Show Me The Money And Other Leftist Failures

“Show me the money.”

That loaded expression has surfaced as the mantra for a generation, but not for the reason many people think, because in fact, “show me the money” is the embodiment of part of the extremes of either side of the the value system that is our own.

The center of conservative ideology revolves around morality and ideas. Behavior, responsibility and accountability are the foundations of society.

The center of leftist (as opposed to classical liberal) ideology revolves around wealth- or rather, the redistribution of wealth. As far as leftists are concerned, responsibility and accountability are one way street. Government and the approved ideologues are responsible and to held accountable for the redistribution of wealth. Further, leftist ideologies abhor restraints on behavior. There are no behaviors that are unacceptable- none. The only constraints are the claimed justification of those behaviors. Some are acceptable, some are not. To kill a political/religious opponent in the name of leftist ideologies is good. To kill defending oneself from those ideologies is bad.

Leftist believe that consuming wealth is the same as creating wealth. They also believe that a consumer society is the same kind of society that facilitates the creation of wealth. To that end, those to whom redistributed wealth is apportioned, are good. Those who create the wealth, are bad. That in a nutshell, is the definition of populism- a government says ‘We will take care of you, cradle to grave. We will give you what we take from others.’

Leftists see the redistribution of wealth and materialism as an expression of values. That is why they believe they can buy their way out of any confrontation of evil. They cannot accept the truth that evil is defeated by defending and insisting upon a set of values and behaviors from everyone and standing firm.

Leftists do not want to acknowledge that evil is defeated by values and not by sharing wealth. That is why leftists are comfortable with taking the sides and defending some of the most dysfunctional and despicable tyrants to be found anywhere. They believe that their ‘enlightened’ ideas of wealth distribution will change pathological behaviors.

For example, they believe that Arab misogyny, homophobia and racist hate will abate, once there is a ‘redistribution’ of wealth (and ideological values) from the west. In the event that doesn’t happen, leftists believe they and their ‘values’ will be excluded from persecution. After all, they have proved themselves to be a useful part of the ’cause.’ The dysfunctional Arab world leadership is only too happy to keep this generation of ‘useful idiots’ under the ether.

One might be tempted compare the leftists of today of today to the Jews of prewar Germany, blind to the horror and the inferno that was about to engulf the world.

The Nazi era German Jews desperately wanted to believe that German racist ideologies were really expressions of political rjetoric. The German volk were a civilized lot, cultured and well educated. The social, cultural and political elite, those who filled the Berlin salons with progressive ideas and discussions that centered around sophisticated philosophy, art, literature and the new kultur would in the end, never allow for such brutality. They would never turn their backs on the persecution and wholesale slaughter, predicated on racialism.

We all know how that turned out.

Leftists today believe that in the end, the redistribution of wealth, will ‘enlighten’ the tyrannies they support and bring them into line with their own relativism, multicultural and a value system that honors nothing but the self. Unlike the Jews of prewar Germany, the left are supporting regimes that already have a track record of evil. The Nazis attempted to hide and deny their evil- the darlings of the left, the Arab world, cannot be bothered. The left cannot say they knew nothing of the misogyny, racism and bigotry, because in fact, those behaviors are in plain view. Nevertheless, they choose to support and defend the tyrannies.

Leftists have failed women because they have chosen to embrace regimes and causes that oppress and betray women. Leftists have failed the gay community because they will ‘out’ a gay person if and when it suits their needs.

The leftist dance is reminiscent of the Nazi era, with German government officials denying their atrocities by taking Red Cross workers to ’show camps’ where Jews and other minorities were portrayed as ‘happy guests’ of Reich generosity and largesse, even as the gas chamber and ovens were going at full tilt just down the road.
Why the leftists go to extremes to defend evil isn’t hard to understand.

There is a phenomena of the self hating Jew, an individual who denies his or her own identity, culture and faith, and seeks to identify and support those who make no secret of their own pathological agendas, directed against Jews.

The pathology of the self hating Jew is not new. Jews were attracted to communism and socialism, because someone said, “We are all equal. You are a comrade.” For the first time, Jews believed they were to be ‘free.’ After centuries of relentless oppression the idea was intoxicating.

After the horrors of the Second World War were made clear, there were a whole sub culture of Jews, even the children of Holocaust survivors that migrated to the self hating brigades. Why? Because those Jews believed that if they could be unlike the Jews (and more like their oppressors), then no one would come for them. They would be safe and secure. Surely the oppressors would see there were ‘good Jews’ too, noted just evil and hated Jews.

The same is true today of leftists (Jews included) who believe that siding with the racist, bigoted and dysfunctional oppressors might save them from the destiny of those their new friends promise. They are the Kapos of this generation, willing to sacrifice their own so as to save themselves.

Prewar German Jews could at least hope against hope that there would be no Holocaust. Leftists of today cannot argue ignorance.

Leftists today hate freedom and democracy because those ideas have created the environment for success. Assistant Village Idiot recently noted in a comment that Arabs don’t hate us because we have succeeded, but rather, because they have failed. The same is true for the leftists- their burning hatred of democracy stems from their failure to create a single instance of a functioning society that isn’t a least a generation behind our own. Not even the redistribution of wealth can make up for the values and freedom that create an environment that allows for the creation of wealth.

For the left, it is the appearance that becomes the brass ring. Iran, like North Korea, wants the ‘materialism’ of nuclear technology so that they might be perceived as equals. They do not understand that materialism has nothing to do values. Free western nations can easily have more in common with nations that share our values than with nations who enrich uranium.

Appearance is not a substitute for substance. Religious garb is often spoken of as a sign of religiosity that must be respected, as if appearance alone were to be regarded as sacred. When it is all said and done, religiosity is not measured by what goes on the head, but rather, what goes in the head. That ‘magnificent’ Mohammed Atta spent the the night of September 10, 2001 in a strip club, paying for lap dances with a Quran at his side. So much for his religiosity.

The left will support the redistribution of ‘nuclear wealth’ to unstable totalitarian regimes that threaten their neighbors and other- especially if they hate American and western freedoms. In their mind, that gives these regimes the appearance of equality with the west. The believe that appearance of equality, precludes us from noting their hypocrisy and their failures.

