For some 60 years, there has been a deep fissure in what is called the American Right. There are those who believe in liberty. And there are those who believe in the American imperial state. They are not the same. Indeed, they are in opposition. The events in Egypt underscore the serious difference, to the point that many spokesmen among the conservative movement can’t even recognize the legitimate aspirations of a people not to be ruled by a dictator.
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/15741/conservatives-versus-freedom/
Conservatives versus Freedom
Previous post: More Austro-speak from regional Fed
Next post: The Dividing Line in Libertarian Political Philosophy
{ 68 comments }
Women and Gays versus Freedom?
They hate Islamic dictatorships as well, and for good reason.
LOL what?
Wow. Well and powerfully stated.
Very well-stated. I had high hopes for Beck early on, but his abandonment of the Egyptian people in favor of a vast Islamic conspiracy theory puts him on the outside looking in (from a liberty perspective).
I expected no less from Ann C. She’s pretty openly America-First, regardless of freedom issues. Doesn’t matter if everyone else in the world is a slave, as long as the USA is on top.
You seem to be implying that the US should be fighting the Egyptian revolution for them, winning their liberty at our expense. Isn’t the libertarian attitude to leave the rest of the world to it’s own course?
Where in his statement can it even be inferred that he wants US intervention into their revolution?
Doesn’t matter if everyone else in the world is a slave, as long as the USA is on top.
the implication is obvious.
No, the implication is not that the US should take part in helping the revolution along, the implication is that it was illegitimate US intervention in the first place that helped make those people into slaves. The opposite of “supporting one side of a fight in order to maintain your position at the top” is not “supporting the other side”, it’s “not taking sides in other people’s fights.”
to colin:
i agree with what you’ve said. but i think jim’s was a criticism of the america-first stance.
newson:
fair enough.
There are those who believe in liberty. And there are those who believe in the American imperial state.
I find it interesting that this issue is always presented as an either or. When in fact there are three positions. Those who believe in the imperial state, those who believe in liberty through government and those who believe in liberty (and know it cannot be achieved through government.)
Those of us who take the third position (anarcho-libertarian) do so because in our lifetime we have not seen any revolution or democratic process that has increased liberty. Why should I believe Egypt would be any different?
What the Egyptians decide to do is their business but to jump up and down like a teenager over these events seems short sighted, emotional, and highly unintellectual.
Perhaps, Lew (and J. Tucker) are making a political argument against neo-conservatism and I should look at these articles in that light. But from the anarcho-libertarian position, these articles look childish.
A secessionist movement in Egypt would more encouraging.
But as I have stated before…
The latent minarchist in me is always hopeful but history reminds the anarchist in me not to expect much.
Second. Considering the only true revolution happened almost three hundred years ago and the rest have been a simple exchange of dictators at parity, along with the pretty in-depth designs the Muslim Brotherhood has for Egypt, and indeed, the entire middle East going according to plan, what reason do we have to believe that the Egyptians will end up as a free people? Even if the protests started over individual liberty (they didn’t, Egyptians were ticked about food prices), whose to say the “liberty” theme isn’t just a motivating tool to get people into the streets? It worked in Russia during the 1900′s, didn’t it? If history is anything to go by, they’ll have someone ten times as bad as Mubarak before the end of the month.
Also, I’m curious as to why people seem to believe that having concerns about a terrorist group co-opting a revolution (a lot of evidence points to this being the case) is the exact same thing as supporting a dictator. Me saying that I don’t like vanilla does not mean or imply in any way that I do like chocolate.
There’s nothing wrong with having concerns, what the author is (rightly) upset about is that, without knowing HOW this revolution will turn out in the end, it’s already being condemned.
The intelligent thing to do would be to support the Egyptian people against a dictator, then, if something worse comes along, support them if they offer any resistence to that. You may not intend it this way, but your reasoning comes across as we shouldn’t support mass popular movements, because they MIGHT turn out worse for us.
