[lit-ideas] Re: Stasi on our Minds
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 23:14:10 -0500
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:
