more on Muslim angst from today's Cato


February 6, 2006, 05:24 PM
I have not seen the two previous parts, though they might be viewable at National Review on-line archives. The begining sentences, if correct, certainly appear to present an interesting proposition. Judge for yourself.

November 21, 2002

War & the Battle of Ideas: At the gates, again (Part III)
by Brink Lindsey

Brink Lindsey is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the final installment of a three-part series.

The new barbarian threat, like that of old, grows out of civilizational backwardness. Specifically, the Islamist radicals who now plot against us are a product of the political, economic, and cultural failures of the underdeveloped world. Brooding resentment of those failures has mixed with fundamentalist Islam to produce a totalitarian ideology bent on an apocalyptic showdown with the West.

Outside the West's golden circle of trust live five billion of the earth's six billion people. In the underdeveloped world, it is the underdevelopment of institutions that is especially debilitating. In a continuum from bad to worse from corrupt officials and inadequate courts, to laws so dysfunctional that many or most people are chased into the underground economy, to the arbitrary confiscations of kleptocratic misrule, to the chaos of Hobbesian anarchy the poorer countries are all plagued by the insufficient formal protection of property and contract rights. And exacerbating (and at least partially explaining) that formal institutional breakdown are traditional cultural mores in which no moral obligations are owed to people outside some small and insular "in-group," whether it be family or village or tribe or sect. In this institutional setting, exchanges between strangers are more or less limited to face-to-face, on-the-spot transactions where little trust is necessary. The large-scale, long-term investments that are needed to create Western-style affluence are few and far between.

Institutional backwardness has been compounded by the collectivist delusion that swept through the underdeveloped world during the postcolonial era. Collectivism sought an end-run around high transaction costs. Rather than reducing them by creating conditions in which ordinary people could trust each other and do business together, the various ideologies of state-dominated economic development pinned their hopes on top-down control by a state-backed elite. The result was a debacle. State ownership and control of industry did produce large-scale investments that aped Western economic structures, but by and large they were sinks of monopoly and corruption rather than fonts of dynamism and growth. Meanwhile, centralized control over economic life went hand in hand with the concentration of political power, and dictatorship of one or another stripe became the norm in poorer countries. Collectivism, far from transcending the need for broad-based trust, served only to exacerbate its victims' backwardness.

In recent decades many poorer countries have turned away from the old statist nostrums and begun to embrace more market-oriented models of economic development. Most of the Muslim world, however, remains a dilapidated mess. Egypt, Syria, and Iraq still groan under unreconstructed Arab socialism. In Iran, Reza Pahlavi's despotic "White Revolution" was replaced by the worse despotism of the mullahs. Pakistan is a dismal wreckage of tribal enmities held together by corruption and brutality. And Saudi Arabia suffers through the late seasons of Beverly Hillbillies's economics. Whatever the local variations, tyranny and stagnation are the common themes.

The Muslim world is by no means unique in its general failure to build vital, dynamic, high-trust societies. Dysfunctional institutions are depressingly commonplace throughout sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and Asia. What is distinctive about the Muslim world today is its combination of failed modernization and a culturally potent ideology that is profoundly hostile toward Western modernity namely, the ideology of fundamentalist Islam. With the hopes raised by collectivism and oil wealth dashed, a rabidly intolerant strain of Islam has surged in to fill the vacuum. Amidst the prevailing disillusionment and despair, its message, in effect, is: "If you can't join 'em, beat 'em." It offers the fantasy that the House of Islam can be restored to its former glory through radical rejection of the values of the culture that eclipsed it. That fantasy inspires the mad terrorist jihad with which we now contend.

The terrorists' strategy is, of course, delusional to the point of psychosis. No faith, however blind, will make rote memorization of ancient texts, suppression of critical inquiry and dissent, subjugation of women, and servile deference to authority the recipe for anything other than civilizational decline. The Islamists therefore cannot win, at least not as they conceive victory. All they can do is try to bring us down to their level. But on that score, the threat they pose is formidable.

