[lit-ideas] Re: Stasi on our Minds

LH:

>>Is there room in your ideology, Mike, to ask the question, "are the Islamists 
>>a serious threat to the U.S. and its allies or not?"  Apparently not.<<

Of course there's room for that question.  And there's room for many answers as 
well -- it's not an either or question as your mind frames it, Lawrence.  It's 
a question of under what circumstances might fundamental Islamists be a serious 
threat to the US -- if at all?  Why can't you grasp that?  You say that 4 of 
the possible positions I gave are Islamist positions -- I don't know what that 
means -- but assuming it means that Islamists would agree with my argument, so 
what?  They are rational human beings just like you are.  They can be as 
correct as I am.

>> I like the U.S. the way it is. I oppose your Leftist ideology and your ally 
>> the Islamist's ideology.<< 

Apparently you didn't read all the way through my last email.  I forthrightly 
stated there that I reject Islam just as I reject Christianity and Judaism.  I 
respect the positive aspects that those religions have played in human culture 
(we are them, after all), but I feel they've outlived their usefulness.  Many 
here would disagree with me and I respect that too.  You like the US the way it 
is, you say.  I like some of the ways that the US is, but certainly not all.  
In many ways it is a brutal, vicious, violent culture, crass and thoroughly 
materialistic.  It consistently values property over human life, but thinks 
itself a champion of life.  It is too often hypocritical and tawdry in it's 
religiosity.  It has shown tendencies within the last 50 years towards 
imperialism and all the evil that entails.  But it also, it seems to me, is 
still fecund, open ground where thought can freely flourish.  That is the 
greatest thing about the US -- George Bush be damned.  All the hype about GDP 
and our standard of living is just cheering garbage.  The American Dream of 
owning one's own place in the sun is a carny's pitch.  What matters is the 
spirit.  The US both crushes spirit and sets it free.  We're very schizophrenic 
in that.  I'm in favor of the freeing spirit part of America.   

Mike Geary



---- Original Message ----- 

  From: Lawrence Helm 
  To: Lit-Ideas 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:29 PM
  Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Stasi on our Minds


  Mike:

  I sought the answer to the question, are the Islamist a threat or not? They 
claim to be a threat. In fact they have declared war against us. So are we to 
take their declaration seriously or not? They have attacked us a few times. 
Will these attacks continue or will they dwindle away like Communism in Marxist 
ideology? 

  You fancy that this question can’t be answered yes or no (and by the way; a 
Leftist first posed this question in these terms, John Esposito).  You write, 
"I can see very many positions. (1) They are no threat at all. (2) They're only 
a threat if we threaten them. (3) They are a threat but our response to their 
threat only increases the potency of their threat. (4) Their threat is a 
legitimate response to our threat against them. (5) They are only a minor 
threat. (6) We're doomed, we should surrender now. I can imagine many more. So 
you see, your polarities are just the mechanisms of your ideological 
tendencies."

  You have presented some Islamist, Al Quaeda-type arguments. And I’ll admit I 
was only considering our side (the American or Western side) when I asked the 
question (which you erroneously believe to be a polarity derived from an 
ideology) are they a threat to us or not. Your (2), (3), (4) and (6) are 
Islamist positions. I readily admit to being opposed to Al Quaeda, Islamism, 
Militant Islam, etc.


  Notice that once we eliminate positions held by Islamists we are left with 
two positions (1) they are no threat at all and (5) They are only a minor 
threat. None of your options considers their threat in such a way as to justify 
our defense against it. None of them consider the Islamist-Terrorist threat to 
be legitimate.

  I have read the writings of the Islamists and have observed that Leftists 
side with them to a very great extent. You do that in your note, whether 
intentionally or not. In asking the question, "are the Islamists, the 
Terrorists, a threat to the U.S. or not," I am asking a question that will 
ultimately be answered? The Islamists believe they are justified as you say in 
your (2), (3), (4) and (6) in their position and in their continued attacks 
against us, but will they be able to put their beliefs into action or will 
their supporters fade away from their position over time? 

