SPOGBOLT   |   Location: Newfoundland, Canada

October 28, 2006

Halpern: Cracks in Arab unity?

Also via FrontPage magazine, an extraordinary article by Micah Halpern, who has noticed a sudden appearance of cultural self-criticism among leading Arab figures.

Muslim Fundamentalism is being chastised for turning the Arab world into a violent world. Muslim Fundamentalism is being blamed for altering the very fabric of Arab life and turning every facet of Arab life into an act of destruction.
      Muslim Fundamentalists are being reminded that they are neither the ultimate nor the only decision making force when it comes to Arab lifestyle, Arab life or Arab diplomacy.
      The fear of intimidation is gone. The fear of destroying the myth of Arab unity is vanishing. The fear of an Arab world bent only on violence and destruction has become too great to suppress. By embracing violence and by turning violence into their primary means of problem solving, both internally and in dealings with the outside world, the Arab world has severely diminished not only the way they are perceived by the outside world, but also the way in which they perceive themselves.

Halpern gives only two examples to back up this important claim—and one of them is a statement by Hosni Mubarak, who has (as far as I am aware) always been a political opponent of Muslim Fundamentalism. On the other hand, his other example comes from within the Islamist camp itself: from a spokesman for none other than Hamas.  Halpern cites Dr. Ghazi Hamad, in the Palestinian weekly Al-Ayam, as wondering, among other things, whether his (Palestinian?) society is suffering from a "chronic illness of violence". Halpern comments, "Truly, this is one of the first times in a very long time that I am hearing material of this critical nature coming out of the Middle East. The best and only serious self-critique we have heard has, until now, come from ex-pat Muslims musing from the safety of the West . . ."

FrontPage magazine on "Al-Qaeda's nukes"

FrontPage has an alarming discussion (October 27) of the threat of nuclear terrorism on U.S. territory, which, FPM suggests, is quite real. Various reputable sources have reported that Al-Qaeda has purchased tactical nuclear weapons, and nuclear materials, from the "Chechen Mafia" and other ex-Soviet suppliers during the past 10 years, according to journalist/author Paul Williams. Williams also believes that this "small arsenal" is being maintained and even further developed by Pakistani nuclear experts. "Few military and intelligence officials question bin Laden's ability to launch his plan for the American Hiroshima", says Williams. People evidently have difficulty conceiving of such an event, however, so "precious little is being done to avert it." Large numbers of cargo containers capable of carrying nuclear weapons continue to enter American ports, without inspection in 96% of cases, professor Harvey Kushner points out. The detonation of even a small nuclear weapon at an American port would not only kill thousands of people, but devastate the world economy as all port traffic was shut down to avoid further such attacks.

It seems that there are also credible reports that "nuclear demolition charges"—suitcase bombs—were hidden on American territory during the Cold War by Soviet agents, and that these could fall into Al-Qaeda's hands as a result of ties between that group and members or ex-members of the Russian intelligence services. Disturbing though this is, it may actually be less of a danger than the importation of new nuclear weapons into American territory, as such weapons become largely inoperable after being left unattended for a few months.

October 25, 2006

Michael Gove: the virtue of the nation-state

An excerpt from British Conservative MP Michael Gove's new book, Celsius 7/7:

. . . our security depends crucially on a recognition of the vital importance of maintaining the nation state, as ideal and reality. The nation state, as organizing principle of political life, is central to Western thought and achievement. If political authority is to be exercised fairly, scrupulously and for the common good, then it has to be held accountable . . . . The nation state is the political community that most effectively allows for the exercise of accountability.
      Within a territory bound by common ties of language, history and culture, political leaders are able to make an appeal for shared sacrifice, whether it is asking for the taxation necessary to help the poorest or, at moments of greatest peril, calling on citizens to risk their lives to defend others. Without those common ties, appeals to sacrifice will not resonate, calls to forfeit individual freedom for the greater good will not receive a ready answering call. And without a common understanding of who we are, and why we stand together, political leaders cannot lead.
      If we grow tired of a leadership . . . we need a mechanism to effect an alteration in course. The only effective mechanism that human nature and history have shown can allow such a change to take place without civil strife is the operation of liberal democracy. And the only political community in which liberal democracy has flourished—can flourish—is in a nation state. Because it is only in a nation state that leaders and citizens enjoy a sufficiently strong bond of fellow feeling, where the conversation between them can be made intelligible to both sides through shared experience, aspirations, language and assumptions (pp 74–75).