In the longer view, the threat of the new barbarism goes far beyond Islamist totalitarianism. Over time, the chaos of underdevelopment could spawn other radical anti-Western movements. Less speculatively, there are fringe political movements here in the West white supremacists on the right, radical environmentalists and animal-rights zealots on the left that have already demonstrated their willingness to use violence against their fellow citizens. Likewise, apocalyptic cults can double as terrorist cells, as happened with Aum Shinrikyo in Japan. Although members of such groups may have been born and raised among us, their deep alienation from the larger social order can make them, in effect, internal barbarians enemies of a civilization that, psychologically at least, they are unable or unwilling to make their home.

Today, however, the barbarians of totalitarian Islamism are the clear and present danger. To carry the fight against them, we must proceed on many fronts. First, and most obviously, we must go after the terrorist organizations themselves. We must pursue, relentlessly, the leadership and foot soldiers of al Qaeda and company kill them or capture them when we can, harass them, deny them safe haven, dry up their sources of funding. This campaign began in Afghanistan, and continues in shadowy global operations today. The great danger here is complacency. Unlike in conventional wars with their shifting battle lines, there will be little clear feedback by which to gauge our progress. Accordingly, there will be an ever-present temptation to slacken resolve and fool ourselves that all is well until the moment when catastrophe strikes.

In addition, we must make every effort to keep weapons of mass destruction out of terrorist hands. Here attention has focused, understandably, on confronting rogue states like Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. And, indeed, such states must be disarmed no ifs, ands, or buts. At the same time, however, we must dedicate ourselves to the less glamorous but vitally important task of safeguarding and ultimately destroying the massive Soviet-era stockpiles of nuclear and biological materials. Unfortunately, there are worrying signs that this latter task is not being approached with proper seriousness. In particular, the United States continues to support a harebrained joint project with Russia to convert weapons-grade plutonium into nuclear fuel despite the fact that this project will greatly increase the opportunities for theft of this extraordinarily dangerous material.

Improving domestic security is likewise essential. Between the Keystone Kop routines of airport security and the hemming and hawing over a new Cabinet agency, suffice it to say that we can do much, much better and must do better if today's political leaders hope to avoid the haunting reproaches of tomorrow's innocent dead.

The ultimate demise of the steppe nomads came when their geographical base was eliminated that is, when the vast grasslands that sustained them were finally put under the plow. In the same way, we must work to deprive our terrorist adversaries of their natural habitats. In particular, the political and economic repression that is so sadly commonplace in Muslim countries is a breeding ground for Islamist extremism, and thus a direct threat to the security of the United States. Over the coming years and decades, therefore, U.S. policy should support the rollback of chaos and misrule and the advance of liberal democracy throughout the region.

When conflict is unavoidable, as with Afghanistan and Iraq, that policy will rely on the force of American arms. Otherwise, we must use all the diplomatic resources at our disposal including more determined efforts to integrate the region into the larger global economy; an end to subsidies (whether through bilateral foreign aid or the IMF and World Bank) that prop up despotic regimes; the exertion of pressure, both public and private, on repressive regimes to allow dissent and political competition and respect the rule of law; and the encouragement of liberal movements within the region.

Finally, we must carry the battle to the realm of ideas. The slouching relativism and decadent ennui that rationalize appeasement must be kept at bay; more than that, they must be scorned and ridiculed and stigmatized. This is not to say that there must be unanimity about all matters concerning the war not at all. But there can be no acceptable dissent regarding the West's moral superiority to Islamist totalitarianism, or the right of liberal civilization to defend itself effectively against the barbarian threat. Simply put, there can be no tolerance of intolerance.

In the 20th century, the open society of liberal modernity faced and surmounted a great internal challenge. Totalitarians of the left and right sought to substitute top-down control for bottom-up trust as society's central organizing principle; they did so in a mad quest to replace open-ended dynamism and growth with static, utopian perfection. Now in the 21st century, that internal rebellion has been put down, but utopian delusions continue to crop up in the periphery in the broken lands of the underdeveloped world, and the broken souls of fringe groups in the West. These new rebels have no realistic prospect of gaining power over the society they hate, but they can inflict damage upon it grievous damage. This is the enemy we face today: utopians turned nihilist, totalitarians turned barbarian.

