Is the West Too Civilized?

CNSNews.com ^ | July 22, 2003 | Daniel Pipes

[jethropalerobber]

There are times when it is necessary to behave like a barbarian in order to preserve your civilization.

this is one of the most disturbing things i've read on FR in a long time.

our civilization is not in the least threatened, only our empire is.

but human pride and avarice will not allow us to forgo the throne and the thousand assassins' arrows that will accompany it. seeing our turn as king of hill finally arrive, the neocon can think of nothing but keeping us there at all costs. meanwhile the isolationist conservative, the "america first" conservative, the (heaven forbid) pacifist conservative are everywhere derided as wanting to handicap the US, as wanting to make her weak.

well, there is more than one kind of strength. all of our current trouble with fundamentalist islam, tragically, can be traced back to some past meddling of ours into their affairs. projecting american "strength" is not the solution to the problem, it is the cause of the problem. and each time we "solve" a problem by projecting our strengh, we create a new one (we've seen this pattern repeated many times in the middle east - the career of saddam hussein is the most recent and obvious example). admittedly, once this cycle has begun it is very hard to escape it.

what this country needs is more civilization, not less.

i want an america that is strong, secure, and self-sufficient. leave the empire to others with a hunger for gold and a taste for blood.

[jethropalerobber]

He is just another Ivy League geek willing to make history on the backs of kids from Wisconsin and Iowa.

well said.

[Tolik]

I reread the article. The  biggest contribution of Mr. Pipes there is the term "unearned power" to describe Muslim oil reach countries being or sponsoring our enemies. Everything else is a short popularization of a very long set of articles by Mr. Harris. So your beef should be with Mr. Harris.

Your reply to me did not answer how you propose to fight the real dangers to us existing in the outside world. I agree with Mr. Harris and Mr. Pipes saying that for too long the islamists were giving a free pass to harm us at will, and to fight these dangers ( I listed some of them) we need to remove white gloves. So what is you solution?

BTW I am honored to be discredited together with Mr. Harris and Mr. Pipes (I might disagree with them here and there, still deeply honored), but that is besides the point. How do YOU want to fight the outside dangers?

[Publius6961]

The logical end of Herr Pipes recommendation, I guess, is to respond to the Islamofascists as fascists?

This thread has not received the serious discussion it deserves. I hope to expose it to more.

Your reply, incidentally... Herr Pipes?... fascists? demonstrates a profound lack of intellectual horsepower or even the common and essential tools with which to hold a rational discussion.
So don't expect a response; at least from me.

There is a general unease which informed and intelligent people feel about the subject, since 911, and in retrospect the "muslim" behavior of the last 30 years.

This unease is somewhat mitigated by clear verbalization which survives the BS test: it fits the facts and provides some explanation of clearly irrational behavior by large groups.
Whether this explanation survives the time test or not remains to be seen.

But certainly childish namecalling and guilt-by- association, the tools of the ignorant and intellectually bankrupt, can be tossed in the trashcan of civilized discussion.

BUMP!

[JohnGalt]

A decentralized government, a well-armed citizenry, Letters of Marque and Reprisal, punishment (pension stripping, tar and feathering?) for incompetent bureaucrats who failed so miserably, Congressionally declared wars, halt of Islamic and Third World immigration, low taxes, end urban subsidies...just the basics.

I know it does not sound as fancy as the Ivy League keyboard patriots with their high minded jargon, but like I said, we can agree to disagree on ideology. It's your clear inability to see that Pipes is an ideological extremist where you personally are still operating from a rational position.

'Become more like them'--- who the hell wants to become more like the enemy? Not me, no thanks, I will take a pass.

[JohnGalt]

That is hysterical because later in this same thread, someone implied that fascists were my intellectual forebears.

You folks should talk off line to get your stories straight.

In the meantime, the reduction of what Pipes is saying is 'we should become more like them.' If you agree, great, I know where you stand.

[Tolik]

A decentralized government, a well-armed citizenry, Letters of Marque and Reprisal, punishment (pension stripping, tar and feathering?) for incompetent bureaucrats who failed so miserably, Congressionally declared wars, halt of Islamic and Third World immigration, low taxes, end urban subsidies...just the basics.
 

Thank you. What you said is all good, but INSIDE measures. What do you want to do OUTSIDE of the borders? I gather you don't dispute my list of dangers.

To any fair person some of that dangers related first of all to technological developments (communications, transportations, miniaturization, etc.) that provide means to harm us in unprecedented way can't be blamed to any real or imaginable malice from our side. How do you want to deal with these outside dangers?

[Publius6961]

BUMP!