One probably cannot generate much patriotic spirit through such "universalist" arguments—arguments which do not appeal to any love of one's own particular nation; but perhaps one might persuade intellectuals at least to stop trying to destroy that spirit.

(Revised post)

(See also A case of nationalist idolatry)

Labels:

October 19, 2006

Frederic Lamond: the essence of monotheism

Is the following excerpt nonsense, or a flash of genius?

Until 3,000 years ago, all religions were pantheistic and polytheistic as Hinduism, Taoism and Shinto still are. They tolerated the religions of other tribes and cultures, recognising in their worship the same divine energies as their own, albeit with different names.
      Why then did patriarchal, monotheistic religions arise in the Middle East 3,000 years ago, and spread in their Christian forms throughout Europe and then on to the European colonised overseas territories during the last 1,500 years? Why did these monotheistic religions fight so fiercely to eradicate nature worship in the lands they controlled? Why did Christianity promote a dualistic antagonism between the spirit and the flesh, with only the former conceived as being in the "image of God"?
      . . . . the answer came to me in a sudden flash of insight. The evolution of the universe and especially of life on earth has been the product of a dialectical antagonism between two forces of nature:
      One is the highly conservative power of love, which seeks to maintain all living species and ecological equilibria just as they are at any given point in time, and is embedded in the genetically inherited instincts of all living species, including humanity. This power is generally represented by one or more goddesses and fertility gods in those religions that anthropomorphise cosmic and earthly energies.
      The other, a force of destructive creation, which seeks forever to upset existing equilibria in order to create new and more highly evolved forms and species. In a universe in which the total amount of energy is constant and can neither be added to nor reduced—although it can be converted to matter and back again—neither God nor man can create anything without destroying something else. This is the power the Jews call Jehovah, the Christians—God the father, Muslims—Allah and Hindus—Shiva.
      Power is neither evil nor undesirable. If only the force of love existed, the universe would never have moved from its original state of undifferentiated nothingness. But if only the force of destructive creation existed, the whole universe would be like the Sun: an endless series of thermonuclear explosions creating new elements, but which last only a few microseconds before dissolving again in the fiery furnace.
      We owe the process of evolution on earth—in which continents, mountains, plants and animals have appeared and live actively long enough to experience their own life, but which can also slowly evolve in succeeding generations—to the ongoing delicate balance between these two antagonistic cosmic forces.

Lamond thus agrees with Simone Weil and other Marcionites that the God of the Old Testament is, contrary to orthodox Christian opinion, not the God of love at all; but Lamond differs radically from the modern Marcionites in that, having recognized God's terrifying character, he does not reject Him as the figment of a primitive religious imagination. To Lamond, such a God seems necessary to the existence of the universe as we know it. At this point Lamond's position is reminiscent of that of the "social Darwinists". He seems to be indicating a way by which apparently absolutely irreconcilable views of the nature of the cosmos might be brought into some kind of agreement.

Lamond's "flash of insight" came shortly after his initiation into the Wiccan religion in 1957 (a few years after witchcraft was legalized in Britain). I obtained the excerpt via the Nepalese blog Elahar.

". . . . Thus says the Lord of hosts, 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'"
      . . . . But Saul and the people spared [King] Agag, and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them . . . .
      The word of the Lord came to Samuel: "I repent that I have made Saul king; for he has turned back from following me, and has not performed my commandments." (I Samuel 15.)

October 17, 2006

Peter Hitchens on "cultural Marxism"

Peter Hitchens, in the Daily Mail, notes that there is some tentative rethinking of sex education going on in Britain, though far too late in his view.

The official excuses for sex education are extraordinarily feeble. The real purpose of this mental poison and immoral preaching is to debauch children by smashing up the moral values they have received at home or in church. Its inventor, the Hungarian Bolshevik [Georg] Lukacs admitted this. His followers do not admit it even to themselves—hence the ludicrousness of their official position.

He is onto something here (though the "church" reference doesn't seem very applicable in present-day Britain). "Cultural Marxism" is somehow able to make great strides, as though it were a gigantic conspiracy—and yet there are no conspirators, or at any rate not many of them. Most "cultural Marxists" would be bemused or indignant at being called by that name. One is reminded of Keynes' saying, "The ideas of economists and political philosophers . . . are more powerful than is commonly understood . . . . Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."

Michael Ignatieff
(inspired by a remark of Ectomorph)

October 13, 2006

A "green" form of nuclear energy

Here (via Pajamas Media) is a fascinating Cosmos Magazine article about thorium-fuelled nuclear reactors. Thorium, unlike the fissionable form of uranium, is available in vast quantities, according to James Hudnall. Thorium is a nuclear material that cannot sustain a chain reaction unaided, and so poses little danger of a meltdown accident. It also produces relatively small quantities of nuclear waste, and the waste it does produce stays radioactive only for a few hundred years, as opposed to thousands of years in the case of a conventional reactor. Burning it in a reactor does not produce plutonium or other "weaponizable" material (which, one suspects, may be why relatively little money has been invested in the technology); a thorium reactor would in fact be a good way of "incinerating" plutonium from surplus nuclear weapons.

The problem in using thorium is how to stop the nuclear reaction from fizzling out. Two possibilities are proposed. First, a small amount of "seed" uranium or plutonium can be inserted in the thorium to serve as a source of neutrons. This kind of fuel combination could be used with existing reactor designs. More radically, it has also been proposed that a thorium reactor could run on neutrons generated by a particle accelerator, rather than by a nuclear reaction. In this type of reactor an uncontrolled chain reaction would be impossible. Such reactors could also be freely sold without any danger of promoting the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

October 12, 2006

China planning to take over N. Korea?

This item from The Korea Times, 'China Distorts History to Prepare for North's Collapse', does not seem to have attracted attention in the Western media. It reports that Dr. Andrei Lankov, a professor of East Asian history in South Korea, has observed that China has been publishing a series of articles claiming that the Koguryo and Palhae kingdoms, from one to two thousand years ago, which had territory in both northern Korea and China, were part of ancient China. This "history offensive" began in 2003. Lankov believes that this probably indicates that China is preparing for an intervention in North Korea following the collapse of that country, with articles such as these being used as psychological and cultural justifications for it. The North Korean élite might welcome the installation of a Chinese puppet regime in Pyongyang, Lankov suggests, as this is the only way they would be likely to preserve their privileged position in the event of a national collapse. (Via Google News.)

See also Lankov's "Legacy of long-gone states" in the Asia Times (Sep. 16).

Robert Kaplan, writing in October's Atlantic Monthly, is thinking along somewhat similar lines. (" . . . China's infrastructure investments are already laying the groundwork for a Tibet-like buffer state in much of North Korea, to be ruled indirectly through Beijing's Korean cronies once the [N. Korean régime] unravels.")

October 11, 2006

Is Dalrymple soft on crime?

Theodore Dalrymple's CBC podcast (see preceding post) is worth listening to even if one is already familiar with most of the ideas and anecdotes in it from his articles in City Journal and elsewhere. One of his statements, however, seems highly questionable. In response to the interviewer's question about a solution to the problem of the recent appearance of pervasive criminal violence in English society—violence which now imposes a de facto curfew on old people, for example—Dalrymple says,

I think that the law can do quite a lot, but it can't do everything; and in any case, one doesn't want a population that behaves in a reasonable and civilized way only because it fears that if it doesn't, there'll be a tap on the shoulder and they'll be taken off to prison. First of all I don't think that's possible, but secondly it would be very unpleasant even if it were possible.

In other words, Dalrymple seems to be saying that one shouldn't attempt to rely on increased penalties to curb criminal behaviour, even where those penalties would successfully cut crime rates, because one wants citizens who behave in a civilized fashion out of their free will rather than out of fear of the state.