Even if the Egyptians DO elect the Muslim Brotherhood, isn’t that their right? Americans in general, and neocons in particular, are WAY too in love with the idea that foreign gov’ts shouldn’t have the gall to NOT like us. Let the Muslim Brotherhood get elected. If they attack us, we’ll respond in kind. If they don’t, then it’s none of our business.
“There’s nothing wrong with having concerns, what the author is (rightly) upset about is that, without knowing HOW this revolution will turn out in the end, it’s already being condemned. ”
I’m not really sure about that, he complains about a “lack of joy” among conservatives over this uprising. Honestly, I see nothing to be joyful about yet, and some restraint certainly seems in order.
I guess you could say that I view this as Good Guys: 0 Bad Guys -1
Considering scoring in politics is a lot like golf, the bad guys have the advantage.
“…in our lifetime we have not seen any revolution or democratic process that has increased liberty.”
Really? Should we ask the Poles if they’re better off now, or in 1989? I’m not trying to be difficult, but we should recognize that there IS a difference between, say, North Korea and Canada (i.e. there are degrees of liberty, and it’s better to have some than none).
Poland wasn’t a revolution as much as a reorganization after the Soviet Union collapsed. They also had a lot of outside help getting their crap together (shock therapy, defense treaties with NATO, etc). Yes, of course there’s a difference between North Korea and Canada, however, North Korea had a communist revolution (you see where that got them), Canada is still technically a part of the UK and never had a revolution.
Then we’re devolving into a semantic debate, esp. on the issue of whether the Eastern Block had a “revolution” or was merely “reorganized”.
Canada is not part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The latter territories are ‘united’ into one ‘kingdom’. Canada is a separate monarchy that just happens to be held in personal union with the UK since they have the same monarch. If the UK decided to overthrow its own monarchy, it would have no necessary effect on the monarchy of Canada.
Logically speaking, if it’s better to have some liberty than none, wouldn’t it be better to have all liberty than some?
Yes it would assuming that by all you’re not implying Idealized Liberty(Do what I want no matter what). Still as you said it is better to have some liberty rather than none, when you can’t have it all.
Does any one actually believe that the demonstrators in Egypt were “Freedom Fighters”. They may hate the US supported dictatorship and Israel, but that hardly qualifies as freedom loving. I see very little difference between the Egyptian demonstrations and the Greek demonstrations or the Teachers Union demonstrations in Wisconsin. Each is looking to receive a disproportionate share of dwindling economic resources. A country where 70% of the people work for the government can not be anything other than impoverished.
Incidentally, what was behind the media cover up of the gang rape of Lara Logan?
It’s a dangerous road to begin judging the worthiness of revolts in other parts of the globe based only on the news we’re getting here. Do we now only support other’s liberty if we decide they’re sincere enough?
No no no, Lew, you have it all wrong. The only thing conservatives want is Freedom! Freedom is living under the oppression of the United States government, or an indirect extension thereof (such as Mubarak’s regime). All that conservatives want is freedom for the whole world! What’s so bad about that?
Why do you hate freedom?
So what would you do differently if you had your freedom? Besides paying less taxes and smoking dope . . . .
I would build a couple or rental houses if I weren’t afraid of getting an asshole for a tenant and being unable to evict him (because I am not allowed to make or enforce my own contracts in relation to rental properties). Since I lack that freedom, those potential houses are money sitting in a bank account instead.
Who knows? Start their own business or businesses? Or maybe just enjoy the increased opportunities created by others? Maybe find a niche created by others that would never have existed in a more regulated society?
Dope might have little to do with what they want to do. If anything, smoking dope is more a sign of resignation to the status quo than a strong aspiration of a free person.
A rather tendentious reading of History is the Libertarians. We didn’t tell Europe to commit suicide in two acts and for Asia to embrace the 100 million dead or more nightmare of Communism. We got sucked into the Global Catastrophe of the collapse of every Empire in the World from 1911 (China) to 1945 with the end of what was once Europe. In 1989 the USSR collapsed, with mixed results.
I think none of you since Mises have ever really felt the real boot or seen the real thing and he ran, now didn’t he? Where might I ask? Could it be for the unbearable nightmare of the USA? I am for limited govt, the night watchman state, and for us pulling back from the World. However that doesn’t mean I want to re-write the History Books to make us the Anti-Christ.
However since you feel that way, kindly turn in your American Passports and go somewhere else.
Don’t hide behind our Constitution, our Laws, our Military and Police (and no doubt our Lawyers) and whine about the unbearable tyranny. To paraphrase a line from “The Last Emperor”: Join us Citizen.
Or F*ck Off.
So, since we have a difference of opinion, you want to expel us from the country? Real liberty-loving there.
There are much more brutal regimes than the one here in the US. That much is true. That other governments are and have been worse does not justify the state’s rule.
Furthermore for all of your proclaimed support of “limited government” your sentiment is quite collectivist: My property is owned by me. It is not granted to me as a privilege by “society.” If others choose to infringe upon my property, and I’m unhappy about this, the infringers are in the wrong, not me.
Many say that property is only private as long as it is enforced as private. Of course one could say a country is the private property of a dictator.
“We got sucked into the Global Catastrophe of the collapse of every Empire in the World”
I puked a little right there.
For Mises to come to the U.S. in 1940 to escape tyranny and promote freedom was a very sensible action. But don’t forget that he also wrote eloquently that “there is no 3rd way” and that interventionism leads to progressively greater statism. Just because the U.S. has been more free than most countries (in many respects) through most of its history does not mean that it will always reliably provide a large degree of freedom. And for anyone paying attention to what has happened in recent years, that should be evident.
@D. Saul Weiner February 20, 2011 at 12:00 pm
“Just because the U.S. has been more free than most countries (in many respects) through most of its history does not mean that it will always reliably provide a large degree of freedom. And for anyone paying attention to what has happened in recent years, that should be evident.”
Although some will dismiss this as corny and ultra-patriotic, if viewed as a simply wise observation concerning the relationship of humans and the society they create, it has impressive applicability to the course of current world events.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
I believe this sentiment captures something universal about humans and society, and is neither a story that began nor will end with the American experiment. Agree or not, the study by the Heritage foundation that drops the ranking of the US compared to other countries, should at least be an awakening to the possibility that what you say to be evident, may well be, and probably is. (see http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking)
So, where Greece, Egypt, the rest of the middle east, and WI goes, the rest of the world must ultimately follow.
“There are much more brutal regimes than the one here in the US”
Rendition?
Having despots and Dictators overthrown is a most beautiful site. I have the highest hopes for the revolution spreading across the middle east. People demanding there Freedom, there Liberty. May the end of oppressive governments always be in the hearts and minds of all individuals. for it is a flame we can not allow to be extinguished.
The Shah of Iran was a US supported despot who was overthrown. What replaced the tyranny of the Shah was even worse. What I am afraid of is that history will repeat itself. Look at what happened in Yugoslavia. Under Titov, there was dictatorship and peace. Freedom first brought a bloody civil war.In Poland and East Germany, on the other hand, there was a peaceful transition.
Lets hope that the transitions in North Africa and the Middle East are also peaceful.
The Shah was a US installed Despot. I would say 99% of revolutions produce a government that is the same as, or worse than the previous government. the chances of having minds like Jefferson, Washington, Adams and Franklin around are slim. look at how poorly we have done in the 21st century for leaders. This isn’t even the low hanging fruit.
I agree that religious fundamentalists can be dangerous. look at the damage the ones elected in America have caused. (Liberal nut jobs can be just as dangerous).
If revolution is so bad, we should return to the monarchy right away. Radical Islam will hate us regardless. let them hate us, without supporting there hate via our tax dollars.
Troy Doering February 19, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Be that as it may, the Shah had a large number of supporters, and most who were most “Western” in their interpretation of freedom found a way to escape to non-Islamic states, like western europe and the US.
Revolution is not bad, it simply is no guarantee the the revolt will produce the most desired outcome for the revolutionaries. That seems like an important point to keep in mind when casting such absolute judgments on one side or the other.
