they can live side by side with the European culture and slowly, stealthly exert their dominance over it.

This is happening here in America as well. Multiculturalism has taken hold and Islam is asserting its power as more and more muslims are streaming into our country. The administration is keenly aware of this as they have infiltrated many muslims into powerful positions in our government. But, most of the population have no idea about how multiculturalism is working to divide the country and ultimately how it will assist in the downfall of the Republic.

He said French airstrikes had chased away the militants without harming any civilians, a claim echoed by other residents.

This is a rare military action where no civilians were harmed. One wonders what would have happened had civilians been killed or injured?

The fighters appeared to find little support among the local population, who said the harsh version of Islam they sought to impose had little resemblance to the moderate faith practiced by most people here.

This is why I believe radical Islam would collapse under its own weight - IF we didn't give it a common enemy to unite against.

I also believe that free trade and non-demonizing US policies would go a lot farther than military actions in the "war" against radical Islam. If we stop killing the neighbors, friends and family members of the non-radical Muslims with drone strikes etc. and encourage more citizen to citizen interactions between our peoples, it might go a long way toward melting the bad image America has amongst these Muslims.

This is why I believe radical Islam would collapse under its own weight - IF we didn't give it a common enemy to unite against.

The imperative of the jihad is not just some fringe idea. It is integral to Islam from its beginnings. (And don't waste my time with that "lesser jihad" talk.) It has not "collapsed under its own weight" for all the centuries since it started, and Barbary pirates were collecting hefty ransoms from the U.S. in our early days when they seemed somehow not to need a common enemy to unite against. Until all is brought into the Dar al Islam and all lands previously Muslim are brought back to Islam, the imperative remains. It is not created by the United States and never has been.

Lydia,
All these are domestic steps. Why the hankering for external wars?. What are they gaining for the Christendom?
Do you think that the USG keeps the interests of Christens worldwide foremost in its mind as it plans the next war?

There is a tendency to conflate America with Christendom, forgetting that America (or at least USG) is one of the leading anti-Christian forces in the world now.

Since when have I expressed a hankering for external wars? They have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Often in recent years I think they have been ill-advised because of our nation-building idea, which never works out. I opposed the (second) Iraq war, for example. However, I realize that the simple-minded isolationism to which I am probably tempted is, precisely, simple-minded and that friendship (alliance) between nations is sometimes wise and a good thing and sometimes will involve us in foreign wars. If alliance, or the need to respond decisively to terrorism or other attack fostered in those countries, requires a foreign belligerent response, I would say that it should a) be declared as a war by Congress, b) have clear, limited, and achievable military goals, c) not include nation-building (in other words, show them they can't get away with that good and hard and then get back out again), and c) be declared to be ended by Congress rather than dragging on indefinitely.

Lydia:

The imperative of the jihad is not just some fringe idea. It is integral to Islam from its beginnings. (And don't waste my time with that "lesser jihad" talk.) It has not "collapsed under its own weight" for all the centuries since it started, and Barbary pirates were collecting hefty ransoms from the U.S. in our early days when they seemed somehow not to need a common enemy to unite against. Until all is brought into the Dar al Islam and all lands previously Muslim are brought back to Islam, the imperative remains. It is not created by the United States and never has been.

Lydia,

Do you really believe that the average Muslim feels that way though?

I don't. I don't believe the average Muslim prefers tyranny to freedom. I think the average Muslim family is probably desperate to escape the 7th century mindset of the jihadists. Sure, there will always be radical Muslims - just like back in the Barbary pirate days - but the average Muslim is probably not on board with all of that. Radical Islam, if institutionalized, represses people and, I believe, ultimately drives them towards freedom. That's just the nature of tyranny. It might take awhile but, when given the chance, I believe the average Muslim will rise up against the jihadists. I firmly believe that Iran's regime would collapse if we ended our embargo, encouraged free trade between our citizens and stopped all of the rhetoric. I truly believe that people want freedom and will ultimately tire of tyranny.

I remember back in my neo-con days, whenever I heard about the jihadists, the first thing that popped into my head was always "we need to wipe them out" (all the while my conscience whispering "really?")
Well I finally succumbed to my conscience and now - I just don't think we can kill enough people to bring peace to the world.

I have no intention of trying to "kill enough people to bring peace to the world." But I think we should discriminate against Muslims in immigration. And I think that we need to recognize the truth about Islam in order to get ourselves to see the importance of doing so.

"Moderate" Islam is to historical Islam as "modernist Christianity" (e.g., the kind that says that Jesus was just a good teacher and God never sends anyone to hell) is to biblical Christianity. In other words, it's a lie about what Islam always originally meant.

This means that the "average Muslim" you have in mind who doesn't believe in either jihad or sharia (the two not being exactly the same) is not really educated about the history and original meaning of the religion he professes and can be "radicalized" when he decides to get serious about his religion. This explains the fact that younger Muslims in the UK are more radical than their parents.