(On the other hand, the very suggestion that a non nuclear western and democratic nation go nuclear is sure to set the leftists off into a wild frenzy.)

Of course, it is only by managing behavior of those who threaten us or our allies that we can ensure our security. When values and beliefs are shared, we do not need to ‘manage’ behavior. We do not need to manage our relationships with other free nations because free and democratic nations do not go to war with each other. Free and democratic nations do not need to institutionalize racism, bigotry and religious hate.

In the end, it is not the redistribution of wealth that will ensure our security. Rather, it is the redistribution of principles, values and beliefs of free nations that will make all the difference.

Portions of this post have been previously published.

The Path To Nowhere

The underpinning of every society is imitation and conformity. We agree to established and accepted values and conventions, and we live our lives according to those values and conventions. What we teach our children serves to ensure not only to establish their successes, but also to to ensure the continuity of our society and culture. Even the much progressive and non conformist ‘art world’ is really about imitation and conformity. For every Monet and Picasso there are a thousand imitators, each proudly proclaiming to be a pillar of whatever the ‘new school’ of that time might be.

There are ‘variations on theme.’ Each culture and society teach their own history and the cultural influence that are unique to them. It is also notable that cultures and societies that are distinguished by enshrined democratic principles, have learned to coexist with each other and to eschew violence, no matter the disagreement.

Those societies and cultures have learned for most part, if left alone to pursue his own dreams rather than the dreams of orthodox ideologues, man and society will do just fine. As we have noted many times, free and democratic nations do not make war upon each other, because in the end, citizens of free and democratic nations have more in common than the issues that divide them. There aren't many calls from the most determined European leftists to mobilize and take up arms against ‘les maudits’ Amercaines.‘

It is also very true that are accepted values and conventions in most western and many Asian societies and cultures (including Asian Muslim nations), are clearly not accepted by many, if not most, Arab world societies and cultures.

The cultures and values of a nation or society are determined by the leadership of that nation or society. As we have noted, the Arab world has been the incubator for much dysfunction. Islam birthed a radicalized version of itself and became contaminated with radicalization because values of dysfunctional leaders were forced on the religion. That radicalization was nurtured because it became clear as the 20th century drew to a close that the ummah in the Arab world and elsewhere, would not tolerate their marginalization from the rest of the world. They too, were entitled to a part of the future.

Dysfunctional leaders, suddenly embraced a religion they had rejected for years and proceeded to reshape that religion into something that would legitimize their own dysfunction and evil ideologies. Aided by ‘religious leaders’ who were in fact no more than paid state employees, Islam began a transformation. The ‘radical Islam’ we see today is not a ‘religious renaissance.’ The violence and anger we see on our TV screens is not an expression of Islam. What we see is a carefully crafted reworking and redefinition of Islam, brought about by evil and dysfunctional leaders that have made those distortions a part of Arab culture.

Whereas Islam was once regarded a numbing ‘opiate’ in the Arab world, the regions dysfunctional leaders have created a cancer, radical Islam. That cancer was designed to poison not only their own societies but to ensure that the west would isolate themselves from the Arab world- and thus, western values of freedom and democracy would be kept at bay. The result would be Arab world leaders unafraid of western intervention and guarantee an unimpeded iron grip.

In a recent post, This Says It All, Dr Sanity quotes Victor Davis Hanson:

Nothing was more evident of the moral impoverishment of the Palestinians than their collective lamentation over the fate of this mass killer of the Kurds and Arabs. We gave the Palestinian Authority hundreds of millions of dollars for housing, schools, and security and they hate us; Saddam gave them a few thousand dollars as bounty for suicide murderers and they loved him.

In the Arab world, support for the Palestinians is really a symptom- and artificial one at that, designed to focus attention away from the dysfunctional political and religious leaders (bought and paid for) that really ails Arab society.

Every student or practitioner of any of the psychological disciplines will tell you that pathologies- especially obsessions, if left unchecked, will spread.

In the dysfunctional Arab world, there is an is the absolute belief that the conflict with Israel and western ideals is what drives their pathology, and not the other way around. In the real world, it is pathology that drives conflict. In essence, the Arab world is trying to explain it’s behavior in the court of world opinion by saying, ‘Your honor, the conflict started when the Israelis and world democracies resisted and hit back after we announced our intention to destroy them and then attacked and hit them.‘

Of course, the conflict with Israel and the west has nothing to do with Arab world behaviors. Even if Israel and the American presence in the region were gone tomorrow, there would not be much difference in the region.

Neither America or Israel had anything to do with Saddam’s record of evil against other Muslims. Iraqis didn’t use their weapons of mass destruction against hated Jews or westerners. Those WMD’s were developed because of choices made by Saddam. He developed and used those WMD’s against fellow Muslims during the Iran-Iraq War, and delighted withe the results, used them again against fellow Iraqis. The poison-gas attack against Kurds in Halabja in 1988. The Kurds did not have WMD’s at their disposal and they were no military threat to Saddam.

The UN generated Duelfer Report made clear the nature and reason for theIraqi nuclear program. The reports authors concluded that “Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior-level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq’s principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.”

Neither America or Israel are responsible for the economic malaise in countries blessed with obscene wealth.

Muammar Qaddafi is not a creation of America or Israel, any more than are the corrupt mullahs of Iran.

Neither America or Israel are responsible for the pitiful state of Arab world educational levels, among the lowest in the world.

Corrupt judiciaries, limitations on free speech and expression and religious bigotry are not the result of Americans or Israelis.

Does anyone really believe that if Israel did not exist (and consequently, no American alliance with the region’s only real democracy) that there would be a Pan Muslim state that stretched from North Africa to Syria and Pakistan and on to Indonesia? Would the Arab world be a far more advanced culture and society?

Does anyone believe that had the Arab armies been successful in the 1967 war ( a declared war of annihilation) they started, that Egypt, Jordan and Syria would have ceded the land to establish a new ‘Palestine’? (in fact, the only thing that united those three nations was a hatred (and fear, to some extent) of Arafat. While they were not afraid of him from a military standpoint, they were afraid of his influence in the region- and influence that might undermine heir own.