The first step in countering this latest threat is understanding its true nature and dimensions. As always, keeping our freedom requires unceasing vigilance.

This article originally appeared on National Review Online on November 21, 2002.

If you enjoyed reading about "more on Muslim angst from today's Cato" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Standing Wolf
February 6, 2006, 09:19 PM
These new rebels have no realistic prospect of gaining power over the society they hate, but they can inflict damage upon it grievous damage. This is the enemy we face today: utopians turned nihilist, totalitarians turned barbarian.

In plain language, we're in another world war. We just don't seem to want to believe it.

February 6, 2006, 09:23 PM
Big deal, President Bush will protect us. We might have to give up a few rights along the way, but he will keep us safe from the evil ones...

February 6, 2006, 09:50 PM
The following is an interesting ancillary peice to the OP.The Spoiled Brat Islam
Pete Fisher

The past couple of weeks have shown the intense anger of Muslims around the globe over a cartoon of Mohammed posted in newspapers around Europe. With Palestinians vowing to avenge their prophet with their own blood, and embassies being burned in Syria, it is obvious that the potential for violence is of the hair trigger variety when it comes to Muslims.

All it takes is a columnist like Van Gogh, a cartoon, or even an accidental death of a Muslim and rioting begins somewhere, and at times like this; everywhere. The fact that even clerics in Baghdad are burning Danish flags in the street shows that condoning these acts is not limited to the lower ranks of Islam, but to those who teach it’s principles and know it’s writings well.

Iran has resumed nuclear proliferation after the watchdogs have been properly notified much as Saddam did after numerous U.N. resolutions banning him from doing so. Europe has unsuccessfully tried to appease them through negotiation as well as China and Russia. The U.N. lost its teeth so many years ago we would have better results from the Boy Scouts dealing with terror.

When things do not go their way they want vengeance. They burn flags, they bomb transport, they kidnap and behead. Like spoiled brats they stomp their feet, hold their breath and make threats. They obviously believe Allah is too weak to defend himself, and that Mohammed is in need of their guns. Otherwise the violence and temper tantrums would not be there. Unlike other religions that pray for the unbelievers to have their eyes opened, and figure whatever god they serve can defend his own honor, while Islam has to do Allah’s dirty work for him. Well, fine to believe that personally, but to try and enforce it with death and mayhem shows the contempt Islam has of other religions and cultures, as well as the propensity for violence as instilled into them by the writings of Islam.

The hypocrisy is so evident here there can be no missing it. So why do we in the West, not take these wonderful examples of Islamic peace and plaster them all over the newspapers and televisions when these riots break out? We can easily show how the Palestinians used a holy church in Jerusalem as a place of terror and violence, while using bibles for toilet paper. Or show a mosque that sits atop a Hindu holy site that was torn down after slaughtering the worshippers in cold blood. Or show where the Taliban defaced a huge Buddhist stature simply because Islam believes that NO images of gods should be allowed. But we do not do this. First, we know it does no good because if it has no value to Islam itself, there is no respect. Secondly, they honestly believe they have this right given to them by the Koran.

To a Muslim there is no other way. If they truly held respect for Moses and Jesus, they could never hate the followers of those prophets with such intensity. So we see yet another Islamic smoke screen showing us that what they say is not how they truly believe.

Where are the Muslims who claim they do not believe like this? They are silent as usual, with exception of a small press release here and about claiming different. They are not vowing death to Muslims who have defiled the name of Mohammed, or waging jihad against those who take the name of Allah in vain while cutting someone’s head off or torching their property. Which tells me that no matter what they tell me about Islam, their intention is no different than the others, just not as obvious.