The links I cited above show that in many countries it is simply _false_ that the "average Muslim" doesn't believe in some very shocking stuff. Some of those links show statistics according to which a _majority_ of Muslims in certain countries believe in things like killing Jews qua Jews, cutting off the hand of a thief, killing those who commit blasphemy, and so on and so forth. It was so-called "Muslim democracy" that brought us the current regime in Egypt, which is by no means a moderate regime, and Hamas was elected by acclaim in Gaza.

I have no intention of trying to "kill enough people to bring peace to the world." But I also have no intention of being so blinded and blinkered by ideology that I pretend that all people at heart have a yearning for American-style freedom, that Muslims on average can't _really_ believe all that bad stuff, and so forth. I have to be open to facts. And the facts say otherwise. And that is going to affect whom and what we should be welcoming into our own country and what we can expect from Muslim enclaves in our own country.

the average Muslim prefers tyranny to freedom.
Perhaps not but maybe he prefers tyranny to license and anarchy.
Perhaps he would hate to be bullied by homosexuals, transsexuals, and women
as many American men apparently are.

I'm not going to dispute your points Lydia because they are all valid. I just don't think they tell the whole story. I think there may be explanations for some of the polls - depending on what country, who's conducting the poll, etc. I know that fear is major factor in everyday Islamic life and I would suspect that Muslims in the more radically Islamic countries would be more inclined to answer poll questions the way they feel they are supposed to answer them. I don't know that - it's just a gut feeling. I just find it hard to believe that human nature can be so radically altered (towards out and out hatred for all non-Muslims) in so many. There must be pangs of conscience within (unless God has completely abandoned them).

My larger point - of course - was about foreign policy and what works and what doesn't. I'm of the opinion that heavy-handed militaristic foreign policy doesn't work. Take China for instance; we could have continued with a cold war isolationist foreign policy towards China but we chose instead to open our markets and trade with them. It's not perfect by any means, but I think it's more effective. I really believe that the Chinese would be more hardened ideologically had we continued to try to isolate them. I think free trade melts ideology. I'm fairly new to these opinions, but I've seen the failure of my old beliefs so...

Bear in mind, Daniel: Our opinions about foreign policy can end up shaping our opinions about domestic policy. As in the case where certain foreign policy isolationists end up being naive about Islam on our own shores because it "fits" well with their foreign policy and their tendency to look on America as the bad guy in any foreign war and hence to sympathize with the other side. This isn't a logical necessity. It just tends to happen that way. And what it means is that one can't just say, "Hey, I'm opposed to interventionist foreign policy, so I don't need to have a well-informed and well-worked-out opinion on Islam anyway." Actually, to have an intelligent domestic and immigration policy, you do.

The essential weakness of the neo-conservative political theory, that begins and ends with the American Constitution as interpreted in 2001 (wittily summarized by Auster as There is no God but Freedom and Bush is its Prophet) was a major factor in the American reversals and failures in the wars of the first decade. The neo-conservatives, in particular and conservatives in general have little idea what is nation is and whether Iraq and Afghanistan are nations or what else they are. This bears on the post-conquest political arrangements and thus which were consequently left provisional till the very end and beyond.

I guess Lydia, I don't really see much difference between ideologies when it comes to human behavior. Radical Nazis, radical Communists and radical Islamists may have vastly different ideologies, yet they behaved the same way. Ultimately, when an ideology leads you to view certain races, religions or ideologies as "inferior" to yours, you become capable of monstrous things. It doesn't matter whether you're an atheist or "doing God's will", the results are the same.

So my point, which I illustrated with our policy towards China, is that isolationist, militaristic policies will harden such ideologies and friendly, open markets will soften them. It's an expansion of Christ's teaching to "do good to those who hate you" and to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Which then is more effective: our policy towards China or our policy towards North Korea?

Without wanting the thread to go to a global discussion of foreign policy, Daniel, I think you also have to consider the issues of a) material cooperation with evil (e.g., rewarding by trading with those who are literally enslaving their workers in China) b) risking national security in various ways--e.g., if the money earned is largely going to fund a hostile military or if the trade gives an enemy of one's country access to legitimate inventive or military secrets.

I do not believe that the Golden Rule means, "If I'm being evil and harming and oppressing other people, pretend I'm not and reward me for it, because after all, if I were being evil, that's what I'd want."

We are not rewarding evil. We must draw the distinction between the rulers of a country and its inhabitants. Were most of the people in Nazi Germany radical Nazis? Are most people in China radical Communists? Are most people in Saudi Arabia radical Islamists? Or is it a select few who rule with an iron hand?

An isolationist foreign policy most adversely affects the inhabitants of our two countries and not the rulers. Interpersonal relationships, trade, travel, all of these things are restricted on both sides. And, it is the citizens who are most restricted (the rulers often are not). American citizens, businesses, tourists, relatives, etc. can not have any dealings with N. Korean citizens, businesses, relatives and tourists.

The question is, is this effective or ineffective? Are the people of North Korea more likely to support their government's ideology when it is the only thing they know? Or would it be in our best interest to expose North Korean people to American people?

Or, to get this thread back on track, would the war against terrorism be better fought by other than military means? Can the Islamist ideology be undermined by exposing the average Muslim in a closed society to the average American in a free society?

