The Culture Clash and a defense of Neoconservatism

[Cain]

Also, I find it more than ironic that apparently forcing over a billion people to conform to your ideal political position is somehow considered liberal.

Lets see what John Stuart Mill has to say about this, children.


"A recent writer, in some respects of considerable merit, proposes (to use his own words,) not a crusade, but a civilizade, against this polygamous community, to put an end to what seems to him a retrograde step in civilization. It also appears so to me, but I am not aware that any community has a right to force another to be civilized. So long as the sufferers by the bad law do not invoke assistance from other communities, I cannot admit that persons entirely unconnected with them ought to step in and require that a condition of things with which all who are directly interested appear to be satisfied, should be put an end to because it is a scandal to persons some thousands of miles distant, who have no part or concern in it. Let them send missionaries, if they please, to preach against it; and let them, by any fair means, (of which silencing the teachers is not one,) oppose the progress of similar doctrines among their own people. If civilization has got the better of barbarism when barbarism had the world to itself, it is too much to profess to be afraid lest barbarism, after having been fairly got under, should revive and conquer civilization. A civilization that can thus succumb to its vanquished enemy must first have become so degenerate, that neither its appointed priests and teachers, nor anybody else, has the capacity, or will take the trouble, to stand up for it. If this be so, the sooner such a civilization receives notice to quit, the better. It can only go on from bad to worse, until destroyed and regenerated (like the Western Empire) by energetic barbarians."


Also, that well known Commie Adam Smith says that the flow of trade and cultural exchange of ideas spreads liberalism, whereas war only spreads profits for a small economic and political elite.  I can't seem to find the exact quote, but I'm sure someone with too much time on their hands could volunteer.

[Daruko]

Hey, Daruko, remember something about jokes you said earlier?  Shame you can't recognize them when others do them.

Sorry.  I've seen this sort of thing before, when it wasn't a joke.  Thought you were serious.

Ya know... maybe it would be a good idea if we all stopped assuming that the other poster is an intentional asshole... or if they are that they mean it to be funnay... or barring that they're just acting on programming like a good robot which can also be funnay.

*Ratatosk makes a note to start applying this in his own reading of PD*

TITCM, and one I need to pay attention to.  Been thinking about this since GA mentioned something similar.

[Cain]

Cain, I applaud your legendary temper, but if you'd actually read the OP here you'd see that my concern is how to go about addressing a potential clash of civilizations without sacrificing the Liberalism that has come to define the West over the course of the past 200 years.

Why?  Its not going to happen without some sort of cataclysmic Black Swan which I can't predict anyway.  Since I can't predict it, and those seem to be the only conditions under which it could happen, I can't see any cause for concern from that direction.

Now, whether Muslims will outnumber Western Europeans in Europe sometime in the next century or so may or may not be up to some debate. I haven't actually seen the numbers for either side of the argument, hence I said "according to some sources," and not "oh god lock your doors and windows." And as for your attempt to pidgeonhole me as a spontaneous Racist and Eugenecist, I can only wonder whether your motivation in this discussion is to cover factual ground or to get into a fight. But, to humor you, I will offer a couple of small points.

Its not up for debate.  Every statistician worth his or her salt says it isn't going to happen.

And I didn't say you were a Eugenecist or a Racist, only that you were using arguments that they also used.  Usually about Jews, as it happened, which is why all of this is mightily suspicious.  Have you ever read Orwell's Antisemitism in Great Britain?  Replace certain stereotypes and the word Jew with Muslim and it could have been written last week.  The arguments are the same boring, stale, factually inaccurate and racist-enabling crap that was being spewed 20, 50 or even 100 years ago.  "All Jews are the same, they have a foreign, alien culture...their bonds and duties towards each other undermine the traditional rule of law" blah blah blah, all of it bullshit.  This is the same crap with a modern lick of paint, and has never been any different.

1. I am not proposing a regime of strict cultural or ethnic cleansing. Obviously, if my aim is to protect the ideals of the Enlightenment and of open societies, then such a thing would be counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating.