Wildberry,
My Judgments are not absolute, just my own biased opinion. I agree revolutions are not bad. Just that it is very hard to create a good and just government. look at how badly the French screwed up. I hope that out of these revolutions in the middle east we will see that rare 1%. I wished that the green movement in Iran would have succeeded. It would be nice to see the ill-jongs of North Korea ousted too.
And of course Goodbye to Moammar Gadhafi, because he is a terrorist and murderer.
hey gays, don’t you see? the conservative are absolutely right – it’s dangerous this situation…don’t you realize – it’s not a matter of fight for liberty in Egypt, it’s a matter of generating violence and fundamentalism… wich, of course, has a lot to do with the american freedom in general.. do not underestimate the consequences..if you do so, i’m sorry to say it , but it will be a huuuge and painful mistake
And why exactly is American freedom more important than Egyptian freedom? Or any freedom?
The violence and chaos of the Middle East is a direct result of the meddling of Western powers.
Conservatives wish to maintain control over resource rich lands in order to keep patronage flowing to the politically connected. (Democrats feel the same way, but with a different flavor.)
This isn’t about stability as a be-all-end-all. That’s a load of horse crap. This is about stability for a reason, to ensure the control of resources by a minority group.
Even unbridled chaos of the worst horror film is better than that. I’d rather fend for myself in Ann Coulter’s most diabolical nightmare scenario of evil Moooooslims, than live subjugated by a group of pitiless oligarchs while Ann praises their efforts at maintaining stability.
David in Qatar
@David,
I would question your comment about the violence and chaos of the Middle East is a direct result of the meddling of western powers.
The reason I say this is observing that region for over 50 years. Also, reading history of its people’s. When I first saw the movie Lawrence of Arabia I was fascinated at the lengths Sir Lawrence took to get all the tribes together and create a government. The differences between the tribes goes back way before western influence. Then I look at the differences just between Iraq and Iran. They have to different sects of Muslim which seems to cause problems. The wars between the two I’m sure were real and didn’t need any western influence. Even after the Ayotollah was brought to power in 1980 the Iranians glorified him. The funny thing is the current Leader nut job and the new Ayotollah did not have much favor with Ayotollah Komenei. They hated each other.
My point is this. There was enough drama in the Middle East prior to the western influence and there will be more after we leave. They are mostly nomadic tribes with long histories and Sir Lawrence is smiling in this grave.
Walt D,
you have every possible reason to be worried, because what many protestors in Egypt want is not democracy, but Islamic state and war with Israel, i.e. to push the Jews into the sea and “liberate the Holy Land”. The best proof for that is that not only the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood but also the most prominent secular leader of the Egyptian opposition Nur, say that Camp David Accord is dead. It’s clear what does that mean; a war. A radical cleric, Al Qaradawi, who supported 9-11 killers and who routinely supports Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbolah and calls for killing the Jews and destruction of Israel, is back in Egypt; he held a large mass prayer on Tahir square last Friday. Isn’t that interesting and telling?
Many people in the West are simply too naive in their support for “democracy” to see this simple truth; that what is going to result from these riots in Egypt is not a democracy at all, but an even worse regime than Mubarak’s, likely with the Islamists on the top.
I have a hard time understanding by which mystical transmutation some libertarians are able to argue that replacing a corrupt dictator supported by Americans by an even worse corrupt dictatorship, this time around not supported by Americans, is somehow an improvement? An improvement, for whom? I really doubt that the Iranian people benefited much from replacing Shah with Khomeini? I doubt equally that replacing Mubarak with the Muslim Brotherhood regime is going to help the Egyptians. And it’s beyond me what any of these have to do with liberty and libertarianism? If rioting and ousting the authoritarian regimes and replacing them with the totalitarian ones is a hallmark of freedom and libertarianism, than the Bolshevik revolution was the biggest libertarian event in human history. And the Jacobins were also among the greatest libertarians in the world.
This is just sheer fantasy, sheer nonsense. What is it about wanting freedom that you do not understand?
“What is it about wanting freedom that you do not understand?”