Daniel, I'm with you in completely rejecting the idea that Muslims, or anyone not consciously intent on evil (in your expression "average") prefers tyranny or interprets freedom in radically different ways. This is a big deal. Very big. The central question. I know you differ with the neocons, but if you would separate their beliefs from how you see their actions for a bit, you'd see you share the view you've expressed with them and it is important to realize that. Lydia and I clash on this issue fairly violently every time so I'm not ignoring that.

To believe that average people freely (without coercion) choose that which harms them and their families in the most obvious and direct ways in the long run flies in the face of what we know of human nature that has been expressed in our Greco-Roman intellectual tradition. It's a big deal. We know people will interpret goods differently and some will choose license with their freedoms anywhere, but interpreting freedom in a radically different way to mean freedom to force others to do what they don't wish to do is absurd.

And people who espouse this belief curiously never explain why it is that these people think this was way. Is it genetic? If not what explains this? As Hirsi Ali said:

"It is clear, as we saw in Iran in 2009 and elsewhere, that if the philosophy of the Islamists is fully and forcefully implemented, those who elected them will end up disillusioned. . . . After the disillusion and bitterness will come a painful lesson . . . This process will be faster in some places than others, but in all of them it will be bloody and painful. If we take the long view, America and other Western countries can help make this happen in the same way we helped bring about the demise of the former Soviet Union."

Does this sound like the fuzzy-headed idealism so often attributed to those who believe American principles are the answer to this in the long run? Or does it sound like hard-nosed pragmatism or realism that Reagan believed so fervently that saw the end of the Soviet Union? I'd say the latter. Those who make the "idealism" charge against those who believe in the classical liberal understanding of American values don't fairly portray the hard-edged pragmatism that Bill Kristol or Hirsi Ali believe quite firmly, and are swinging at strawmen when they claim we want to set up "Jeffersonian democracies" in the Middle East. Don't buy it. They attack a proposed solution and propose no solution of their own of any sort at all. There is just a grand silence.

But the key to the disagreement (at least as I've seen it at W4) in my opinion revolves around three things: 1) the nature of coercion and social control; 2) the social nature of humanity expressed in the Western intellectual tradition; and 3) the social system of the old world that we've forgotten, and of which we are now quite blind. Bin Laden's concept of the "strong horse" (one of the few things he could be truthful about) is a part of all this, but I'm going to harp on #3 here.

We simply don't understand what an honor culture is anymore. But that was the way of the old world. But our blindness to the way of the old world leads us to project upon others echos of our own understandings distorted by the cognitive dissonance induced by our blindness. One of the best ways to introduce yourself to what an honor culture is to study antebellum southern culture. It is merely the way of the old world. New England had an honor culture years before. Honor cultures are a mind warp, they turn upside down what we've been taught by our parents. A book, a chapter of another, and a journal article will rock your world for those interested. The first is a seminal work on the topic that is amazing, the second (a chapter) a wonderfully concise summary and compare/contrast with our own culture that is crucial, and the article is some historical shock and awe that has to be read to be believed.

-”Southern Honor: Ethics and Behavior in the Old South” by Bertram Wyatt Brown.

-”Honor and It’s Adversaries”, the 1st chapter of the book “Vengeance and Justice: Crime and Punishment in the Nineteenth-Century American South” by Edward L. Ayers

-”Gouge and Bite, Pull Hair and Scratch: The Social Significance of Fighting in the Southern Backcountry.” by Elliott J. Gorn in The American Historical Review 90 (1): 18–43. (February 1985).

And NO, I'm not comparing the antebellum Southern culture to Pakistan. You can see something of the relevance in a snippet from the chapter "Honor and Its Adversaries" I mentioned above. There is an internal logic to it that we don't see anymore.

The dramatic emergence of dignity left behind it a legacy of monuments, of causes, of philosophies. Honor, by contrast, dyed so deeply with the coloring of the past, seemed largely "invisible" in the mid-nineteenth century. To contemporary Northerners, the South's culture could only be identified by what it was not: disciplined, controlled, productive . . . Honor was just another word for lack of self-control. . . . For antebellum Northerners, honor was an epiphenomenon of slavery. . . . Given the real insights of these commonplace charges, it was no wonder that Northerners were blind to the internal logic and autonomy of honor. . . . Just as the ancient patterns of personalized subordination and patronage that antedated and paralleled slavery in the Northern colonies were eventually replaced by the new patterns of depersonalized, market-oriented, contractual relationships, so too would the early South have changed (without slavery). . . . the potent Southern evangelicalism of the antebellum era could act as a bridge between honor and dignity. . . . honor was necessarily a secular system of values and was directly at odds with the spiritual frame of reference of evangelical Christianity. . . . As a result of the evangelical transformation, the most powerful critique of honor eventually came from within the South itself.

Mark,

I was not familiar with the term "honor culture" but after reading a little bit about it I think it would indeed help us to better understand this before meddling in the Middle East.

Saddam, for instance would be someone who ruled his country as if he were the head of an honor culture. It was precisely because of this that he could not admit that he had no weapons of mass destruction. He could not appear weak before his people or his adversaries. He could not idly stand by while UN inspectors walked into his fortresses unhindered. It was a matter of honor for him. We made the mistake of misinterpreting his actions by misunderstanding his culture. That is the danger of our Westernism.