If so, this is as crazy as the ideas of the liberal intelligentsia whom Dalrymple spends so much time criticizing. A state of public order maintained by the fear of criminal sanctions is, indeed, not an ideal one. But to insist on the ideal here, where there is no demonstrated means of achieving it, is mere progressive utopianism. If a society has a choice between pervasive criminal activity and coerced law-abidingness, it is the latter that is preferable. Would you prefer to be knifed in the street, or for your prospective assailant to be deterred from knifing you by the fear of jail or other punishment? One can reasonably go further than this, and ask whether it is not better for the assailant himself to be prevented from committing crimes, even by the gross threat of punishment, than to be allowed to commit them unhindered. I don't think traditional morality would have had any hesitation in saying that deterrence is preferable from this point of view as well.

Under the present régime of derisory penalties for various serious criminal offenses in England (I'm not aware of the situation in Scotland), the short answer to the question "What is to be done about English crime?" should presumably be, "Crack down on it." It is alarming that this idea seems to be too tough for even one of Britain's most independent-minded writers to swallow. If the present ruling establishment refuses even to contemplate such measures, make no mistake: there are fascists waiting in the wings who will be only too happy to assume the responsibility for imposing them.

Dalrymple on CBC

Mirabile dictu! CBC Radio's Ideas has done a long interview with Theodore Dalrymple (first broadcast earlier this year). Podcast (52 minutes) available here.

Is British society Western civilization's "canary in the mine"? A British psychiatrist and writer traces the descent of a culture towards wanton self-destructiveness and alerts us to the new face of barbarism.

(H/t Daimnation.)

October 06, 2006

Dalrymple on contemporary Europe

Theodore Dalrymple, in a review at the Claremont Institute of some recent books on the European attitude toward radical Islam:

It is scarcely any wonder that, when faced by people who, quite mistakenly and with a combination of staggering ignorance and arrogance, believe themselves to be in possession of a truth that justifies almost any atrocity committed, if not by them, exactly, then by those whom they have indoctrinated, modern Western Europeans do not know how to react. They have either forgotten what it is to believe in anything, to such an extent that they cannot really believe that anyone else believes in anything, either; or their memories of belief are of belief in something so horrible—Communism, for example, or Nazism—that they no longer believe that they have the right to pass judgment on anything. This is not a strong position from which to fight people who, by their own admission, hate you and are bent upon your destruction, brought about preferably at your own expense. First, you can't take them seriously; second, you suspect they might in any case be right.

October 05, 2006

Byways of the Internet (1)

Nova Roma flag Nova Roma (see introductory Wikipedia article) is a "Roman revivalist group" created in 2751 a.u.c.—that's 1998 for those innovators who use the Christian calendar. It is "dedicated to the restoration of Classical Roman religion, culture, and virtues." According to Wikipedia, barbarians outsiders regard it as one of a number of internet-based "micronations", but some of its members emphasize more its educational and religious goals. It broadly resembles the better-known Society for Creative Anachronism, but is "much smaller", with about 1000 members. Nova Roma's administration is conducted under a constitution resembling that of the Roman Republic. Her territory is as yet limited to her "symbolic world capital", an undeveloped 10-acre ranch in Western Texas. ("This area of Texas", they note optimistically, "is very similar to parts of such ancient Eastern Provinces as Dacia, Moesia and Armenia.") Her special-interest groups (sodalitates) include one dedicated to gladiatorial combat, but as this is "held in as safe a manner as possible" it sounds a bit of an anemic affair; they also seem reluctant to bring back slavery for some reason, and have given women voting rights.

Nova Roma's State religion is the cultus Deorum Romanorum: "The cultus Deorum Romanorum is the pre-Christian religion of Rome. Sometimes called "Roman Paganism", the modern practice of the cultus Deorum is an attempt to reconstruct the ancient faith of Rome as closely as possible, making as few concessions to modern sensibilities as possible. As with other forms of historical reconstructionist paganism, every attempt is made to rely on actual historical and archaeological evidence, and interpolations are made only when the primary sources are silent, and then we strive to be consistent with them." (Other religions are also tolerated, though, they promise.)