Apart from wanting freedom from US interference, I do not think that the majority of Egyptians would have any concept of what freedom is in the libertarian sense of the word. Even under Mubarak, the country was overwhelmingly radical Islamic. This is not going to change overnight.
Who said it will?
David in Qatar
If you by “wanting freedom” mean “killing the Jews” or “imposing the Sharia law”, or “implementing the ideas of Hassan al Banna and Said Qutb” than the Egyptian revolution was really about “freedom”. Usually, libertarians mean something else by the term “freedom”. Where is the evidence that anyone in Egypt wanted ‘freedom” in the libertarian sense? I don’t see much, except if you consider the courting of the Western left-wing media as evidence. Even on a more narrow ground, the riots started over the food prices and unemployment, like in Greece. Not really a Jeffersonian motivation, to say the least. Where is an organized political party or a group to call for the free market reforms in Egypt? I see exactly none.
Of course the Islamists, just like their communist and fascist cousins, would gladly accept to impose their dictatorship by ballot box. No problem about that: “one man, one vote, one time” (just like Hamas did in Gaza strip).
They hated Mubarak because he ‘humiliated’ them by acting as an American and Israeli “puppet” for 30 years, who shirked the Holy duty to obliterate the Jews. That’s the entire story. The most liberal and secular leader in Egypt today says that he wants to abolish the peace treaty with Israel. What do you think that a more likely contender to power, the Muslim Brotherhood, is going to do in this regard? Is not that a plausible reason to at least think twice before we proclaim a triumph of democracy or even “libertarianism” in Egypt? Many people were also quick to proclaim a triumph of democracy and liberalism in Iran back then in 1979, and to dismiss all the warnings of Islamic takeover as baseless fear-mongering. How that one turned out?
Have you ever personally known an “Islamist?”
I’ve lived in Muslim countries:
(1.5 years in Pakistn
2 years in Kuwait
3 years in Qatar)
They are gentle and private people. They simply want to determine their own affairs for once. I could honestly not care less if they impose Sharia Law. I would simply move. They can vote for a dictatorship, Islamist theocracy, or liberal democracy. I couldn’t care less.
As long as I don’t have to pay for it, which as a US tax-paying (even overseas) citizen, I have been forced to do at gunpoint to prop up Mubarak and all the other puppets in the Middle East who determine the affairs for these gentle people.
Meanwhile, the supposedly civilized conservatives advocate the slaughter of Muslims in order to protect me.
Ha!
David in Qatar
David,
First, Pakistan, Kuwait and Qatar are not exactly Lebanon, Tunisia, Iran, Syria, etc.
Second, despite the fact that I’m sure that there are plenty of gentle, private muslims in the world, that does not negate the realities of Hezbollah, Hamas, Taliban or Al Queda, etc.
You say as long as you can move, you don’t care what happens to the place you leave. Really?
If only there was always the opportunity and means to just pick up and move elsewhere. Sometimes, perhaps out of necessity, one simply has the choice to stand and fight, or perish.
Given those options, which would you choose?
“First, Pakistan, Kuwait and Qatar are not exactly Lebanon, Tunisia, Iran, Syria, etc.”
Have you ever been to Pakistan? That’s not exactly the land of milk and honey.
“Second, despite the fact that I’m sure that there are plenty of gentle, private muslims in the world, that does not negate the realities of Hezbollah, Hamas, Taliban or Al Queda, etc.”
The reality is that these organizations’ influence is the direct result of US meddling in the affairs of Muslim nations.
“You say as long as you can move, you don’t care what happens to the place you leave. Really?”
Absolutely. I don’t presume that I can run the affairs of others better than they can for themselves. If I disagree with them, as a guest in their nation, I will simply leave. What happens is beyond my control and the least of my worries.
“If only there was always the opportunity and means to just pick up and move elsewhere. Sometimes, perhaps out of necessity, one simply has the choice to stand and fight, or perish.”