I'm not sure what views exactly you think I share with the neocons though. I read and reread your post but was unable to figure out what you meant by that.

average people freely (without coercion) choose that which harms them and their families

Abortion is freely chosen in the West.

Abortion is freely chosen in the West

It is misguidedly thought to be a *benefit* or lesser of two evils by those who do it. And those pushing the hardest to make abortion available have no trouble in avoiding pregnancy unless and until they wish to bear children. They don't wish it for themselves.

>> an honor culture. It was precisely because of this that he could not admit that he had no weapons of mass destruction.

Yep. We simply can't wrap our minds around who a head of state would lie to his own generals about having WMDs. It is unintelligible to us because we don't understand the internal logic.

I'm not sure what views exactly you think I share with the neocons though. I read and reread your post but was unable to figure out what you meant by that.

It seems to me you accept that there are universal values. That freedom is a universal human aspiration. That is a common point with the neocons. If that is so, that is a very big deal and I think it would be a good idea to acknowledge that. You can still disagree with anything or everything else, but if you share something in common with them, and if denial of universal aspirations is common (and it is), then a blanket condemnation of them is somewhat distorting I think though unintentional.

>> That is the danger of our Westernism.

I'd say that is the danger of honor cultures. They breed violence and war, and they don't respect human dignity. They can't coexist with the rest of the world, and they are bad. I'm not a cultural relativist. In time there will be no honor cultures. The only question is how they end and whether it involves nukes or not.

All cultures are honor cultures to some extent, but the distinguishing feature of an honor culture is that in them people look to others for their self-image and self-respect. The Puritans explicitly rejected this, though it took time to work into the social fabric. The Quakers refused to tip hats and such at great social cost since it enraged many when they did not receive marks of respect.

In an honor culture people are dishonoured by the beliefs of others about them even if they're false. It is the opposite of what our parents taught us in resisting peer pressure and such. People who claim "individualism" itself is bad (as opposed to socially extreme forms of isolation) never discuss the alternative, and that is the only real alternative there ever was. There are some good things about honor cultures in theory, but from what I can tell it is less than meets the eye, and in any case it necessarily rides on a much larger sea of ugliness.

But enough of this. It's no doubt off-topic.

That freedom is a universal human aspiration.

What is this freedom?.
The neo-cons do not understand Nations, that people's view of the Good is national i.e. there is something recognized as Good by Americans and another that would be recognized as Good by Hindus or Chinese. And that view of the Good is what defines a nation.
The moderns, in contrast, think of nations as merely arbitrary administrative units.

People do not aspire to freedom per se. They follow their vision of Good and seek to realize it.
in Aristotelian terms, the vision of Good is the Final Cause, the fulfillment towards which the nation moves.

In time there will be no honor cultures

Along with the abolition of man, I suppose, towards which the conservatives have been enablers .
Honor is what forms the chest of a man.

If I were the last man on the planet to think so, I would want the honor of saying no woman should go before me into combat to defend my country. A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he’s a wimp. He should be ashamed. For most of history, in most cultures, he would have been utterly scorned as a coward to promote such an idea.
John Piper

Mark:

It seems to me you accept that there are universal values.

I prefer to think of it as universal human nature - not necessarily values. I don't think any human happily endures tyranny and oppression. I think most parents want what's best for their kids. I think most people would prefer freedom of speech, thought, travel and religion (for themselves at least). I don't necessarily consider these 'American' values either - in fact I don't think we Americans understand them rightly anymore.

As for the honor culture, one description I read said that our inner city gangs are essentially an honor culture. So it's not like we don't have any examples we can look to.

>> People do not aspire to freedom per se. They follow their vision of Good

Pursuing a vision of the good presupposes freedom. This is self-evident, and why liberty is a natural aspiration.


>> Honor is what forms the chest of a man.

Don't conflate honor with an honor culture. As I've said, all cultures are honor cultures strictly speaking. But what distinguishes an honor culture is that those in it look to others for their self-respect. There is no dignity of doing right when everyone else is doing wrong. Honor cultures are marked by the most brutal injustices because justice isn't the goal, but rather order. Honor is an honor culture is a zero sum game. Some must be denied it so that others can have more.

This isn't what C. S. Lewis had in mind when he decried those who "laugh at honor". That is cynicism. If you don't distinguish the two you'll twist Lewis into supporting honor killing. That should show the absurdity of conflating the two.

I prefer to think of it as universal human nature - not necessarily values. I don't think any human happily endures tyranny and oppression. I think most parents want what's best for their kids. I think most people would prefer freedom of speech, thought, travel and religion (for themselves at least). I don't necessarily consider these 'American' values either - in fact I don't think we Americans understand them rightly anymore.

They are Western values. I don't see how one can maintain a universal human nature and not hold to some universal values.

As for the honor culture, one description I read said that our inner city gangs are essentially an honor culture. So it's not like we don't have any examples we can look to.

Criminal cultures are often honor cultures or subculture, but they are very incomplete. But how many understand the inner logic? Don't we call it senseless? Just because I can see something doesn't mean I understand it. And the fact that it is criminal and outside the law makes it so we don't tend to think critically about it. So I don't think it serves as any real educator for anyone I've ever known, nor myself. Honor cultures have an internal logic that is foreign to outsiders, and it requires some real work to get at what it is for an outsider. Believe me, it is more than you think. And gang culture is a subculture, but I think there are major differences between subcultures and when an entire nation or region has an honor culture. Those are for more complete and comprehensive cultures.

Actually, parents in many cultures have done terrible things to their children, even sacrificing them to idols. Right now there are parents in the world raising their children to be suicide bombers and to love death. It was truly said that there will be peace in a certain region only when a certain group of people love their children more than they hate...a certain other group of people. There still isn't peace in that region. I'm afraid I have to agree with Golda about to the reason for that.

Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac out of obedience to God. The question then becomes - are these people insane? Or, do they have reasons they consider valid but we consider insane?

Like honor cultures - is the reasoning something so foreign to us that we can't understand it? Or do we not want to try?

To be honest, I feel that my Pentecostal/fundamentalist background affords me more insight into the Islamist mindset than the average American. I understand fully what it means to feel like God is personally telling you something that doesn't make sense to 99% of the people you run into. This is what's at the root of Islam - the belief that God wants all other religions subjugated. My opinion is that the only way to break that 'belief cycle' is to let it play out to its full conclusion. When it is hidden and rare, the culture views it as bravery and sacrifice. When it becomes commonplace, and affects their family, friends, neighbors and anyone deemed 'not Islamic-enough', the true barbaric nature becomes evident.

Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac out of obedience to God. The question then becomes - are these people insane? Or, do they have reasons they consider valid but we consider insane?

I don't think positing it to obedience is accurate. I think it was trust in God's goodness. Without that Abraham would have been insane or dumb in my opinion. I have had experience in fundamentalist/pentecostal churches too, and believe me there is a lot wrong with how they think of obedience, and a lot of abuse of it too. If you think something is wrong you shouldn't obey, unless you trust that someone else *actually* does know better than you and you consider it wise to accept their judgement if you don't know or can't judge. I know by direct experience that many churches have a tendency to elevate obedience as a virtue in and of itself, and people go about pretending to do so by various means, and less frequently to do so in unhealthy ways but there is an awful lot of manipulation in it.

I understand fully what it means to feel like God is personally telling you something that doesn't make sense to 99% of the people you run into. This is what's at the root of Islam - the belief that God wants all other religions subjugated.

Virtuous people do learn, usually the hard way, that doing certain good acts invites great opposition, even more so than doing evil. This is the classical teaching on virtue. That is just as true in the church as outside. Christ was killed for such things. That has nothing to do with Islam's desire to subjugate other religions. That is merely dogmatism.

My opinion is that the only way to break that 'belief cycle' is to let it play out to its full conclusion. When it is hidden and rare, the culture views it as bravery and sacrifice. When it becomes commonplace, and affects their family, friends, neighbors and anyone deemed 'not Islamic-enough', the true barbaric nature becomes evident.

I agree, but isn't that where tyranny, coercion, and blame-shifting comes in? The "playing out" would work if it were allowed to happen, but the most powerful evil men are determined that it not play out and channel the simmering anger for their own ends, some of whom even have an apocalyptic vision and ideology where they're willing to sacrifice the nation to destroy another (Iran). Other than that, yeah, just let it play out.

Pursuing a vision of the good presupposes freedom.
At national level. And this freedom has little to do with Bill of Rights or 1st Amendment freedom.

Pursuing a vision of the good presupposes freedom.

At national level.

At some level, any level.

And this freedom has little to do with Bill of Rights or 1st Amendment freedom.

No idea what point you're trying to make, but that is correct since the Declaration stated that liberty was presumed to be endowed by the Creator.

It seems strange that you're quibbling over whether or not people "aspire to freedom". People that have freedom don't aspire to it because no one aspires to what they already have, but people that don't have freedom indeed wish for it per se. Ask someone in prison that question. You've already admitted that everyone has a vision of the good, so wouldn't everyone want to have the freedom to pursue it?

Mark,
Because you don't define freedom, you can not conceive that a person might rationally prefer being in a Muslim society where his liberty is curtailed by the requirement that he may not renounce Islam.

That is, for people not in prison, they may aspire to Islamic freedom or Catholic freedom but it is vague to talk of aspiring to freedom per se. Are the people in Third World in prison, just by virtue of being in Third World?

That is, true freedom is always limited by being defined. Whereas the late 20C American freedom is undefined and this was enabled by conservatives in general and neo-cons in particular.

Just to say that all opinions have right to be expressed is to commit to national suicide. The conservative fanaticism on this point has unleashed the wave of pornography on the entire planet, a point many conservatives are explicitly proud of, by inducing the corruption of Third World nations, they hope to bypass the necessity of actually inflicting military defeat on the Third World.