[Publius6961]

Self-defense is moral and unambiguous; pre-emption isn't.

The perfect synthesis of someone who has read much ---- and learned nothing.
Educated waaaay beyond your intelligence.

These are by no means mutually exclusive, but I have no desire to fertilize a rock.

Have a nice day.

[Mark17]

Is the West Too Civilized?

Yes.

And much too PC.

[JohnGalt]

I wrote my principals of defense in several posts and stood opposite Daniel Pipes. I suggested that the society become more like its Old Self, rather than 'become more like the barbarians'.

It certainly does seem like a fork in the road.

I could post some quotes from GW Farewell Address:

...The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest...The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the Nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the Liberty, of Nations has been the victim.

Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favourite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled, with perfect good faith. Here let us stop."


and stop there, but in regards to the current set of challenges, I suggest that 9/11 be saved from its new place as an abstraction and returned to a case of law enforcement.


To continue, radical Islam was a tool of the CIA during the Cold War. It appears they failed to clean up some loose ends; even worse they used their friends in the movement in the Kosovo campaign. Some are sitting in Gittmo right now.

I think a good place to start is smoke out some whistle blowers in the CIA; they will know who the bagmen and front groups who are in the field for militant Islam, rather than just the underlings and expendable idiot savants who believe in the 21 virgins crap.

One of the fundamental tenets of conservatism is that the state cannot being something abroad without fundamentally changing at home. If you disagree with that premise, that our ideological divide is greater than I first thought and I might consider approaching your question with a different tact.

[LibTeeth]

I think we need to distiguish here between a discussion of pragmatic tactics versus the philosophy that may be motivating them. I won't dispute the short term benefits of invading Iraq. When those benefits arise from a collectivist, fraudulent philosphy, obvious Hegelian dialectic thinking, one might want to look a little deeper. This is no different than liberals arguing the benefits of the welfare state, and ignoring the unseen costs, most of which are cultural dissintegration, not just monetary.

I've heard this "we must become more like them to beat them" line before. In the 80s we were faced with the economic competition from the Japanese, and all the rave among the policy wonks and pundits(my term for experts in Pipes position)was that we "had to become more like them to beat them". It was total BS. For one thing, their success was based partly on becoming more like what we were, using objective management tools to guide operational conduct. For another, they were a high-trust monoculture, unencumbered by our multi-cultural BS, as well as divisive managment-labor distinctions. But ultimately, the Japanese economic ability and threat was a fraud based upon unsound banking practices, government subsidies, and dumping.

Similarly, the entire Islamic world view is a fraud, as is their threat to us. They have no productive capacity to wage real war. Their ability to wage asymetric war is also poor, and only scares pant wetting liberals and Hollywood commentators. For this we should become more like them? Their major strength is access to our oil market, and we control that. We can fight any barbarians without becoming more like them. One doesn't fight immorality with immorality. If Pipes has to justify our behavior with illogical dialectic sophistry, there is something fundamentally wrong there.

I think we've kicked this stiff mare to death, but feel free to continue with the ad hominem attacks, my skin is thicker than my skull ;-)

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Is the West Too Civilized?

Uday and Qusay might say, "no", except they're dead and we can't ask them. They're dead, Jim. (Just feels so good to say.)

[LibTeeth]

So I take it you'd rather pre-empt the dialog than defend or attack ideas?

Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.

2 out of 3 ain't bad for a forum priding itself on a civil exchange of discourse, one based on standards of behavior, one might even call ethics.

[Tailgunner Joe]

I suggest Mssr.Pipes ask his neoconservative friends why they continue to wholeheartedly support a failing immigration system...

Islamists and RINOS derail Pipes Nomination

[JohnGalt]

I also saw the RINOs and D's defunded one of the more suspect elements of the Patriot Bill, yesterday. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[Tailgunner Joe]

our civilization is not in the least threatened, only our empire is.

That reminds me of something I read this morning. The U.S. State Department said GRAPO issued a statement following the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States expressing satisfaction that "symbols of imperialist power" were decimated and affirming that "the war" had only just begun.

And this too: Writing of September 11, the Jackal says “the collapse before the cameras of those insolent twin towers, which stood there in defiance of the Third World’s misery [shook] the West out of its somnambulant torpor.”

[Tailgunner Joe]

It was the Open Borders and Anti-Racist Solidarity crowd who squelched the Pipes nomination.

[JohnGalt]

Like I said, the same people who defunded the most absurd part of the Patriot Act and then I mentioned something about a clock.

[Tailgunner Joe]

radical Islam was a tool of the CIA during the Cold War. It appears they failed to clean up some loose ends...

Precisely, and it's high time that they do so.