Closing ranks: The onset of a clash of civilizations

[dutchfire]

Get real, France is not a shinning example of freedom, or democracy, or even modernity.

Verbose called France a symbol, not an example, of freedom. I feel like that's an important distinction to make with regards to his point.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Verbose called France a symbol, not an example, of freedom. I feel like that's an important distinction to make with regards to his point.

That is a really clever distinction. Like how superheroes are symbols of heroism, but they cant be examples of it (because their heroism is fictional).

I was wondering about the "leave ISIS alone" strategy that I and others have brought up. I guess my thinking now is that if we believe that liberal democracies or socialist democracies or democratic republics are the better forms of government... won't ISIS eventually collapse under the unsustainable unacceptable tyranny that their idealized Caliphate represents?

Or are we worried that their way of doing things will endure because its more a matter of perspective? As in they will be able to convince people to stay and raise their families under ISIS rule because they will make it look good from that perspective?

 

[Verbose]

Whatever France is, it REALLY gets the Daesh going. That's irrespective of whether Daesh is right or wrong about it.

 

[Verbose]

Verbose called France a symbol, not an example, of freedom. I feel like that's an important distinction to make with regards to his point.

Don't bother. It's me who said that. Of course it's foolish, idiotic, mendacious or whatever...

 

[Leoreth]

You're confusing value and culture; the former is far more fundamental to the human condition.

I'm not convinced this a relevant distinction to make here, especially in the context of the conversation you're quoting here which iirc was my response to an Akka's argument. Not that I'm convinced of the assertion either.

Example: Israel has been undergoing a process of Americanization for the past few decades, which has created an atmosphere of cosmopolitanism and tolerance. American music, clothing, movies, et cetera, permeate everywhere. However more and more Israelis are coming to resent individualistic democracy, which explicitly denies the ethnic character of the state. The trends pull in opposing directions, but aren't as mutually exclusive as you might think.

Okay? Two different social trends that currently coexist within Israel. Sounds like solid ground for what I said previously.

It isn't quite there, but liberal culture seems to be satisfied with nothing less. I don't think it'll succeed in the end.

I'm never quite sure what is worse about liberal culture, that it wants everyone to be the same or that it thinks that everyone is a special snowflake. But it's certainly one of those two, and since they are both clearly bad, liberalism must be bad.

The issue here is that you assume 'individuality' is what most people want. Outside of Europe and Europe-descended societies, it's the exception, not the rule.

There are some people who want conformity, but the conformity they want curiously looks like one where they're not the ones who have to conform. In other words, they want individuality for themselves and not for others. Those people are hypocrites.

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm not convinced this a relevant distinction to make here, especially in the context of the conversation you're quoting here which iirc was my response to an Akka's argument. Not that I'm convinced of the assertion either.

It seems to me worth pointing out, since every discussion of this sort seems to be flavored by the idea of nationalism being the same as culture or race. If it seems like quibbling to you, keep in mind that it's all the difference between Zionism being a racist ideology and a national liberation movement.

Okay? Two different social trends that currently coexist within Israel. Sounds like solid ground for what I said previously.

The same people are being influenced by both trends, and not all of them feel it is contradictory. It could also be pointed out that racism and ethnonationalism in Europe disappeared after the ethnic cleansing by both Americans and Soviets during WWII; the exceptions being Ireland and Yugoslavia where forced mass migrations had not taken place. Seems interesting that individualism took root more firmly in places that were homogeneous.

I'm never quite sure what is worse about liberal culture, that it wants everyone to be the same or that it thinks that everyone is a special snowflake. But it's certainly one of those two, and since they are both clearly bad, liberalism must be bad.

If there's a point being made here, I'm not getting it.

I don't see liberalism as being a destructive force. You could say my views are a parallel to Marx: I think it's useful, but will eventually be superseded.

There are some people who want conformity, but the conformity they want curiously looks like one where they're not the ones who have to conform. In other words, they want individuality for themselves and not for others. Those people are hypocrites.

Nobody wants 'conformity,' apart from fascists. I'm saying that most people would prefer to be part of a larger canon than simply themselves. Liberalism is fundamentally a reactionary movement, a response to late-modern racialism, and is only really effective against that.

 

[aelf]

In the wake of recent events, I felt that it would be apt to revisit this thread.