Mark:

The "playing out" would work if it were allowed to happen, but the most powerful evil men are determined that it not play out and channel the simmering anger for their own ends, some of whom even have an apocalyptic vision and ideology where they're willing to sacrifice the nation to destroy another (Iran). Other than that, yeah, just let it play out.

What these evil men use to, as you say, "channel the simmering anger for their own ends" is the common enemy (whatever that happens to be at the moment). We, as a nation, play right into their hands. Bin Laden publicly stated that the goal behind 9/11 was to lure American troops to Afghanistan. Radical Islam needs an enemy. Lucky for them the American militarists need an enemy as well. It's a match made in heaven! (well maybe hell.)

Another take on the Mali situation:

Within the first week of French military action in Mali, the promise that it would be a quick operation to put down an Islamic rebel advance toward the capitol was broken. France announced that it would be forced to send in thousands of troops and would need to remain far longer than the few weeks it initially claimed would be necessary.
Media questions as to whether the US has Special Operations forces, drones, or CIA paramilitary units active in Mali are unanswered by the Administration. Congress has asked few questions and demanded few answers from the president.
...
How did we get to Mali? Blowback and unintended consequences played key roles.
...
When Gaddafi was overthrown in Libya, many fighters from Mali who had lived in Libya and been trained by Gaddafi’s military returned to their home country with sophisticated weapons and a new determination to continue their fight for independence for northern Mali. Thus the France-initiated action against Libya in 2011 led to new violence and instability in Mali that France decided it must also address. Shortly after the French attack on Mali, rebels in Algeria attacked a BP gas facility in retaliation for their government’s decision to allow foreign military to fly over Algerian territory en route to Mali. Thus the action in Mali to solve the crisis created by the prior action in Libya is turning into a new crisis in Algeria. This is the danger of interventionism and, as we saw in Vietnam more than four decades ago, it threatens to drag the US further into the conflict.

What these evil men use to, as you say, "channel the simmering anger for their own ends" is the common enemy (whatever that happens to be at the moment). We, as a nation, play right into their hands.

Daniel, the enemy is usually Israel. Why?

Radical Islam needs an enemy. Lucky for them the American militarists need an enemy as well.

Trying to paper over ideological differences in an ideological struggle happens in every conflict. Always done by members of yet another ideology. Nothing new here.

That is, for people not in prison, they may aspire to Islamic freedom or Catholic freedom but it is vague to talk of aspiring to freedom per se.

You don't accept freedom of religion?

Just to say that all opinions have right to be expressed is to commit to national suicide.

When did I ever say that?

The conservative fanaticism on this point has unleashed the wave of pornography on the entire planet, a point many conservatives are explicitly proud of, by inducing the corruption of Third World nations, they hope to bypass the necessity of actually inflicting military defeat on the Third World.

Gian, you've jumped on this one. You simply know what you're talking about. Conservatives are explicitly proud of the level of U. S. porn production, or porn production at all? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. California is the only state in the union that even allows the production of pornographic movies. Every other state could and does arrest people who try. It is legal in California due to a 1988 decision of the CA Supreme Court, California vs Freeman, which the State of California tried to have overturned but failed. So a lefty state supreme court from a lefty state is the only reason that pornographic films get produced in the U. S at all. No state wants this, and if it weren't for judicial fiat no U. S. state would allow it.

And what makes China the top producer (at least in 06 according to rankings I google up), or South Korea or Japan each more than double our production by revenue despite their much smaller size? Conservative fanaticism? Really?

Mark,
It is not only movies.
Three Propositions on Free Expression that conservatives deny
1) A nation may justly define the limits of public discourse.
Eg, seditious talk, talk that incites murder of innocents or hatred towards particular groups, talk that unsettles the dominant religion, talk that encourages perversion or crime.
2) A nation may justly punish those that violate the limits of public discourse.
3) The only intrinsic limit on the just punishment is that it be not intrinsically evil.
That is, the nation may justly execute those that violate the limits of public discourse but may not torture them.

Gian, that is the most bizarre and wrongheaded understanding of what conservatives believe that I have ever heard.

This is what conservatives deny, in my opinion, and deny wrongly.

Daniel, the enemy is usually Israel. Why?

Well, ignoring the usual religious arguments, I'll give a practical analogy:

Let's say that as a result of some world organization's decision - a new country is set up in what used to be Kansas. Let's say that a 'displaced people' from all over the world, begin to move into what used to be Kansas and the residents of Kansas are largely squeezed out. Let's say also that the residents of Kansas were predominantly Christian and the displaced people are predominantly of some other faith.

Does this explain anything?

After WWII, the UN pretty much just decided to "give" a tract of land to a people who did not live there.

Now, if you want to argue that the Jews did in fact have an historical claim to the land, then just change the "displaced people" above to "Native Americans" and see if it still flies.

Daniel, the PLO was created when the West Bank was under Israeli Jordanian control. The PLO wasn't created for Palestinian self-determination in Jordan, which comprised 90 percent of the original Palestine Mandate. If hatred were a simple matter of injustice the world would be an entirely different place.

This is what conservatives deny, in my opinion, and deny wrongly.