Had the Arab nations defeated Israel in 1967, the Palestinians would still be living in third world conditions. If the desire for Palestinian statehood were a real aspiration, does anyone believe that legions of suicide bombers today would be dispatched to Cairo, Damascus and Amman? Or is that phenomena acceptable because terror directed against non Muslims is acceptable (recall the horror of the wedding bombing in Amman and the resulting shock and revulsion).

Of course, waiting in the wings is the Arab world’s ‘deal with the devil.’ The dysfunctional leaders of the Arab world are making a tempting offer to the west; offer up Israel as a sacrifice to us and the specter of terror will disappear. And just who is making those promises? Some of the most dysfunctional- and evil leaders, in the history of mankind. Given the treatment of citizens and minorities in these dysfunctional regimes, it becomes clear that promises made by the leaders of these regimes are along the lines of Nazi Germany’s non aggression treaties and agreements with Chamberlain and Molotov.

Arab hatred of Jews and Israel is in no small measure due to the real and tangible success of Zionism (see this and Birth Of Nation, A Garden Blooms) That ideology has been far more successful than Pan Arabism or Baathism. That truth is not lost on the Arab world. Their own failures are magnified by Israel’s real and undeniable successes, as seen in the mirror of their own failures, every day.

When it's all said and done, the most volatile regional issues are religious in nature because the dysfunctional leaders of these dysfunctional states have made it that way.

The most horrible of crimes in Algeria, including the rape and dismemberment of children, were the result of purported religious dedication.

The civil war in Lebanon ended after 14 years of bloodshed, with no real resolution between the Christian and Muslim communities there.

Egyptian discrimination against the Copts went from a generations long simmer to a violent boil in the 1990’s and continues on today.

Saddam made no secret of his hate in his excesses against the Shia and Kurds, resulting in over a million deaths.

Former Syrian president Hafez Assad had 20,000-30,000 people (mostly members of the Muslim Brotherhood) slaughtered in Hama and many other, lesser known massacres.

In Saudi Arabia, the royal family wahhabists have unleashed a kind of perverted fundamentalism in their own country and they have paid to sponsor more of the same around the world.

A British schoolteacher was sentenced to 15 days imprisonment because she allowed a teddy bear to be called 'Mohammed.' Religious figures in Sudan calling for death and Sudanese courts 'generously' spared the 55 year old from 40 lashes.

All the while and below most western radar, a bitter struggle is playing out- the fundamentalist Muslims vs the moderate and/or more secular Muslims. There are also the real class struggle issues and tensions between millions of poor and disenfranchised Muslims versus the Arab world elite and privileged.

None of these realities have anything to do with Israel, Jews, America, or Christians.

It is only the deliberate and artificial focus on Israel and the Palestinians as a pretext for Arab dysfunction that keeps the Arab world from falling into a countdown of self destruction. Without those magnified, out of proportion artificial distractions designed to whip Arab frustrations into a frenzy, repelete with calls to slaughter, the Arab world would implode upon itself.

Of course, Israel is not a regional observer only. The continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the hardships endured by the Palestinians as a result of the occupation are a tragic, if necessary reality until real peace emerges. The Israeli psyche and soul have been severely tested. Nevertheless, as long as the Arab world undermines and sabotages real peace efforts with hate, bigotry, threats of annihilation and terror, the status quo will remain.

The Arabs are a proud people, with many kind and generous virtues. Anyone who has experienced Arab hospitality knows just how true that is. In quiet and small of the night, they know who their real oppressors are. They also know that Islamic ‘reform’ efforts are really restoration efforts. The Arab world needs to institute political reform before there can be religious restoration to the Islam that preceded the Islam crafted by dysfunctional Arab tyrants.

They know these things of course. They must now choose the values and conventions they will adopt and imitate. They can choose the road to nowhere, as laid out for them by their tyrants and despots that lead the nations in which they live.

As the wall that divided Europe collapsed, there was never really a question as to the values and conventions the people would choose. Time and time again, we have witnessed the truth that when given a chance, people will choose freedom over tyranny.

It is true that the opportunity for the liberation from tyranny and immediate freedom in the Arab world does not yet exist at the moment. Nevertheless, that does not preclude the Arab world from choosing the values and conventions they will adopt as their own. We can only hope they choose a seat at the table of free and civilized nations.

Portions of this post have been previously published.

'What could Jews do to Arabs that their own dysfunctional leaders haven't already done?'

As the Annapolis peace conference unfolds, Arab state controlled media are doing what they do best. They are warning their 'representatives' not to make any peace deals with Israel.

So let's be clear. Arab state controlled media are warning their own Arab governments not to enter any kind of peace accord with Israel. Think about that.

If conspiracy theories are a wonderful exercise in fantasy and escapism, Arab world conspiracy theorists are the gold medal Olympians of the fantasy competition. In the Arab world, virtually every Arab conspiracy is worthy of a Pulitzer prize in the ‘Fiction‘ category (as we have noted many times before, the only other endeavor in which the Arab world has distinguished itself on the world stage is Jew hating). Of those Arab world conspiracy theories, we noted, ‘Imagine an entire life, lived as a psychotic episode.

Conspiracy theories serve one of two purposes. They either serve as a reason for the successes or as reasons for the failures of a particular group or of an individual. The Arab world fixation with Jews and the reasons for Jewish successes serve as the classic fodder for conspiracy theorists.

Arab world conspiracy theorists want to believe that they merit very special attention from Jews because for some obscure reason, the Jews are fixated on the Arabs.

Now, let’s think about that for a minute. Does anyone seriously believe that there are any Jews, anywhere, that are fixated (read: obsessed) on the Arab world? Does anyone really believe that the vast majority of Jews wake up every morning and ask themselves, ‘What can I do to screw an Arab today?’

Does anyone really believe that Jews- like everybody else- put aside concern for their family, jobs, community and whatever needs they might have, just so they might focus on undermining the Arabs and Arab world?

What could Jews- or anyone else, for that matter, anywhere, do to Arabs what their own dysfunctional political and ‘religious’ leadership haven’t already done to insure the failure of Arab society? As it is, according to the UN Human Development report, the Arab world already has just about the lowest levels of education in the world, save for sub Saharan Africa.

We have noted before that

Currently, there are less than 100 universities in the Arab world. Of that number, at least 10 are ‘Islamic’ universities that do not teach anything other than theology. Notwithstanding the obscene wealth generated by these oil rich nations, there is not a single Arab institution of consequence. There is no major research and no important scholarship that originates in the Arab world. In fact, the greatest scholarship concerning the Arab world and Middle East, originates outside the region, in America or Europe.

(Apparently, this fact is lost on the Arab conspiracy theorist that blames the low number of Arabs that have won the Nobel prize as yet another ‘Jewish conspiracy.’ Or, Muslim Nobel Prize winners are masquerading as Jews and Christians)

Arab world economies are basket cases (Syrian economists still talk in old and failed Soviet terms of ‘five year plans‘). While there are car manufacturing plants in Africa, there are non in the Arab world. The last few years has seen the first household appliance ‘manufacturing plant’ in Egypt. In fact, the washers and refrigerators are really only assembled in that plant- with parts from other nations (ironically, including Israel). Does anyone believe that it is Jews that are holding back Arab powerhouse economies that might usurp western manufacturers of clothes dryers? Does anyone believe that if not for a few Jews, the Arab world would be a leading player in the space race instead of being a leading player in the hotly competitive clothesline industry?

While the Arab world is under the tyranny of dysfunctional leaders, the entire western world- Jews in Israel and the world over included- hopes that one day, freedom will empower the ummah. If there were so many Jews conspiring against the Arabs, why would they be at the fore of wanting to empower the Arab world? Are the conspiracy theorists telling us they are happy with the current state of affairs in the Arab world? Are they saying that they are happy with the dysfunction, misogyny, illiteracy and bigotry that is underwritten day and night by these regimes?

Many in the Arab world say that Israel, not Jews are the problem. The very existence of a Jewish state in the region is an affont to Arabs. Lets examine that.

If Israel as a political entity were to vanish tomorrow, does anyone believe that Jews living in what is now Israel, would be treated kindly? Generations have grown up hearing the political, media and even religious mantra of ‘SLAUGHTER THE JEWS! Religious edicts, fatwas, have been issued by lunatic Saudi clerics saying that it is incumbent upon Muslim men to rape Jewish women and children. Does anyone really believe that given the chance, that would not happen? The GIA in Algeria raped Muslim children (boys and girls) as young as 6 years old, before murdering and dismembering them, in the name of religion. How could anyone believe that kind of violence would not be directed at non-Muslims? Does anyone really believe that if Israel ceased to exist as an entity, Arab despots would step down and embrace freedom instead of monumental corruption and tyranny that has come to define them?

In a world full of conspiracies, many in the Arab world are convinced that they have been ‘chosen’ by the Jews are conspired against. Because they are somehow so special, so very special, it is they who are selected. That is not unlike the paranoid schizophrenic who tells his psychiatrist that he believes the CIA has implanted a listening device in his anus. They broadcast subliminal messages as to when he must defecate, so as to download the mental transcripts of his exchanges with aliens as well as his most private thoughts. That paranoid schizophrenic constructs an entire world around his delusions- a world that at once validates himself as a ‘victim’ and at the same time, highlights his own ’specialness.’

There is of course, another truth about conspiracies and conspiracy theorists. Whether they like it or not, conspiracy theorists invite comparisons with the object of their obsessions. In the inevitable comparison between Jews and Muslims in cultural, societal and religious terms, the contrasts could not be more stark. The direction taken by each group are seperated by 180 degrees. Most, if not all of the direction taken by the Arab world is the direct result of the choices made by dysfunctional Arab leaders.

In our world, environment helps to shape values. The values found in free societies are very different than the values taught in dysfunctional, oppressive and repressive regimes.

The values of free societies are passed on to free citizens. We engage in free dissent, debate, argue and we are free to challenge each other, our government and especially, ourselves. We are free to formulate our own opinions and if we wish, we are free to change those opinions.

The values of repressive and dysfunctional societies become the values of citizens living in those societies. Subjugation, repression and hate are a part of everyday life in those societies.

When we compare the values of the western free societies with the dysfunctional and oppressive values that are force fed in the Arab world, we have to ask ourselves a question.

The choices made by these dysfunctional Arab leaders cannot be blamed on Jews, Martians or Wiccans- no matter how badly the Arab conspiracies want that to be so.

‘The Arab world see the rejection of their values as a rejection of themselves- they do not see or understand that by rejecting the ugly values they have had forced upon them, they can only elevate themselves.’

Insisting that they are not responsible for their destiny will only insure another generation of Arab world failure.

All the while, the world moves forward.

Portions of this post have been previously published.

Middle East Box Scores, Annapolis

Will Mahmoud Ahmadenijad be the first world leader to bat 1000? A lot has to do with the team he plays on.

Let's look at Team Iran's box scores:

One 'World Without America/Zionism' Conference .

One 'scientific' Holocaust denial conference.

One rival 'peace conference' in Tehran to rival the talks in Annapolis.

All of the Arab Middle East nations in attendance at the Annapolis peace conference sent representatives to the 'World Without America/Zionism' Conference.

All the Arab nations in attendance at teach Holocaust denial as part of religious and educational curriculum. Those most vehement in their denial are the same people who believe a Holocaust perpetrated against Jews is a good idea and 'promise to finish what Hitler started.'

All the Arab nations in attendance at Annapolis have institutionalized racism, bigotry and hate found in state controlled school curriculum's, broadcast in state controlled media and preached from the pulpit by 'religious leaders' paid by the state.

Every Arab nation in attendance at the Annapolis peace conference consider the terror perpetrated against civilians by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and eight other like minded groups, a legitimate form of political expression. The only exception is when acts of terror are perpetrated on their own soil or against their own citizens.

Look for Iran to sponsor conferences on Human Rights, global warming, crime and punishment and religious freedom to finish out the season and look for the Arab world to warm the bench.

The Anchoress reflected in Re-assessing Iraq, Just Wars, etc:

… I got email from some people asking me why I’m such an idiot, how I can reconcile Christianity with war, how I could reconcile the present engagement with the “Just War” musings of Aquinas, etc.

The day after the speech, I had a friend urge me to perform an exercise of “reassessment” regarding my views…

No sane person likes war. But war sometimes comes. And the “Just War” theology is very clear that war may be Just when it is waged to ultimately spare more lives than it takes, to stop an inexorable advancement of evil…

Do you folks urging me to “reassess” things really think I haven’t thought about it… Of course I’ve rethought my take on the war - many times. I can see where the damn mistakes have been made…

…It is an unconventional enemy, and unconventional war, and we have absolutely nothing to offer within a diplomatic solution. This is an enemy that will take your diplomatic solution and use it against you, because it is not fighting out of loyalty to a king who may be appeased…they’re fighting and using terrorism as a means of movement, to advance an idea the bottom line of which is “Die. Or, you know, convert. But mostly die.”

...I remember the quote from the Dutch fellow who said, “I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”

Israelis aren't even offered the opportunity to convert. The Arab leaders, in their own words, prefer tyranny, call it 'liberation' and by all accounts prefer slaughter. Few words, much to reflect upon as the Annapolis charade unfolds.

Commenting on the absurdities of present day values, The Anchoress in another post addressed the new realities of our time. In Lamb And Dragon: Counter Terrorism With Love, she examines the motivations of some of the new post modernists.

Clearly, I have been thinking not just materially but spiritually.

...“love, love, love” is certainly the perfect solution to any problem, but it is never an expedient one; we’re living in a reality that involves nuclear weapons, so expediency (at least in clearing away the underbrush of incessant Jihad so we can get to that “love” part) has some value, here.

How can Annapolis succeed when we deliberately poke ourselves in the eye, so as to blind ourselves from reality? Since when is arriving at foreign policy achieved by clicking our heels three times and hoping that the most intractable players will miraculously feel the urge to resolve conflict the way we do?

The window dressing can be seen for what it is and for those willing to see for themselves.

What separates Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab world isn't about land or borders. It never was. The small strip of land that is Israel was 11 miles wide at it's narrowest point before the Six Day War. Israel posed no physical threat to the Arab world.

Hitler’s racialism (the Aryan ‘ubermensch‘ and the Jewish ‘untermensch‘) and subsequent communist ideologies were be the foundational blueprints for a new era. In the Arab world, this was the shortest distance between two points. As the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century unfolded, the Arab world was already on the defensive. The Industrial Revolution had passed them by and they had long acquiesced to lived under tyrannical rule. The Arab world was more than ready to believe that somehow, like the German volk, not only were they oppressed but in fact, were really superior to everyone else. The Arab world, like the volk, was ready and willing to blame their cousins for all that befell them. The Jews came to represent the success and achievement the Arab world so desperately wanted to claim as their own, as a sign of parity with the rest of the world.

The Jews weren't neighborhood problems. It was their existence that was unacceptable to the Arabs. The Jews and Israel were the mirror to their own cultural and societal failures. Dysfunctional leaders nurtured the idea of blaming the Jews and manipulated Islam to reinforce the notions. Religious leaders are bought and paid for by the state.The Arab was taught that success could be theirs if the Jews were eliminated.

In the poorest of neighborhoods in the Arab world, it is the trappings and symbols of wealth, achievement and western success that become objects of obsession- the cars, clothes, cell phones, electronics, etc. The values of work, study and dedication that are necessary to achieve real wealth, achievement and success are not given the status they deserve, because those attributes require a change in awareness and the perception of reality. By accepting those truths the Arab world would have to admit that success is arrived at when it is earned, and not by eliminating Jews.

In order to effect real change, the Arabs must acknowledge the deficiencies of the societies and culture in which they live. Of course, that is the easy part. Most Arabs know full well the failures that surround them. They also know they must change their reality. It is in how a person, community or culture goes about changing realities and dysfunctional beliefs that will determine how successful they will be.

There are no shortcuts. Despite decades of racism, bigotry and hate of Jews, democracy and western success, the Arabs still can barely produce a washing machine. Despite their 'awareness,' the Arab world has just about the lowest level of education in the world. For decades, they have done nothing to change that reality. All their 'awareness' and 'insight into reality' has not yielded any real positive change. They believe that Jews are obsessed with their existence. In fact, it is they who are obsessed with Jews. Israelis don't care about Arabs. Why should they? What does Arab culture offer Israel, other than world class hate and antisemitism, the only achievements of note in the Arab world. The Israelis just want to be left alone.

Israel didn't become the nation she is by obsessing about Arabs. Israel became the nation she is despite the Arab obsession with her. For a sharp look at the Israeli/Arab divide, see The Beast That Is Israel.

The Arab world want to change their own tragic reality by denying reality. They want to reshape reality by reshaping perceptions rather than by reshaping their behavior. They want us to believe that much of their dysfunctional behavior is acceptable behavior. They want us to accept racism, bigotry and hate as acceptable behavior. They want us to accept some kinds of violence as acceptable behavior. This idea is not speculative, nor does it only refer to terror. Arab world ambivalence to ‘honor killings’ violence toward women is common.

If we allow those expressions of intolerance and violence that have come to define much of the Arab world to become acceptable (in the hope of appeasing or placating them), they have no reason to change their behavior. The Annapolis peace conference cannot succeed as long as dysfunctional Arab world values and bigotry are given equal status to western values democratic values. The peace conference can be effective if the ground rules of negotiations based on democratic values are agreed to.

We cannot sit down at a table with the KKK or Aryan Nations ideologues and negotiate as equals. We cannot expect the Israelis to do just that, either.

Notwithstanding the fine table manners on display at Annapolis, can anyone seriously believe what is spoken there? Will flowery diplomatic words spoken in European languages by the Palestinians and Arabs, disguise their continued refusal to accept Israel’s existence? Does anyone really believe that the promises of destruction and slaughter made with the regularity of the muezzin’s call to prayer, are not relevant?

Real dysfunctionality is never hard to recognize- unless of course, that dysfunctionality is mirrored by others equally as dysfunctional. We cannot allow ourselves to deliberately choose blindness.

American foreign policy in the Middle East has been consistent.

• Cessation of hostilities and terror
• Secure borders.
• Diplomatic recognition of Israel.

What exactly is one sided and unfair? What possible reason could the Palestinians and Arab world have for not going along with the plan? In doing so, the floodgates of foreign aid, investment and all kinds of benefits would open. Why the hesitation and reluctance to advance and succeed?

The fact is that terrorists do not regard their political ideologies as primary considerations. For them, it is about power and nothing else. Often, the power grab by terrorists is draped in religious garb, but in fact, there is no pretense of political respectability.

Let's look at Iraq and the Arab world as an example of Arab world ideologies.

There are no ‘insurgent representatives’ at the UN claiming to represent the people of Iraq. There are no examples of the terrorists in Iraq that declare national unity as an ideal and there is no pretense of offers to help anyone via social services or programs.

The terrorists are not rallying people to their cause or orchestrating mass demonstrations to bring attention to their cause, as would a political ‘insurgent.’ There are no dramatic and sympathetic leaders paraded in front of willing cameras and their are no legions of ’spin doctors’ appearing on FNC or CNN. There are no discernible liberation movements- only movements that openly proclaim their love of Islam and their love for death (most often directed at other Muslims).

The terrorists are blowing up Iraqis by the hundreds. They are not, for the most part, targeting American, British or coalition troops. There is an orgy of death, as suicide bombers make no distinction between American or coalition forces, Iraq police or the elderly and children. Houses of worship are attacked regularly (with worshipers inside) and market places, filled with women and children, are favored by suicide bombers, plying their evil.

The only difference between the Iraqi terrorists and Hamas or Islamic Jihad is the level of media savvy. They know that kindergartens and dental clinics play well in western media and they know social services will supply a never ending supply of terrorists.Palestinian on Palestinian violence is at an all time high, the Intrafadah goes on unchecked and rule of law is nothing more than a facade.

The Bush administration policy of wanting to bring democracy to the Middle East is a good one. There is no rational argument against that policy, period. To base criticism of the President on his belief that peoples living under tyrannies would not be better off in the long run, under free governments, is absurd. Those who espouse such views are essentially irrelevant to any discussion. That said, unless and until we can be sure that all the players accept the basic ground rules of democratic values over the rules of bigotry and hate, we are wasting our time.

Democratic societies are not birthed fully formed. They are grown and nurtured slowly. Just as it is plainly clear that the vast majority of Palestinians want a real future for themselves and their children. It is just a plain to see that they have not yet learned the real value of democracy extends beyond a ballot box. Voting for Hamas might have been an expression of frustration against the corrupt Fatah, but in the end, Palestinians voted for Hamas knowing full well what they stood for. As we have noted many times, Hitler too, was elected. Civilized nations are under no obligation to respect or even recognize the voices of racism, bigotry and dysfunction.

The Palestinians and Arabs do not yet understand that democracy is an idea and not dependent on a particular political party or personality. Parties and leaders come and go. Building and maintaining the institutions of democracy are the pillars of democratic societies.

In the end however, all Annapolis has to offer the Palestinians and Arab world is the opportunity to author their own destiny.

The Palestinians and Arab world cannot and will not defeat Israel or America or the idea that is freedom. We and the Israel will remain free and democratic societies, irrespective of what happens in Annapolis. Our way of life and values are deeply rooted and will not be dislodged by threats made by the revolutionary du jour…

The Palestinians and Arabs have a chance to take control of their lives and destiny. If they choose to remain immobilized or only half committed, we can go home with a clear conscience. We offered them a Marshall Plan and long term commitment of partnership and opportunity.

We offered them a future.

By their actions- or lack thereof- the Palestinians and Arabs will in the end, clearly define themselves and the kind of nations they want for themselves. If they will not act in their own best interests, we cannot force freedom and opportunity where it is clearly not valued. If they are convinced that democracy is of little value we will need to walk away from Annapolis. That will result in continued tragedy and suffering for the Palestinians and Arab world, but that is a choice they have made. Every patient seeking help from a physician has a choices. They can even refuse the medical treatment that might save them. Refusing the treatment does mean the treatment is flawed.

The people of Eastern Europe did not need to be convinced of the merits of free societies over tyrannies. We must be prepared to face the reality that the Palestinians and much of the Arab world will remain backward for a very long time, incapable of understanding how free governments are always better than oppressive ones. While there is nothing we can do about that, we can hope that the next generation, or the one after that, will see more clearly. The tragedy is that yet another generation of Arabs will be lost to dysfunction and neglect. The greater tragedy is that most of them don’t even know it. Hundreds of millions of children born in the Middle East will grow up never knowing freedom.

That is not our fault.

As a species, we distinguish ourselves by how we treat others- and how we demand others be treated. We build hospitals, not only because we want our loved ones to be tended to, but because we want our society to be tended to. Freedom is no different. Our individual freedoms shape our collective and societal freedoms.

Reality cannot be reshaped in the image of those who desperately need that to be done, in Annapolis or anywhere else, so that their own false and dysfunctional agendas might be served and perpetuated. As Dr Sanity points out,

It is a most ingenious paradox of life that most civilized societies and cultures encourage and support the individual in the pursuit of his or her own life, happiness and psychological growth. These societies do not lay claim to an individual’s life for the glory of the state; and in turn all members of the society benefit as the culture’s productivity, wealth and benevolence all increase.

In other words, paradoxically, those political, economic, cultural and religious factors that encourage what is best for individual growth and maturity, are exactly what encourage the positive evolution and maturation of societies and cultures.

…Mature psychological defenses enable a creative solution to conflicts in ways that are positive for both the individual and his or her society. This is exactly what the immature defenses–such as denial, projection, paranoia do not do. On the contrary, such defenses almost always in the long run cause not only damage to the individual’s developing self, but they also eventually destroy the fundamentals of civilized behavior that can hold a society together and give it a future.

No amount of furious foot stomping and denial can change the fact that reality cannot be wished away. In what is perhaps the greatest irony, it is clear that for the Arab world, peace with Israel offers a partnership with the 21st century and beyond.

Freedom cannot and will not be stopped and continued hostilities with Israel or anti American sentiment cannot change that.

Those who don't believe that to be true have authored their legacy- they will be repudiated and forgotten.

The Naked Believer

What is about about religion that scares so many people?

The vast majority of people who express their faith, do so quietly and usually within a community of like minded believers. They, like most Americans, hold the concept of 'live and let live,' dear. Most Americans do not impose their belief on others nor do they support those who do. Nevertheless, there seems to be a deliberate attempt to lump all believers together, regardless of their affiliation. We talk about the 'moderate' right, or the 'moderate' left, but when we talk about religious people the word 'moderate' is never spoken or implied. Religious people, it is assumed, are, well, religious. Enough said.

The Naked Believer, without the political agendas and motivations that are assigned to him or her, is for the most part, perfectly happy to live life in happy obscurity. Unfortunately, all too often religious people are dragged into political debate, or they are excluded from political debate, simply because they are religious. Faith seems to infuriate some people. The faiths, beliefs and believers that are shared and so familiar to most Americans are often subject to fierce criticism, ridicule and even vicious attack.

Of course, not all not all faiths are treated in the same way. Religious beliefs that are out of the mainstream or those that originate in far away places, or beliefs that are to be regarded as suggestive only, are fine. Religions and faith that are closer to home are more subject to disparagement. That religious critics are usually woefully deficient in their knowledge, understanding and experience in a healthy faith centric community seems to matter little. When religion is criticized, the credibility and integrity of the critic is of little import.

Why is there such a disparity in how adherents to different faiths are treated?

The answer lies in the kind of demands and expectations our faith, beliefs and fellow believers make upon us . Real faith demands morality, not just from the individual, but from an entire community as well. Faith demands sacrifice. Friday, Saturday or Sunday prayer instead of Friday, Saturday or Sunday sports or shopping. Real faith demands that charity, given on a regular basis, without the need to be prodded by guilt or by images of disaster. In a faith centric life, morality is driven from within and not because of external social or political pressures.

Religions are not measured by what they destroy, but rather, by what they build. Religions are not measured by how many they kill in God's name, but rather by how many they save in God's name. Religions are not measured by who they hate in God's name, but rather, they are measured by how many they extend their arms in acceptance, in His name.

Those who claim to be believers, who profess God mandated hatred His name, reject the notion that there is something more important than the self. They reject the notions of responsibilities, accountability and a living up to higher expectations. They reject the notion of a higher self with moral obligations. They want to be free of obligations and expectations. By mandating hate as a religious obligation, they decree that the most primal and base of man's instincts as superior. They do not elevate man to anywhere near his potential as God's creations.

Some might say they are afraid of of the struggle and afraid of failure, as if having to struggle with faith is a shameful thing. From our post, Mundane Sanctity:

God treasures our spiritual achievements. He treasures our failures along the way even more, because in facing and overcoming our failures, we have shown that we are indeed worthy of the humanity He bestowed upon us. We are not meant to become perfect in our struggle and search for meaning and faith- we are meant to overcome the limitations, imperfections and obstacles along the way.

Relating to God is about relating to that most human side of ourselves.

The confrontation between believers and non believers (and that includes those for whom God is no more than a vehicle for their own agendas) is really a battle for the soul. That battle is not so much about belief in God as it is about the human conscience. There are plenty of non believers that believe that we are no more than just animals, concerned only with our own pleasure and needs and thus understand the significance of human responsibility and accountability.

In fact, the battle for the soul of an individual or a nation is a battle that scares a lot of people, because if there is even the possibility of a soul, everything changes.

The atheist says, “I don't believe in God.” In truth, people of faith don't believe in the God the atheists reject, either.

Non believers cringe at the words 'Fear of God' and other similar expressions. They only see fear as a negative expression- the fear of the powerful intimidating the weak. They rightly understand that 'fear,' as they understand it, is a negative expression. They use that expression, as a mantra- because without it, the argument weakens.

What many non believers do not admit is that fear is not always a negative human emotion. Often, fear can be a positive expression. For example, when an athlete faces his opponent or a when a public speaker first faces an audience, the nervous fears they experiences can lead to heightened awareness. All his or her senses are at a heightened level. Any and all of the skills and capabilities they have worked so hard to achieve, can be called upon in an instant. In fact, every one of us knows the kind of fear that can brings out the best in us.

The more appropriate expression and description of a believer's relationship with God is 'Awe.' When we stand and behold the magnificence of nature, we are in awe. When we gaze upon an artist's work that talks to us, we are in awe. There is music, sounds created out of thin air, that make us cry or can evoke memories, for decades. That too, inspires awe.

In fact, the awe we experience is a manifestation of human dignity. We see and understand ourselves to be a part of a greater scheme. We understand ourselves to be a part of the masterpiece that is Creation. We- each of us, have a starring role in the play of life- Creation. It is an unfolding drama, comedy and musical- with our best efforts and intentions a part of the script. We are not meant to ad lib our way through life. We are obligated and meant to make Creation an even more magnificent expression that It is, and we each of us have lead role in doing just that.

It is clear that when standing in Awe of God, we recognize what the gift of life means.

When we acknowledge the gift of life, we acknowledge that we have a purpose. We may not understand or even clearly understand our purpose, but we don't have to, any more than we have to clearly understand nuclear physics or organic chemistry. We know they are there and they impact our lives. That is enough.

It is man's objective to seek- it is a natural instinct. It is what we look for that to a very large extent, defines us. It is our charge to discover and celebrate, not our basest selves, but rather, that part of us that is as majestic as anything in nature or art. We are charged to take center stage in God's creation. We seek the majesty that is in each of us- we seek to know our own soul.

It is not easy. It is not easy at all. We must acknowledge that even if we are to take center stage, we share that stage with everyone else- and sometimes, that may go against our very nature. It is then that we must put in that performance of a lifetime. Like the athletes that play beyond their capabilities in that last game, we must reach inside to our souls, to pull from within the very best of ourselves, especially when it seems the odds are stacked against us.

Sometimes, center stage can be a very scary place- and that is why so many people fear having a soul.