More and more I see attitudes hardening, with more voices affirming that a large part of the world is simply incompatible with Western values and that the different civilisations have a difficulty coexisting. If you think these voices speak the truth to any significant degree, what course of action would you advocate? Is a propaganda war against fundamentalist/traditionalist Islam enough? Should the propaganda war be extended to Islam as a whole?

Or do you think more concrete actions should be taken? Should barriers be erected against that part of the world, and what do they entail? A complete ban on entry? Should that be extended to the complete halting of trade?

Or perhaps that isn't even enough, and we need to "put boots on the ground", starting with Syria and ISIS, and then, if need be, the rest of the Middle East? Or perhaps some shock and awe is in order? Nuke Mecca?

I want to hear from the other camp.

 

[luiz]

I don't think in most places in the West opinions are moving towards "more intervention and bombs are needed". At least outside the US. Quite the opposite. A lot of politicians are now convinced that supporting the Arab Spring and helping oust the likes of Kadaffi, Mubarak, Ben Ali & co. was a mistake, to say nothing of the precedent Iraq War. A lot of them seem to be migrating to the Putin worldview - it's better to deal with secular strongmen that ensure the peace than with insurgents (in the ME, insurgents are almost always of some Islamic flavor or another).

In the case of France, it is now official policy that toppling Assad is no longer a priority, nor even necessarily a goal, when it comes to Syria.

I see a shift to realpolitik and "Putinism", not to neocon interventionism.

 

[aelf]

Well, that would be a shift in strategy, not exactly a course of action. My question is what is to be done next?

 

[luiz]

I don't think anyone has a very coherent plan at this point, because the situation is pretty ugly not only in Syria and Iraq, but throughout the Sahel / Maghreb as well. But war is clearly not the solution. Some concordat between Saudi Arabia and Iran must be reached, which might include a federalization of Iraq and Syria.

Not a clue how to deal with the other issues. Maybe prop up whatever regime can offer stability without a major bloodbath?

I would like to believe the powers that be have far better plans than I do, but unfortunately I don't.

 

[Sommerswerd]

In the wake of recent events, I felt that it would be apt to revisit this thread.

More and more I see attitudes hardening, with more voices affirming that a large part of the world is simply incompatible with Western values and that the different civilisations have a difficulty coexisting. If you think these voices speak the truth to any significant degree, what course of action would you advocate? Is a propaganda war against fundamentalist/traditionalist Islam enough? Should the propaganda war be extended to Islam as a whole?

Or do you think more concrete actions should be taken? Should barriers be erected against that part of the world, and what do they entail? A complete ban on entry? Should that be extended to the complete halting of trade?

Or perhaps that isn't even enough, and we need to "put boots on the ground", starting with Syria and ISIS, and then, if need be, the rest of the Middle East? Or perhaps some shock and awe is in order? Nuke Mecca?

I want to hear from the other camp.

I don't know if I would be considered "the other camp" and I don't know if this is the kind of response your're looking for, but my thinking is that our foucus should be on aggresively eliminating the use of oil as an energy source. Our countries oil-based energy needs place tremendous pressure on our govenments and create tremendous incentives for our corporations to maintian a sustained, substantial military presence in the Middle East. And our national ego/ideology prevents them from presenting this necessity honestly to us. Instead, our politicians face crushing pressure to find some cultural/ideological/moral reason(s) for us to have a large, visible, permanent Middle Easten military presence. If we reduce and ultimately elimminate the need for oil, alot of that pressure will go away. When DPRK or China commits some cyber attack or takes hostages, there is far less pressure to invade, bomb etc, because they don't have anything we need.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I don't know if I would be considered "the other camp" and I don't know if this is the kind of response your're looking for, but my thinking is that our foucus should be on aggresively eliminating the use of oil as an energy source. Our countries oil-based energy needs place tremendous pressure on our govenments and create tremendous incentives for our corporations to maintian a sustained, substantial military presence in the Middle East. And our national ego/ideology prevents them from presenting this necessity honestly to us. Instead, our politicians face crushing pressure to find some cultural/ideological/moral reason(s) for us to have a large, visible, permanent Middle Easten military presence. If we reduce and ultimately elimminate the need for oil, alot of that pressure will go away. When DPRK or China commits some cyber attack or takes hostages, there is far less pressure to invade, bomb etc, because they don't have anything we need.