2. I am not saying that ALL MUSLIMS ARE BAD. Jesus Christ. Look, sometimes there are uncomfortable realities with which we must contend. The fact that there is a growing unease between the West and the Middle East is one of those realities. That it happens to exist along ethnic and religious lines is unfortunate, mainly because there are people on both sides who are completely unable to see the point I am trying to make, which is that we have two very large, powerful, cultures that do not see eye to eye coming up at the same place at the same time, and if we don't at least acknowledge that there is a potential for cultural strife here, we are going to get broadsided by it.

So how is a Muslim culture a threat if all Muslims are not bad?  What are you advocating instead, brainwashing them until they accept liberalism is the One True Political System of Organization?  Forcing them at gunpoint?

If anything, there has been greater political cooperation between Europe, America and the Middle East than there ever was before 9/11.  Its strained by Iraq, but its there.  There are also some random nutcases trying to kick off a clash of the civilizations in some countries, but 99% of the people they are supposedly trying to wage that war on behalf of are embarassed to be even grouped in with the same people.

You still haven't explained why Muslims are any more a danger than, say, the proto-Fascist Patriot Movement, by the way.  Where are your concerns about your fellow countrymen who believe everyone who isn't white, insanely fundamentalist Christian and male isn't worth shit and is at best to be tolerated as a slave, at worst a menace to be wiped out?  They're just as illiberal as any Muslim fanatics, and they have a better base of support than any of them do over here.

I cannot simply ignore the fact that political and cultural tensions are growing, just because somebody might misunderstand you and get offended because they think I'm talking about race or religion. That is not my point, and it is not the point of this discussion. Some things are difficult to separate from the issue at hand, and those are two of those things.

Well except for the fact that only the crazies are causing tensions to grow with their reckless actions, and virtually everyone else knows its only the crazies who seem to have a problem getting along with people who disagree, GREAT POINT!

That's why the West is in such trouble now -- because there are so many topics we won't talk about, because they are too "sensitive." Issues like warhawks on both sides of the issue trying to provoke attack by the other side. Issues like the belief that Liberal, Western Democracy is -- God forbid you say it -- superior to the backward, repressive, oppressive, theocratic despotism of the Middle East, at least where it concerns Westerners. I know I don't want an Imam signing permission slips for me any more than your average Saudi wants a strip club across the street from his house.

Really?  Gosh, all those Daily Mail, Sun, Express, Telegraph, National Review, World Daily Net and Townhall articles about how Muslims are taking over the country must be my imagination then.  And yet when a Muslim expresses a viewpoint considered a little crazy he's automatically labelled a terrorist - even if they haven't committed a single violent act or shown any inclination to do so (cf; "Lyrical Terrorist").

And I doubt anyone gives a shit if you think your system is better - most people do, or they wouldn't support it - its when you decide to enforce your belief on everyone else at the threat of extreme violence is where people get worried.  Well, normal people anyway.

[Verbal Mike]

I generally agree with Cain here, but I think vex was pretty clear about not proposing war as a solution. I can't seem to find where he wrote it, but I think he said he thinks "the West" should just try and hold the line, so to speak, while Western culture creeps into the Muslim world...
I'm not too sure I agree with this, and I may have misinterpreted something, but I do get the feeling Cain is not arguing directly at vex's main point.
Also, I am tired and will now go to sleep. This post probably did not make much sense.

[Requia ☣]

Isn't neoconservatism just as at odds with western culture (at least the good parts) as the muslim world is?

[BootyBay]

To be sure, many Western ideals are alien to Islamic culture. Self-government, individual sovereignty, gender equality, sexual and religious freedom, freedom of speech, human dignity, and civil liberties are at the very root of what defines many Western societies. In the USA, and probably other places, these ideals are so ingrained that people tend to assume they are universally heralded priorities for any modern human society to exist at all. The concept of a society that doesn't recognize these important rights and privileges is so alien to many Westerners that we will naturally assume any such society to be historically backward. Likewise, these things are so intolerable for traditional Islamic cultures that many Muslims bear a deep mistrust and even outright aggression toward the West -- even when they live here.

The first sentence is true "iff" (if and only if) there is no assumption that Islamic culture is static.  It was progressive when it first appeared, and its stagnation is more due to economics (and WWI) than anything else.  Muslim immigrants mistrust the US because we always fight them (here and in their homeland).  They like our values (generally).  "Islamofascists" (the word has been abused - it used to mean Qatyr's clique of Muslim Elitists and their governments) hate America because it is a moral vacuum (Qatry blamed liberalism on it; much like neoconservatives).

[BootyBay]

Still, the pace of globalization is picking up speed. People all over the world are transcending traditional geographic barriers now like never before. In many places, particularly Europe, there is simply no escaping the fact that there are other cultures in the world, and that sometimes these cultures are simply incompatible with yours.

Yes, but assimilating them is morally wrong because you assume their culture is inferior (why is it inferior?)

[Requia ☣]

Because they execute people for reading the wrong things?

[tyrannosaurus vex]

It is not objectively inferior, but it is ideologically opposed to Western culture. I happen to believe in Western Culture and would like to see it survive, not have to make ridiculous compromises on its principles to suit the whims of pockets of immigrants who find the existing culture and political systems of the West offensive to their backward religious sensibilities.

As for assimilation, I'm not saying "erase Islam," I'm saying reintroduce the progressive nature of Islam to the masses of the Islamic world -- make it shine again as a center for science and philosophy like it was prior to the Crusades. And we'd do it by ceasing our constant military and economic attempts to keep the entire demographic under the thumb of the West, and allowing a relationship of trust to be planted.

[BootyBay]

Easier method for editorials:
"Now, take a moment to assimilate the implications here. It sounds extreme to say that Western Culture is flat-out incompatible with Middle-Eastern culture. It sounds terrible, even racist. But think about what is going on, and what the arguments are. If you say "Islamic Culture," you sound like an extremist. But how compatible, for example, is the US Constitution with Sharia Law? And it is that Sharia Law that defines millions of the people in question. It is not an incompatibility because they are inherently inferior or because they are different, but because they subscribe to a mass ideology which is itself constructed of assumptions and beliefs which directly counter the assumptions and beliefs that comprise the overall ideology of Western civilization."

"Islamic Culture" is only a racist phrase when you use it in racist ways.  2 contradictory belief systems does not imply superiority of one over the other (can you say Christianity is always better than Satanism?  Or vice versa?).

"Some sources claim that by 2050, France will be a predominantly Muslim country, and other EU nations are on the same track. And there is, as I understand it, already a history of struggle between Muslim immigrants and their adoptive countries that seems to foreshadow a situation that when that political tipping point is reached in France, France will not only be a Muslim nation but a fairly traditional Muslim country, possibly complete with Sharia Law. I know that's a "worst-case scenario," but the possibility exists -- and even calling it a worst-case is to my mind an implicit acknowledgment that France and other nations need to do something to stop it from happening."
There is a power struggle going on between 2 competing ideologies: neoconservatism and  Qutb's ideology.  How will France become Muslim, however?

"My own conjecture on the topic tells me that this line of thinking, that the West and its ideologies face a cultural impasse with the Middle East and its ideologies, should bring to our attention a few prospects.



First, the prospect of Total Cultural War. As unappetizing as this is, it's fair at this point to say that a cultural impasse, if it really exists, could lead to such a war. As high as our opinions of ourselves may be, there is a very real possibility that the rosy future painted by well-meaning Science Fiction is simply untenable and unrealistic. Human history has shown more times than anyone can count that when two peoples who cannot stand one another are forced to share resources or space, there is a war. And if it comes to that with the current situation, it will be a very big war."