  One isn’t an ideologue if he asks this questions. I have considered and 
discussed this question in relation to a great number of books. Here are a few 
that fall (largely) on one side or the other of this question:



  1. Argument for the Terrorists being whom they claim to be: 

  a. Holy Terror, Inside the world of Islamic Terrorism by Amir Taheri 

  b. Hatred's Kingdom, How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism by 
Dore Gold 

  c. Menace in Europe, Why the Continent's is America's Crisis, too by Clair 
Berlinski 

  d. While Europe Slept, How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within 
by Bruce Bawer 

  e. America's Secret War, Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between America 
and its Enemies by George Friedman 

  f. The Losing Battle with Islam by David Selbourne 

  g. Just War against Terror, the Burden of American Power in a Violent World 
by Jean Bethke Elshtain 

  h. Islamic Fundamentalism, the New Global Threat by Mohammad Mohaddessin 

  i. Terror and Liberalism by Paul Berman 



  2. Arguments against Terrorism being a very serious threat 

  a. The Islamic Threat, Myth or Reality by John L. Esposito 

  b. Muslim Palestine, The Ideology of Hamas by Andrea Nusse 

  c. The Islamic Movement in North Africa, New Edition by Francois Burgat and 
William Dowell 

  d. The War for Muslim Minds, Islam and the West, by Gilles Kepel 

  e. Globalized Islam, the Search for a new Ummah by Olivier Roy 

  f. Islam without Fear, Egypt and the New Islamists by Raymond William Baker 

  g. America at the Crossroads, Democracy, Power and the Neoconservatice Legacy 
by Francis Fukuyama 

  h. In the Name of God, the Khomeini Decade by Robin Wright 

  i. The Last Great Revolution, Turmoil and Transformation in Iran by Robin 
Wright 

  j. The Malady of Islam by Abdelwahab Meddeb 

  You accuse me of being an ideologue but let's look at whether that term 
better suits you or me: This is from Wikipedia: 

  "An ideology is an organized collection of ideas. The word ideology was 
coined by Count Antoine Destutt de Tracy in the late 18th century to define a 
"science of ideas." An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as 
a way of looking at things (compare Weltanschauung), as in common sense (see 
Ideology in everyday society) and several philosophical tendencies (see 
Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a 
society to all members of this society. The main purpose behind an ideology is 
to offer change in society through a normative thought process. Ideologies tend 
to be abstract thoughts applied to reality and, thus, make this concept unique 
to politics. Ideologies are very common in the world of politics."

  Notice that the "main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in 
society through a normative thought process." Thus, an ideologue will not be 
someone investigating two sides of any political issue. He will instead be 
promulgating his own side, his own ideology, something he believes should be 
normative for his society or the world. Is this not what you are doing with 
your Leftist ideology?

  And what is the definition of a Conservative? Is it not "someone who resists 
change?" I like the U.S. the way it is. I oppose your Leftist ideology and your 
ally the Islamist's ideology. 

  Lawrence



  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology

  ------------Original Message------------ 

  From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

  Date: Tue, May-29-2007 5:45 PM 

  LH: 

  >>There are two opinions about this matter. Either they are a serious threat 
or they aren't.<< 

  If you're an ideologue, there are only two opinions -- all ideologues believe 
there is only their position and the wrong position. I can see very many 
positions. (1) They are no threat at all. (2) They're only a threat if we 
threaten them. (3) They are a threat but our response to their threat only 
increases the potency of their threat. (4) Their threat is a legitimate 
response to our threat against them. (5) They are only a minor threat. (6) 
We're doomed, we should surrender now. I can imagine many more. So you see, 
your polarities are just the mechanisms of your ideological tendencies. 

  >>So when we don't know do we assume a Dr. Pangloss-Alfred E. Newman persona? 
Or do we prepare for the worst.<< 

  There you go again with your polarities. Can't you even imagine any other 
response? A world, perhaps, wherein complex international relationships involve 
complex political responses? I know for a fact that you're not as simple-minded 
as our President. 