The numbers don't bear that out at all. The US only gets about 17% of it's oil from the Middle East. Even if we assume that to be a large number, most of that comes from Saudi Arabia, where we do not have a large military presence.

I would argue that a far more germaine reason that we care about the Middle East so much in a military sense is our government's obsession with protecting Israel.

Edit: Not that I disagree with the need to divorce ourselves from oil, being overly reliant on something that is, at the end of the day, a finite resource is a bad idea just for basic common sense reasons. I just don't think oil is the main reason we keep flooding the Middle East with military action.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The numbers don't bear that out at all. The US only gets about 17% of it's oil from the Middle East. Even if we assume that to be a large number, most of that comes from Saudi Arabia, where we do not have a large military presence.

I would argue that a far more germaine reason that we care about the Middle East so much in a military sense is our government's obsession with protecting Israel.

Edit: Not that I disagree with the need to divorce ourselves from oil, being overly reliant on something that is, at the end of the day, a finite resource is a bad idea just for basic common sense reasons. I just don't think oil is the main reason we keep flooding the Middle East with military action.

We shouldn't confuse "majority" with "necessity." It doesnt matter that we dont get the majority of our oil from the Middle East. We still need that 17% percent to function. If your rent is $1000 and you make $830 at your first job and $170 at your second job you still need that second job. You absolutely can't go without it. And we cant warp the oil from there to here even if it comes from an ally-nation. We have to control/protect the shipping lanes and pipelines and shipping/delivery/transportation infrastucture all around the sources, which is exposed to the hostile elements in the region.

In fact, it ironically might be the minority-majority dynamic that keeps us from switching. If for example, we were getting 80% of our energy from the Middle East, there might be more urgency to switch because of the precarious position, whereas when we can say "We're almost there, we just need a little more" there is more of a tendancy to see our system as "working" and use force to fill in the gaps rather than pursue wholesale change of a "working" system.

And the whole "the Jews control our military policy" argument isn't as persuasive to me... Its the other way around... What I mean is I tend to think of the "protecting Israel" as just another in a long line of noble-sounding ideological justifications for protecting our oil interests. *gasp* We can't leave! What about our oil?!? Israel will be slaughtered!

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I never said the Jews control our military policy, I'm not sure where you're pulling that from. I said our government cares a LOT about protecting Israel, which is undeniably true. I leave the individual reader to decide for themselves what their motivation might be for doing so.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I never said the Jews control our military policy, I'm not sure where you're pulling that from. I said our government cares a LOT about protecting Israel, which is undeniably true. I leave the individual reader to decide for themselves what their motivation might be for doing so.

You definitely didn't claim that "the Jews" did anything... that was just me editorializing (as I always do). I will point out though, that it is not "undeniably true" that our government "cares" a lot about Israel. What is true, is that our politicians spend a lot of time and energy giving lip service to Israel-related issues. But again, I think its just a smoke screen for oil-mongering... If Israel was say, carved out of a chunk of Germany or Austria, or some Island chain in the sea of Japan, or the Maldives, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't hear anywhere near as much about protecting it, Putin-aggression, DPRK nukes or rising oceans, notwithstanding.

 

[innonimatu]

I don't think anyone has a very coherent plan at this point, because the situation is pretty ugly not only in Syria and Iraq, but throughout the Sahel / Maghreb as well. But war is clearly not the solution. Some concordat between Saudi Arabia and Iran must be reached, which might include a federalization of Iraq and Syria.

Not a clue how to deal with the other issues. Maybe prop up whatever regime can offer stability without a major bloodbath?

I would like to believe the powers that be have far better plans than I do, but unfortunately I don't.

The plans of the powers that be are destabilizing any possible rival powers. Always were, always will be. That's international politics in a nutshell. And without hegemons we have more of this.

Next in line for destruction is Saudi Arabia. Just because the opportunity to do so is about to present itself, and no such opportunity is going to be left to waste. They made so many enemies that some are sure to exploit the current internal problems that are brewing there. And for for once I'm not going to protest against the destruction of a sovereign country. This one did so much harm to others that it may actually be for the better. Maybe in a few decades out of the ruins something better will arise.