What is culture war?  How is it not already happening?  Japanese video games are one example.  You can think of many others, I'm sure.

"We are not talking about an aggressive military power with specific military aims. We are not even talking about a conscious movement of people with intentional collective goals. We are talking about a cultural border that is growing and becoming more complex -- but hardly ever blurring -- at an exponential rate. If you accept that Western society is inherently and fundamentally incompatible with Islamic society, and you add to that the fact that because of natural resources and technology and international politics these people are destined to be face-to-face with each other on a regular basis, then you could come to the conclusion that something here is not going to end well.


This brings us to the next prospect we should consider -- the complete erasure of the Enlightenment. In the West, societies are defined and governed (by varying degrees) by the rule of law and liberal democracy. These are ideas for which many thousands of Westerners have fought and died for -- even if that is an overused cliche', it is still in many respects true."
Whuaaaa?  Erasure of the Enlightenment?  How? When? Who? What? Where? Why? 

"The political ramifications of the Enlightenment are felt throughout the West. But the great strides we have taken to open our societies to self-government, to welcoming immigrants, a decent respect for other people on their own merits regardless of whether or not they agree with us on everything; these are at the heart of who and what the West believes itself to be. But these are also the very things that have opened the West to the prospect of being consumed by an incompatible culture."

West will not be consumed by Muslims anytime soon.  They have no WMDs (except the ones we gave them. and except Pakistan).

"If we believe in these ideals, then we must fight to protect them. We must fight for the individual dignity and rights of every single person. We must fight to preserve our open societies and mutual respect, to prolong the rule of law, and to maintain oversight of our governments by the People. But when presented with a cultural "enemy" (note - I only use that term to define the situation, not to define Muslims in general) that can and will use the prized open self-government systems of the West to undermine the West as a whole, how does the West fight back?"

With Mickey Mouse!

"How can the West stop its own political infrastructure from allowing what it was designed in the first place to allow? How can we fight to protect our values and our way of life, without declaring them superior to something in order to exclude what some call a poisonous influence? How can we keep from devouring and discarding the rights of all people in pursuit of an enemy that uses those rights against the society that enforces them?"

The West only faces miniscule threats.  Therefore, a collapse of the "political infrastructure" (read: real infrastructure through terror attacks, I'm guessing) is virtually impossible.  The real issue is that isolated incidents (9/11 was an isolated incident.  How many successful airplane hijacks have their been compared to failed ones?)  being exploited for political/economic gain.  And that's where your threat to our infrastructure comes from.  Not terrorists or communists or even drunken perversion. 

"Finally, the prospect of Westernizing the Islamic World. This is, I think, the one glimmer of hope in this whole situation. And it is here where I can actually see the value in (some of the) policies and actions taken by the Bush White House. If we live in a world where a clash of civilizations threatens the very definition of the West, and we want to maintain that definition at all, then there is only one choice: Westernizing the Islamic world."

I'm gonna screw up this line but here goes: "Why does George Bush love Mickey Mouse?" -"3 Kings"

"To do that, you have to keep the political game in stalemate while cultural forces work to undermine and transform a culture of deep repression into one that is at the very least respectful of different points of view. The line parroted by many "Liberals" is that "American Values aren't for everyone." That is true, but neither are Islamic values. And while Islamic nations are not officially pursuing a policy of exporting and enforcing those values around the world, their influence is spreading on auto-pilot. And this influence threatens the stability of the West."

See: The similarities between Islamic Law (Qutb) and Neoconservatism (Strauss).  Good for a read or two.

"The civilized response to every confrontation is diplomacy and compromise. Between two nations, this can happen "at a governmental and political level. But between two cultures, governments are essentially powerless. The diplomacy and compromise here must take place on a purely cultural level.

I strongly disagree with the military actions taken by the President, but I can see the value in what he says the West is facing, even if he chooses to use drastically oversimplified terms and bad analogies, and follow through on what he says with badly-planned operations that result in the loss of life on a nearly astronomical scale. The mistake of the Bush White House, in my opinion, has not been its overall view of global events but a lack of depth in its understanding of those events and the conditions that motivate those events that has lead to terrible foreign and military policy.