So how do we as a global entity deal with this Problem Child? In my mind Islam MUST be confined to a particular area in the world, sort of like putting a dunce cap on a kid and having him stand in a corner. Europe did this with Christianity after the Protestants and Catholics went to war. They decreed that there would be no more religious wars and any offending nation would be dealt with severely. Why would it be unacceptable to do this with Islam? With the US, China, Russia, Canada, Australia, and Europe united in this single cause it could be done. History has shown it worked once before, so we should give it a try. Place Mecca and Medina as the first strike targets, as well as outlawing anyone to practice Islam in the West. This way, if they decide to continue Jihad, they can go at it amongst themselves. By removing the physical threat of Muslims from Western society we can live more peacefully and deal with our own issues.

I am at the point where if Shiites and Sunnis want to kill each other, why should we spend time, money and lives to save them? Remove them all from Israel and keep building those walls. Maybe when they get hungry enough they will immigrate to non-Islamic nations and convert to religions where these antics are not tolerated. Like a spoiled brat, lock them in their room until they get hungry enough to come to the dinner table and sit like civilized people. Maybe the cartoon of Mohammed was simply like the dunce cap for a brat in class that disrupts the education of the other kids. That is how I look at it.

Perhaps the world needs to step up very soon and begin taking action, by calling Islam what it really is to most of our nations. A treasonous organization bent on violence. By using the Koran itself it is easily shown that Islam has an agenda that is dangerous to Western society. It actually goes against our own laws, so why are we standing here allowing the schoolyard bully to throw rocks at us?

Simply remove the bad element as we do any other criminal, and go on with our way of life. Lawsuits from the ACLU and CAIR be damned, we can list them as aiding and abetting international criminals and ship them off as well.

Use a huge alliance of nations to shove this brat in a room until they can play nice with other kids, even a kindergartener knows this principle.

Maybe we should all go back to school for a day.


Although, it may be that the non-rabidly fundamentalist Muslims are growing weary of their coreligionists antics as well. ...Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, of the Muslim Parliament of Britain, demanded action from the police. He said the demonstrators were "trying to incite others and to make criminal acts legitimate. The time has come to say enough is enough".

Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "It seems to us some of their slogans were designed to incite violence and even to incite murder. The Muslim community will have no sympathy whatsoever for these individuals."


Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the MCB's general secretary, said he was "disgusted utterly" by some of the placards on show.

Labour MP Shahid Malik, who is on the Home Affairs Select Committee, revealed that he wrote to Sir Ian Blair, head of the Metropolitan Police, on Friday calling for prosecutions.

He said: "No matter how much offence cartoons may or may not cause, it can never justify violence."...


February 6, 2006, 10:32 PM
Heard this guy on the Ray Appleton show (talk radio) in Fresno, Ca. this afternoon. He is retired and has been doing research on Islam because it needs to be done. Name is Craig Winn.


February 7, 2006, 08:59 PM
1.) All topics and posts must be related to firearms or civil liberties issues.
2.) Multiple user registrations are prohibited.
3.) As a family-friendly board, we ask that you keep your language clean. If you wouldn't say it in front of your dear old Grandma, you probably don't want to say it here.
4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
5.) We cannot provide a comprehensive list of "Things Not To Say".Posts that are contrary to the above policies, or to the mission of The High Road, may be edited or deleted at our sole discretion. Membership may be revoked if such a step is deemed necessary by us. We're a private venture enabled by an all-volunteer staff. Please treat this venue as a polite discussion in a friend's home and respect the wishes of the hosts.We have noted that the civility of L&P has been plummeting of late. Correlated with this is yet another resurgence of political posts that do not meet the criteria as outlined in the rules of conduct. Just because a post is 'political' does not mean it belongs here. It must address firearms issues or civil liberties issues directly. "Civil liberties are in danger because Bush lied, people died!" and "we will lose all of our guns becuase Hillary has anger issues!" will not cut it. Post directly, not obliquely, about how a given topic has an impact on RKBA or civil liberties.

Thank you,

Staff at THR

If you enjoyed reading about "more on Muslim angst from today's Cato" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!