The western players are neither scared with the anarchy they spread, not about to change policy. Anarchy is good for the powers that can project power, strong and stable states are harder to manipulate than warlords dependent on foreign patrons for weapons or wealth safely stashed away with which to bribe their lieutenants.

Wealth and "cultural prestige" were the first expedients to manage the former colonies in Africa (one that Qaddafi endangered and finally made it worth the effort to eliminate him - with prejudice) and the Middle East. To this day it still works in Africa, but in the Middle East the arab monarchs accumulated so much cash that they became uppity. The secular dictators with nationalist agendas, like Nasser, Sadat, Assar, or Saddam, were the first to raise trouble and eventually the strategy shifted to destabilization and outright war against their countries. But the arab monarchs are also getting uppity.Saudi Arabia, now locked in a useless war with Yemen even while it spends its treasury accumulated from oil sales, is going down the exact same path Saddam was encouraged to go.

And there are "terrorists" and "refugees" from this wars coming to Europe? Like that would detain the powers that be. Algerians living in France and the "terrorism" of the time didn't prevent the french from waging 13 years of war in Algeria, did it? The UK still includes Northern Ireland, doesn't it? Terrorism is a bogeyman useful only to get some laws passed to curtail civil liberties. And that will eventually be reversed lated, don't worry too much.

This is not a clash of civilizations. It's the same age-old international politics. The rest is rhetoric useful to sell books and keep people distracted. As for multiculturalism, it was a stupid idea, it will remain a stupid idea. Mixing different cultures in the same territory always leads to clashes. They are localized and will be resolved either by forceful separation of very slow integration of the minority ones into the major one. The "liberal west" wasn't very multicultural with Serbia: forceful separation it was - because that was the political goal of the powers intervening. Whereas Bosnia was maintained in a make-believe federation. And in Northern Ireland assimilation is still being insisted upon. Or if you want examples with muslims and christians, consider that assimilation, not separation (giving up territory to a band of immigrants? hah!) is the goal for France and Germany regarding its immigrants. Notice the deciding factor for each case? It wasn't the cultures, it wasn't the existence or absence of clashes. It was the power and internal stability, or lack of it, of the polity (the state and its government) presiding over the situation. When they become weak and when foreign actors decide to take advantage of that and intervene, every "multicultural" polity is ripe for anarchy and destruction. But if it manages to maintain a stable government (no factions ready to attempt coups) and is strong enough (militarily!) to dissuade attempts at destabilization from outside, the clashes over "multiculturalism" won't lead to any major trouble.

My sad conclusion from this, however, is that weak states shouldn't risk "multiculturalism". That is a luxury of the stronger states (empires...), whose rulers and people can proclaim themselves virtuous for managing it. But they are able and too often ready and willing to exploit the divisions in the weaker states that have the misfortune of being "multicultural".

 

[Agent327]

The plans of the powers that be are destabilizing any possible rival powers. Always were, always will be. That's international politics in a nutshell. And without hegemons we have more of this.

Sounds like a circular argument, but what do I know?

My sad conclusion from this, however, is that weak states shouldn't risk "multiculturalism". That is a luxury of the stronger states (empires...), whose rulers and people can proclaim themselves virtuous for managing it. But they are able and too often ready and willing to exploit the divisions in the weaker states that have the misfortune of being "multicultural".

Virtual every state is multicultural. Perhaps it's time to deal with the facts? There is no apparent reason for smaller state to not be able to deal with it. But perhaps the argument is that small states can't afford good governance?

 

[Leoreth]

Considering how often Germany and the EU have been accused of imperial tendencies multiculturalism might work out after all. Kind of surprising to learn that from innominatu but what is even surprising anymore these days.

 

[Daw]

Considering how often Germany and the EU have been accused of imperial tendencies multiculturalism might work out after all. Kind of surprising to learn that from innominatu but what is even surprising anymore these days.

Hmm... I understood him differently (or did I misunderstand you?)...

The way I interpreted innominatu is that Germany/EU may survive multiculturalism this time, because they are strong. But I don't see how the statement that multiculturalism might work out after all follows from that, it's rather the opposite. Or did you mean that multiculturalism might work out after all and therefore Germany/EU are going to perish?

 

[Leoreth]

It was more an expression of surprise about his characterization of the EU as being strong, considering how he often likes to proclaim that it is (thankfully, never forget to mention the thankfully) doomed to failure.