I identify myself most often as a "liberal," one who sees and appreciates the value of Enlightenment ideals taken to logical and reasonable conclusions. But I am also convinced that the West faces a serious test of its ability to stand by those ideals in the coming decades."

You know, there is truth in everything.  But this is only Bush's truth.  Don't forget the people living there (and fighting for the US).

[BootyBay]

It is not objectively inferior, but it is ideologically opposed to Western culture. I happen to believe in Western Culture and would like to see it survive, not have to make ridiculous compromises on its principles to suit the whims of pockets of immigrants who find the existing culture and political systems of the West offensive to their backward religious sensibilities.

As for assimilation, I'm not saying "erase Islam," I'm saying reintroduce the progressive nature of Islam to the masses of the Islamic world -- make it shine again as a center for science and philosophy like it was prior to the Crusades. And we'd do it by ceasing our constant military and economic attempts to keep the entire demographic under the thumb of the West, and allowing a relationship of trust to be planted.

Ok.

[Verbal Mike]

BBay, using [quote ] tags or otherwise separating your text from the quoted text is actually pretty practical for someone interested in reading your post.

[BootyBay]

All quotes from OP (thx for the info Verbatim on quote tags):

"Now, take a moment to assimilate the implications here. It sounds extreme to say that Western Culture is flat-out incompatible with Middle-Eastern culture. It sounds terrible, even racist. But think about what is going on, and what the arguments are. If you say "Islamic Culture," you sound like an extremist. But how compatible, for example, is the US Constitution with Sharia Law? And it is that Sharia Law that defines millions of the people in question. It is not an incompatibility because they are inherently inferior or because they are different, but because they subscribe to a mass ideology which is itself constructed of assumptions and beliefs which directly counter the assumptions and beliefs that comprise the overall ideology of Western civilization."

"Islamic Culture" is only a racist phrase when you use it in racist ways.  2 contradictory belief systems does not imply superiority of one over the other (can you say Christianity is always better than Satanism?  Or vice versa?).

"Some sources claim that by 2050, France will be a predominantly Muslim country, and other EU nations are on the same track. And there is, as I understand it, already a history of struggle between Muslim immigrants and their adoptive countries that seems to foreshadow a situation that when that political tipping point is reached in France, France will not only be a Muslim nation but a fairly traditional Muslim country, possibly complete with Sharia Law. I know that's a "worst-case scenario," but the possibility exists -- and even calling it a worst-case is to my mind an implicit acknowledgment that France and other nations need to do something to stop it from happening."

There is a power struggle going on between 2 competing ideologies: neoconservatism and  Qutb's ideology.  How will France become Muslim, however?

"My own conjecture on the topic tells me that this line of thinking, that the West and its ideologies face a cultural impasse with the Middle East and its ideologies, should bring to our attention a few prospects.


First, the prospect of Total Cultural War. As unappetizing as this is, it's fair at this point to say that a cultural impasse, if it really exists, could lead to such a war. As high as our opinions of ourselves may be, there is a very real possibility that the rosy future painted by well-meaning Science Fiction is simply untenable and unrealistic. Human history has shown more times than anyone can count that when two peoples who cannot stand one another are forced to share resources or space, there is a war. And if it comes to that with the current situation, it will be a very big war."

What is culture war?  How is it not already happening?  Japanese video games are one example.  You can think of many others, I'm sure.

"We are not talking about an aggressive military power with specific military aims. We are not even talking about a conscious movement of people with intentional collective goals. We are talking about a cultural border that is growing and becoming more complex -- but hardly ever blurring -- at an exponential rate. If you accept that Western society is inherently and fundamentally incompatible with Islamic society, and you add to that the fact that because of natural resources and technology and international politics these people are destined to be face-to-face with each other on a regular basis, then you could come to the conclusion that something here is not going to end well.