  >>Can we treat them as a few nutcases or as has been estimated by a number of 
scholars, 1/3 of the 1.5Billion Muslims in the world are Islamist and 
sympathize with the Jihadi cause -- these people provide a fund of people to be 
recruited to Jihadi ends. We don't know!<< 

  Do you think that they don't worry about the exact same thing regarding us? 
We certainly don't have any better track record in the world -- the Christian 
West, that is. In fact, I'd think they have more reason to worry. Our little 
escapade in Iraq is just the latest evidence that we mean them harm. 

  >>I notice you declare yourself a "fifth-columnist," does that mean you've 
converted to Islamism?<< 

  No, sorry to disappoint you, but I've had it with all three Abrahamic 
religions. They're all just repositories of megalomaniacal ideologues and a 
handful of dishonored saints. 

  Mike Geary 

  Memphis 

    ----- Earlier Message ----- 
    From: Lawrence Helm 
    mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 6:31 PM 
    Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Stasi on our Minds 
    Had you simply said you sided with Roy, Kepel & Fukuyama you would have 
managed to avoid sounding shrill. There are prominent scholars on both sides. 
I've been reading both sides. I've been commenting on what I read. The matter 
is by no means as simplistic as you seem to think. 
    But as to the specific matter that you seem to think makes me sound like 
Lenin: what I am describing is what the terrorists do. They get in a target 
society and the kill as many people as they can. They are doing it today -- all 
over the world. Someone who thinks terrorists do what they do isn't necessarily 
someone who agrees with Lenin. He may simply be observant. 
    Islamists are going to go about their business, but how many are there, and 
what sort of damage can they do? Can we simply ignore them and have them go 
away? Are they few in number? Will they engage in easier targets -- say 
European targets rather than U.S. targets. Can we treat them as a few nutcases 
or as has been estimated by a number of scholars, 1/3 of the 1.5Billion Muslims 
in the world are Islamist and sympathize with the Jihadi cause -- these people 
provide a fund of people to be recruited to Jihadi ends. We don't know! 
    Someplace in my youth, perhaps when I was in the Marine Corps, I was taught 
that you can hope for the best if you like, but you always prepared for the 
worst. So as I said, I have studied both points of view, but believe it is 
prudent in this case to prepare for the worst. That means to assume that they 
believe and intend what they claim they believe and sworn to carry out. This 
isn't a matter of inventing an enemy. They exist, but are they as potent and 
resolute as they claim, or are they engaging in braggadocio and wishful 
thinking? Time will tell. 
    or are you engaged in some other form of subversion like Leftism? 
    Lawrence 
    ------------Original Message------------ 
    From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
    Date: Tue, May-29-2007 3:30 PM 

    Lawrence quotes Donnersmarck as saying he was influenced "by a passage in 
which Maxim Gorky records Lenin saying that he can’t listen to Beethoven’s 
Appasionata because it makes him want to say sweet, silly things and pat the 
heads of little people, whereas in fact those little heads must be beaten, 
beaten mercilessly, to make the revolution." 
    Lawrence, I don't know how to say this without sounding snide and mean, but 
I assure you that I have no mean or hard feelings towards you personally, just 
strong disagreements. You quote Donnersmarck as a way of showing how people 
like Lenin are capable of overcoming their humanistic empathetic impulses in 
the pursuit of an ideology. Had you stopped there I would have agreed with you. 
But you continued: 
    "but inasmuch as the Islamist enemy has vowed our destruction I don’t 
believe this matter can remain academic. The Islamists have declared war on us 
and are engaged in attacks of one kind and another; so it is prudent to protect 
ourselves against their efforts – including (with apologies to Ash) protection 
against Fifth-Columnist-types in our nations. 
    "When the spy slips in to do his evil deed, it is best to discover and stop 
him – not protect his human rights and civil liberties – it seems to me."
    To me your reaction seems very much like Lenin's.
    Mike Geary
    Fifth Columnist of Memphis

Other related posts: