We now live in a world where Donald Trump’s election, Brexit, and even a lack of diversity in Hollywood get blamed for Islamic radicalism. For many it seems the only thing that doesn’t contribute to Islamic terrorism is Islam itself.
If two looks like cheating, take the bold cue, and just count the second one. Its perfection is self-evident.
This is not — of course — conclusive. It would be a stretch to say that it isn’t suggestive. As far as practical politics are concerned, current leftist priorities look strikingly self-contradicting. Islamization or popular sovereignty — choose one (or less).
The essay at the attached link recommends re-education as a remedy, in an age when the dominant organs of opinion formation have collapsed into culture war and unprecedented illegitmacy. Good luck with that.
ADDED: On point.
The is why the 21st century already stinks like an open charnel pit.
The blog obviously isn’t coming from where Scott Aaronson is, and the title of this post isn’t even centrally his question, so I’m asking it.
If you were trying to discredit a demographic policy that discriminated against Islamization, the thing rolled out by the US administration looks like a good way to do it. Shouldn’t selecting against Salafism be the policy core? Such a stance could be easily based upon solid American precedent. This looks like something else entirely. (It’s a dog’s breakfast, which is to say hastily hashed-up populism food.)
ADDED: The flip-side to Scott Aaronson’s concerns (from his own comment thread).
Steve Bannon’s world:
… And so I think we are in a crisis of the underpinnings of capitalism, and on top of that we’re now, I believe, at the beginning stages of a global war against Islamic fascism.
The entire profile is exceptionally interesting. The explicit call-out of contemporary Russian (Hyperborean) Eurasianism is especially note-worthy, since it distances Bannon from the ideological core of the Alt-Right.
ADDED: More here.
Hard to remember last seeing so much geopolitical insight being packed into a single, simple sentence:
The CIA is institutionally quite close with the Saudis right now, and has been in charge of their covert war against Assad.
Republicans should designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, based simply on the weight of the evidence. But if they’re feeling a little bit mean — and why not? — they should wait until the Democrats have put Keith Ellison in charge of their party to do it.
(It just keeps getting better.)
Everything is proceeding as foreseen.
“They say all Sunnis are Daesh, but it isn’t true,” said former truck driver Jassem Nouri, 50. Nouri has spent the past two years living on a building site in the northeast of Salahuddin province; his home, in the Sunni village of Salman Beg, is just six miles away, but the Shiite militias that ejected the Islamic State from the area over two years ago have refused to allow any of the residents to return. Last year, his two sons, former university students, were detained by masked men in unmarked uniforms and accused of working with the Islamic State. Nouri insists that they are innocent, but he has not been able to secure their release. […] “The one thing that is breaking my heart is that my sons are in jail and I can’t prove their innocence,” he said. “If this government doesn’t change, there will never be security and stability in Iraq, just an endless blind revenge.”
No one has the slightest (realistic) idea what equilibrium would even look like. The Sunni-Shia war has no end short of utter exhaustion. For everyone else, staying mostly out of it — and keeping it out — has to be the basic principle of strategic wisdom.
ADDED: From The Economist — “Horrifyingly, although home to only 5% of the world’s population, in 2014 the Arab world accounted for 45% of the world’s terrorism, 68% of its battle-related deaths, 47% of its internally displaced and 58% of its refugees.”
November 28, 2016admin
FILED UNDER :World
TAGGED WITH :Islam
Could the escalating Sunni-Shia War (intensified by the fracking revolution) take out Saudi Arabia?
(Cold Western indifference would be nice.)
It’s a clear sign of how seriously Radical Islam is taken by the foreign policy establishments of civilized states. Roughly, it’s treated as a biological weapon, to be used against real adversaries (you know, those who are not mere hill people). That’s not going to change much anytime soon, however much one might want it to.