This brings us to the next prospect we should consider -- the complete erasure of the Enlightenment. In the West, societies are defined and governed (by varying degrees) by the rule of law and liberal democracy. These are ideas for which many thousands of Westerners have fought and died for -- even if that is an overused cliche', it is still in many respects true."

Whuaaaa?  Erasure of the Enlightenment?  How? When? Who? What? Where? Why?

"The political ramifications of the Enlightenment are felt throughout the West. But the great strides we have taken to open our societies to self-government, to welcoming immigrants, a decent respect for other people on their own merits regardless of whether or not they agree with us on everything; these are at the heart of who and what the West believes itself to be. But these are also the very things that have opened the West to the prospect of being consumed by an incompatible culture."

West will not be consumed by Muslims anytime soon.  They have no WMDs (except the ones we gave them. and except Pakistan).

"If we believe in these ideals, then we must fight to protect them. We must fight for the individual dignity and rights of every single person. We must fight to preserve our open societies and mutual respect, to prolong the rule of law, and to maintain oversight of our governments by the People. But when presented with a cultural "enemy" (note - I only use that term to define the situation, not to define Muslims in general) that can and will use the prized open self-government systems of the West to undermine the West as a whole, how does the West fight back?"

With Mickey Mouse!

"How can the West stop its own political infrastructure from allowing what it was designed in the first place to allow? How can we fight to protect our values and our way of life, without declaring them superior to something in order to exclude what some call a poisonous influence? How can we keep from devouring and discarding the rights of all people in pursuit of an enemy that uses those rights against the society that enforces them?"

The West only faces miniscule threats.  Therefore, a collapse of the "political infrastructure" (read: real infrastructure through terror attacks, I'm guessing) is virtually impossible.  The real issue is that isolated incidents (9/11 was an isolated incident.  How many successful airplane hijacks have their been compared to failed ones?)  being exploited for political/economic gain.  And that's where your threat to our infrastructure comes from.  Not terrorists or communists or even drunken perversion.

"Finally, the prospect of Westernizing the Islamic World. This is, I think, the one glimmer of hope in this whole situation. And it is here where I can actually see the value in (some of the) policies and actions taken by the Bush White House. If we live in a world where a clash of civilizations threatens the very definition of the West, and we want to maintain that definition at all, then there is only one choice: Westernizing the Islamic world."

I'm gonna screw up this line but here goes: "Why does George Bush love Mickey Mouse?" -"3 Kings"

"To do that, you have to keep the political game in stalemate while cultural forces work to undermine and transform a culture of deep repression into one that is at the very least respectful of different points of view. The line parroted by many "Liberals" is that "American Values aren't for everyone." That is true, but neither are Islamic values. And while Islamic nations are not officially pursuing a policy of exporting and enforcing those values around the world, their influence is spreading on auto-pilot. And this influence threatens the stability of the West."

See: The similarities between Islamic Law (Qutb) and Neoconservatism (Strauss).  Good for a read or two.

"The civilized response to every confrontation is diplomacy and compromise. Between two nations, this can happen "at a governmental and political level. But between two cultures, governments are essentially powerless. The diplomacy and compromise here must take place on a purely cultural level.

I strongly disagree with the military actions taken by the President, but I can see the value in what he says the West is facing, even if he chooses to use drastically oversimplified terms and bad analogies, and follow through on what he says with badly-planned operations that result in the loss of life on a nearly astronomical scale. The mistake of the Bush White House, in my opinion, has not been its overall view of global events but a lack of depth in its understanding of those events and the conditions that motivate those events that has lead to terrible foreign and military policy.

I identify myself most often as a "liberal," one who sees and appreciates the value of Enlightenment ideals taken to logical and reasonable conclusions. But I am also convinced that the West faces a serious test of its ability to stand by those ideals in the coming decades."

You know, there is truth in everything.  But this is only Bush's truth.  Don't forget the people living there (and fighting for the US).