Yes Gian, I got that. I have never even heard of a single conservative that has ever denied any of them. It is any surprise that you aren't offering any examples of conservatives to back up your assertions. Do you wish to be taken seriously?

Daniel, I think the former residents of Kansas would get on with their lives after a couple of generations had passed, whatever the justice or injustice of the initial situation, and even waiving your tendentious characterization. What I _don't_ think they would do is to hold kindergarten graduation ceremonies in which their cute little children dressed up as suicide bombers so that their descendants could bask in the thought of killing the descendants of the people who moved in sixty years ago. By the way: Lots and lots of Jews were also kicked out of Arab countries at about the same time and their land taken, and they didn't get it back, but last I looked, their descendants weren't engaging in suicide bombings in those countries. Nor had the UN set up a perpetual refugee status for them and all their descendants in secula seculorum. Just as well. Such perpetual dependency and never-ending grievance is bad for anyone.

But now I'm breaking my usual personal rule: Never talk about Israel on W4. I can't stand dealing with people who simply don't know this stuff or how to think about it.

Mark,
Ask Lydia.

Lydia,
When Jews did not waive their claim to their ancient lands in 2000 years, why should others do so in 50 years?

In any case, there can be no legal claims to national territories. The sovereigns take what they can.
That's why a theft is always a theft, even after 2000 years, but conquest erases all previous claims.

So the Palestinians, as a nation, have absolutely no legally, justified claim on any of the land presently occupied by Israel- not even a square inch.

However, individual Palestinians have property rights within the State of Israel, that the State should respect. But with all property rights, these are not absolute and are subject to State needs.

Nope, Gian, I will _not_ discuss this issue with you. I note that you ignore suicide bombings, continual terrorism, and all the rest. Your sort always do. I won't discuss it with you.

I am not arguing that Islamist ideologies are not irrational. I was giving a reason why Islamists view Israel as "the common enemy".

In short, I don't know how much of the hatred toward Israel is based on their being Jewish and how much is based on the land issue.

Daniel, only a very modest portion is due to the land issue. If the Jews there were instead some different sect of Muslims, the rest of the Muslims around Palestine might be upset with them for taking over the area but would not hate them to their very cores so as to train their children to suicide bombings. But going back further, to the 1930's and 1940's, the "land issue" that caused an endemic medium-warm war was a land issue precisely because the Jews were Jewish rather than something else. (Gian's quaint theory that the UN just made up the modern state of Israel is just full of ignorance.) Personally, I think Israel lost a large opportunity in the 1970's after the agreement with Sadat and Egypt: they should have paid off every single Palestinian the price of his land (or double, or triple) to move to some other country - a country far removed from Israel, and paid that other country a large fee to accept him as an immigrant. That would have reduced the remaining problem to such small numbers that many alternative solutions would have presented themselves (like absorbing the rest into Israel proper, like the significant Palestinian portion of the Israeli population already is). The cost would have been a lot less than total costs (in damage, in dead citizens, in costs of military buildup, in foreign good-will) than they have already paid, with no end in sight.

Daniel, I don't know if you're aware of this, but _explicit_ anti-semitism is in the Hadiths. Which has zip to do with 1948 and the founding of Israel. Or 1967. Much, much older than that. They teach their children to memorize a hadith about the rocks calling out to come and kill a Jew hiding behind them. It's deep in the religion.

Tony, I doubt that would have worked, for quite a number of reasons, but I won't go on about the reasons.

Did someone say Israel? Now let's have some fun!

Actually, I just wanted to correct two quick items:

1) Tony,

I think you were wrong to single out Gian in your 6:21 PM comment as holding the "quaint theory that the UN just made up the modern state of Israel" -- by my reading it appears that Daniel Smith hold that rather bizarre theory expressed in his January 31, 8:14 PM comment:

"After WWII, the UN pretty much just decided to "give" a tract of land to a people who did not live there."

2) Daniel,

What can I say? You need to read some books about Zionism, which started at the turn of the 20th Century when the Turks controlled Palestine (it was one of their provinces -- part of the Ottoman Empire) and then really got going when the British took over. It was only when the Jews created a vibrant economy in Israel did Arab immigration increase as well, swelling their numbers along with the Jewish population. By the time the State was officially created, plenty of Jews had been living their for quite some time.

(Gian's quaint theory that the UN just made up the modern state of Israel is just full of ignorance

While I explicitly invoke the right by conquest! and never mention UN at all.

I admit to quite a bit of ignorance on the Israeli/Palestinian issue. I'm more interested in the role of outside parties (interventionism). I've often heard the opinion expressed (not here - elsewhere) that the issue could have been resolved had the US and other interventionists just butted out and left the Israelis alone to do what they deemed best in dealing with their neighbors.

Daniel, I think that to evaluate that proposition, you would need a _lot_ more information, and since you admit (I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is just how it is--one has to have the information) that you don't have a lot of info., you aren't in a position to evaluation that claim. As far as I am concerned, based on my research of the situation, the proposition is false. The situation is intractable, due to one party's absolute refusal to make any reasonable compromise that allows "live and let live." I think it's *very* difficult for reasonable, Western-style people to believe that intractable political situations, and intractable people, are even possible, but they are both possible and actual. As far as the "U.S. butting out," I would just suggest that you look and see whether all of your friends who say that are being consistent with it. Usually, they aren't consistent. They usually want the U.S. to pressure Israel to make large concessions, or at least they appear quite contented when the U.S. does so, even though that is inconsistent with a "butting out" policy.