I agree, but that is for the people of that land to choose. I would prefer complete statelessness for myself, but the IRS thinks I am their property. However, others would like to determine their affairs with a state. They may have it. Just don’t ask me to join the party.
“Given those options, which would you choose?”
Whatever is best for my family.
David in Qatar
Nikolaj,
I am not an expert in the regional politics, but what you say makes perfect sense in the context of many other analogous historical events; the Orange revolution in Ukraine, the displacement of the Shah of Iran, and the rise of Iranian sponsored Hezbollah in Lebanon. You could certainly make good reference to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.
Not only do your observations about Egypt make obvious common sense, but even if it was a movement motivated purely by Jeffersonian ideals, well organized and funded opposition can much more easily seize power during an uprising, regardless of how it was originally motivated.
People have a tendency to believe what they want to believe, and those who ignore the lessons of history are destined to repeat it.
Your view of events seems a much more likely explanation for the actual events taking place.
I would challenge people like Jeffery Tucker, who have big voices on this site, to back up the assertions they make about the motivations of Egyptians, or any other popular uprising in the middle east in history, where the motive of liberty was singularly or even predominately at play and the result was a free people.
The American Revolution, and the overthrow of the British Empire in India come to mind, both examples of a people being ruled and occupied by western cultures, and the revolution resulting in a rough analogy of the English/American contemporary tradition of individual liberty. There are no signs of that type of liberty-from-oppression scenario being repeated in these countries, especially in the Middle East, where values of “radical Islam” predominate.
Also, a meaningful step towards anything which actually operates like a free democracy and/or free markets seem much less likely in countries that have become accustomed to dictatorial systems of government, perhaps because they do not have a clear model to substitute in their minds for the “power brokers” of dictatorships. In short, it isn’t so simple and it will not unfold overnight, and it will not conform to our ideals that all humans are seeking freedom.
There were a substantial number of Russians, for example, who wanted Communism back, because they believed they benefited more the State than from the “Gangster Democracies” of post-communist Russia. I think this is common for peoples who lived under dictatorships; they are looking for the next “benign dictator” to look after them.
I spoke to a Greecian this morning that explains the situation in Greece in this way. In short, they are disappointed the the EU doesn’t want to support their “retire at 45″ benefits.
Yeah, it’d be a shame to let them try their own experiments in government, when the U.S. can just dictate to them how they “ought” to have their government operate. Perhaps there would be less hostility to “freedom” and “democracy” if it wasn’t forcefully “exported” to other countries…
Wilbery,
the problem in the Middle East is not that Islam is “backward” or that the Arabs “do not want freedom”. In my view, the main problem is a political culture of radical Islamism, which emerged from a distinct amalgamation of the Western totalitarianism and a distorted, idiosyncratic interpretation of Islam itself. Hassan al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood warned his own followers back in the early 1930s to expect the fiercest resistance from the ullama (the traditional religious establishment). Sayid Qutb, a spiritual leader of al Qaeda was under the strong influence of Lenin and Mussolini. He wrote about the “Muslim vanguard” that was going to take over the world and create a caliphate, in the same way the communists fantasized about their own revolutionary vanguard achieving the world-wide dominance for communism. That tells you how much Islamism is “authentic”. The traditional, conventional Muslim believers are appalled by the radical Islam. But, they are suppressed and silent. The jihadist are able to speak for Muslims now, and this is a problem. Many people in the Western world, conservatives and leftists alike, accept this; when you listen for example to the right wing so called ‘conservatives’ they do not distinguish between Islam and political Islamism at all, playing in the hands of radicals and giving them the legitimacy when they have none. Osama bin Laden and al Qaradawi want to be the only voices of Islam. We in the West are helping them to achieve this.
The second point: the problem with libertarians turning the blind eye on the dangers of radical political Islam or sometimes even equating it with “freedom” and “democracy’ is that it reflects a parochial American perspective; in America, every dissent freedom and peace loving person, and especially a libertarian, necessarily must hate American federal government. From this, some libertarians conclude that anyone who hates American federal government anywhere in the world must also be a good and dissent guy, and must love freedom and peace, and must hate the Uncle Same for the right reason. But, this is a non sequitur. Yes, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the European leftists as well (you are right), hate American government; but guess what, they hate free markets and Jeffersonian republicanism even more than they hate George W. Bush. In this case, obviously, the logic “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” clearly does not work.