Well Lydia, in this case - you lack information.

My "friends" (as you put it) are consistent - they believe in letting Israel do whatever Israel wants to do.
Ron Paul, (my "best friend") was one of the few (if only) congressmen to vote NOT to condemn Israel's strike on Saddam's nuclear facility. He was being consistent. His view is that the US should never tell another nation what to do. If Israel wants to bomb its neighbors, or negotiate with them, that is their decision and, since they have to live with the consequences, they are in the best position to judge whether it is rational or not - not us.

Again (and this is often the case) non-interventionism is being mistaken for other forms of foreign policy. Non-interventionism means just that - butt out!

I think you were wrong to single out Gian in your 6:21 PM comment as holding the "quaint theory that the UN just made up the modern state of Israel" -- by my reading it appears that Daniel Smith hold that rather bizarre theory expressed in his January 31, 8:14 PM comment:

"After WWII, the UN pretty much just decided to "give" a tract of land to a people who did not live there."

Quite right, my mistake. I apologize to Gian and Daniel for the mis-attribution.

Daniel, was the US diplomatic and then military action under Jefferson to deal with the Barbary states' uncivilized maritime behavior a form of interventionism or non-interventionism?

Daniel Smith --

On interventionism, I'm sympathetic to the view (suggested in one of your Mali-related links) that the Obama Administration (like most Democratic ones) is not subject to enough scrutiny of its policies. It is a regrettable feature of highly partisan nature of the US press that our journalists instantly lose interest in foreign policy adventurism once GOP hawks are safely clear of the reins of power. Liberal interventionists have gotten us in far more foreign entanglements in the last 50 years than neocons ever dreamed of, but you wouldn't know it from the press coverage. Likewise, liberals in the media have essentially given the Obama Administration carte blanche on the Drone War, which leaves a lot of important questions unanswered.

That said, this is emphatically a French-led intervention. What position the Ron Paul admirer ought to adopt vis-a-vis French foreign policy is not entirely clear. Should we "butt out" of Malian matters (and thus criticize M. Hollande), or "butt out" of French matters? In the course of these comments you have seemed to take both positions.

I think Mark is on the whole right to chastise Gian for his abbreviations about conservatives in America. It is common enough, and anyway can't be helped, to use abbreviations in conversation: but Gian ought to at least acknowledge that frequently his beef is with some shade of a neocon who he supposes writes for this website. It's sort of like the liberal who shows up to lecture us on warmongering and torture, and then must beat at hasty retreat when he discovers that the majority of the current and former contributors here (a) opposed the Iraq war and (b) oppose the torture regime. Ooops. But for the record, no one here (so far as I know) propounds a view of free speech so radical as to deny these following premises:

1) A nation may justly define the limits of public discourse. Eg, seditious talk, talk that incites murder of innocents or hatred towards particular groups, talk that unsettles the dominant religion, talk that encourages perversion or crime. 2) A nation may justly punish those that violate the limits of public discourse. 3) The only intrinsic limit on the just punishment is that it be not intrinsically evil.

I'm guessing that, like me, most of us would be reserved on that last: in other words, we believe that while it is possible, off at the end, for expression to be punishable by death, the chances of such punishment becoming necessary are extremely remote. I don't know why Gian believes that we're Free Speech absolutists in the manner of Open Society idealism. Nor do I know why Gian supposes that the First Amendment requires such absolutism, unless he has simply adopted the view of 20th century liberals on the matter.

However, one need not be a Free Speech absolutist to believe that a general liberty of thought, argument and opinion ought to prevail. One need not favor an authoritarian view of the state to embrace the above premises. Lydia, in particular, has been righteously eloquent in exposing craven betrayals of free speech when Islam is involved. Good on her for it. Again, no one is calling for J. S Mill's absolutist vision of unlimited Free Speech. We grant that there are times, circumstances, exigencies, when speech must be restricted or criminalized. But we still hold that the usual course of political discussion ought to be free from state restriction; that the theory of public deliberation and dissent which undergirds our republican form is a wise one.

Paul J Cella:

Should we "butt out" of Malian matters

Yes.

(and thus criticize M. Hollande)

No.

or "butt out" of French matters?

Yes.

In the course of these comments you have seemed to take both positions.

My position is that the US should not intervene in Malian OR French affairs and should remain silent on the matter.

Tony:

Daniel, was the US diplomatic and then military action under Jefferson to deal with the Barbary states' uncivilized maritime behavior a form of interventionism or non-interventionism?

You tell me. I'm wondering if you understand what the difference is.

Of course it was intervention: by force we confronted a foreign non-US entity to change its behavior. That's intervention.

The reason I ask, of course, is that T. Jefferson is usually held up as a shining example of a libertarian-leaning non-interventionist.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.