The final point: I agree with you that the danger of a radical takeover is grave in Egypt, quite irrespective of the ideas that majority holds; the Bolsheviks had a tiny support among the Russian population but were by far the best organized and disciplined force in a revolutionary turmoil. It is clear who is that force in Egypt today. To ignore this fact is to ignore reality.
Nikolaj,
Your perspective resonates with my sense of reality, and it is obviously based on some direct personal experience.
I hope to see you here often.
Regards,
If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt, how does that affect my personal safety any more than the current situation?
If anything, Egyptians will finally have someone else to blame for their problems besides Americans.
If anything, less American support for puppet dictators and Israel would make me safer.
David in Qatar
David,
Rather than seeking refuge from the non-danger, why not move to Edgypt and give us all a first hand report? I would be interested to see if that changes your perspective on your personal safety.
Is that the best you can do? This isn’t my first revolution. Would be old hat to me.
David in Qatar
^^ David sounds like Indiana Jones!
I’m way cooler
David in Qatar
only a guy with a fedora and a whip can save the west from the islamofascists.
Nikolaj,
Colleagues from Egypt and Iran did chose freedom – they came to the US on business and stayed. You are making many of the same points that they make. However, they see the biggest threat coming not from terrorist attacks, but from rotting the Western democracies from within, using the democratic process and peaceful means. Once they achieve a critical mass in a country, they will seek to impose Sharia Law, using the democratic process. This has already occurred in the UK.
They suggested I watch a film called “The Third Jihad”. I found it very disturbing. You may want to watch it – however, I have not had the opportunity to check out any of the claims it makes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYeZW-WcSlc
the man in the european street resists state-fostered multiculturalism. call it bigotry or fear of the other, but it has not been a populist platform. the rise of nationalist, right-wing political parties in europe attests to this.
I’ve always wondered if terrorist use the original star wars movie as a recruitment tool. A Old man who lives isolated in the desert, believes in a unpopular religion. recruits young boy who lacks knowledge of the universe to attack the ruling government.
The biggest misconception is that these people are stupid. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Iranian Olympiad team always finishes in the top ten. I seem to recall,that there was this Egyptian guy called Euclid. However, with my California public school education, I don’t know who he was or what he did. The Soviet Union lost the arms race. However, through the environmental movement, they managed to win the peace and defeat capitalism in the US. And then, to add insult to injury, they blew the lid open the Global Warming Fraud that they themselves thought up.
The Islamic fundamentalists have already figured out that terrorism is unnecessary – Homeland Security the T&A, and other US Law Enforcement Agencies will produce an environment on their own to bring our liberty to ruins. The Supreme Court with stand idly by and watch this happen. Ironically, it will be the liberals on the court who will allow this to happen.The Islamic Fundamentalists have already figured out where our Achilles heel is – all they need to do is look on and laugh, providing the occasional “nudge”.
I read all posts on this thread and I couldn’t believe it: you all treat the people in those countries as though they were an entirely homogeneous group. On one camp, “they are radical, fundamentalists religious zealots who will bring danger to the whole world”. On the other, “they are peace-loving, freedom-loving, the most gentle and caring people of all.”
I know Amartya Sen doesn’t get much praise on this site, but to his credit, he was quite accurate when he demolished the “clash of civilizations” theory. Societies are much more heterogeneous than commonly assumed. There are doctors, and there are laywers, and there are women, and there are toddlers, and there are apartment-dwellers, and there are those who where born on an island, and those who don’t have the words to understand what a “paid holiday” means. Each with different motivations and goals in life.
Don’t expect to understand what is going on in the middle east, particularly if you don’t speak the local languages and have no personal contact with the local cultures.
pace amartya sen, but the clash of ethnicities seems more in the pink than ever.
Comments on this entry are closed.