All gardens need tending. If we can remove the weeds in life- those things that restrain, contain us and hinder our growth, we will grow. When we refuse distort the reality we know exists so that our selfish needs are sated, and when we choose to remove the doubts and fears that hold us back, we will thrive.

We may indeed, be small in the eyes of history and Creation. That doesn't mean we can't be great.

Some parts of this post have been previously published.

When The Numbers Go Your Way

Truth is indeed stranger than fiction:

A San Francisco car enthusiast goes on trial Monday for an 18-year-old killing in which the man who confessed to pulling the trigger will never serve a day in jail.

Instead, he'll be the prosecution's star witness when the murder trial gets under way in San Mateo County Superior Court in Redwood City.

Through a quirk in state law, 33-year-old Jesse Rodriguez of Los Angeles, who prosecutors say confessed to the April 1989 shooting death of Robert Perruquet of Daly City, cannot be punished for the crime. He was too young when the killing was committed, and too old when he confessed.

There's more:

"I think it was something that had been bothering him for a number of years," the detective said. "He had been living an exemplary lifestyle since then. Put in the right environment, he was motivated to kind of come clean."

At the time of the confession, Oglesby said, he was unaware that Rodriguez was essentially immune from prosecution. He doubts Rodriguez knew it, either.

"He had no clue," Oglesby said. "I didn't have any clue until a couple of days later when I was told that by the D.A.'s office."

Shades of gray?

The Monster In The Mirror

The war on terror and the fight against the radical Islamists beg more than a few questions.

Firstly, we need to define who are we fighting. We also need to understand what it is we are fighting. We need to confront another question that needs an answer: Are we fighting a religion, a 'civilization,' a culture or something else?

The answer to these and other questions are important because if we do not or cannot answer those questions, we cannot possibly prevail in our efforts. While that doesn't necessarily mean we will lose militarily, it does mean that that we will not be able to define what 'winning' really means. That is already happening in Iraq. There is nowhere near a consensus as to what 'winning' really means. To some, it means the cessation of violence. To others, it means a democratic state. To others, it means eradicating the terror groups. To still others, it means getting out, no more. There are a thousand variations and combinations of those ideas.

In a recent email exchange with Fausta, we were asked about the origins of widely accepted terror as an acceptable form of political or religious expression- 'How did this come about? How can so many people find meaning in participating in or supporting acts of evil?'

In this day and age, those questions are not simply an expression of varying view points. Those questions define those who would choose to live in a medieval world long gone , versus those who choose to live in the here and now, dealing with reality(as we have noted in a recent Sanity Squad podcast, "Imagine living an entire life as a psychotic episode?")

It is clear that even not so fundamentalist Muslims are uncomfortable with secularism. Does that also mean a rejection of modernity? How are secularism and modernity distinguished? On the surface they may be easily separated, but in fact, when examined under real world conditions, the distinctions become blurred. The resistance to secularism is an explicit rejection of secular values, morals and principles. There are no shortages of voices emanating from the Islamic world that denounce the western evil of secularism. America and American Christians, Israel, the Jews and anyone else who have the temerity to denounce radical (and in some cases not so radical) Islamist demands. Recently, we saw efforts by mainstream Muslims in Denmark demand a separate legal system that would apply only to themselves. In Indonesia, plans are being drawn up that would allow the world's largest democracy to enforce Sharia Law in place of civil law for non Muslims.

The struggle against modernity is much more subtle and not so easily defined, because it is a struggle against change. Modernity has given us everything from the western notions of politics to functioning economies. Modernity has impacted social and cultural mores, even in Muslim countries and it is modernity that Muslim societies, influenced by dysfunctional religious and political leadership, fear most.

Understanding the distinctions between modernity and secularism is critical.

Modernity is much like the Industrial Revolution- a redefinition of the process and methodologies and no more. Modernity is about redefining and improving the technologies that influence and impact how we live our lives.

Secularism on the other hand, is an ideology. Like capitalism, communism and religion, the rules can be changed as the game is played. For example, some Muslims like to equate the violence found in much of the Islamic world to the violence of the Old and New Testaments. That would nice if the analogy were applicable. Religious violence of biblical proportions hasn't been a part of the Judeo-Christian ethic for 1000 years, because secularism has influenced the west, western thought and religious thought.To date, secularist thought has barely touched the Islamic world and ongoing medieval violence is still a part of modern day Islam.

(We have noted that the origins of modern secularism are religious:

...the first real secularists were the Jews and Christians. They were to question everything. They were to debate the meaning of man and life. Within each religion were debates, wars, intellectual truces and eventual compromises.

The chasm between the modern day Judeo-Christian ethic and Islam as interpreted by the radicals and fundamentalists is huge)

As globalization becomes more and more of a reality, the questions of secularism and modernity becomes more relevant. Can the Muslim world adopt modernity and reject secularism? The answer is not clear. On the one hand, one has only to look at the history of the Church to recognize there was indeed a strong rejection of secularism. Eventually, the Church 'righted' itself and adopted the kind of secular influences that were to elevate religious thought. At they same time, they made clear they would reject the secular influences they saw as destructive.

Democracies do not settle differences with violence- and in large measure, that is why the Islamists reject dealing with us. The 'secular' way of free nations in dealing with conflict is antithetical to the values of radical Islam, an ideology that is predicated on the use of force to enforce compliance.

Radical Islam has assumed the face and costume of militancy and violence, not the face of theology. The gun- and frenzied use of the gun, has become a part of the faith. This of course, is clearly antithetical to Judeo-Christian values, moral and principles (The Church has long rejected the butcher and slaughter of all non believers and the inquisition has long been repudiated).

The Islamists are willing to engage us violently because they believe that secularism abhors conflict- and thus, we are theirs for the taking. They understand they will not have to face equal or violent consequences of their actions. That in itself is one definition of the 'Clash of Civilizations.'

That is why they oppose a peace deal with Israel, real democracy within the Palestinian Authority, Iraq or anywhere else in the region. In their minds, democracy, freedom and peace means that secularists have asserted their dominion over Islamism. That notion is intolerable- and as many as need be will die preserving the illusion that democracy, freedom and peace are evil and in opposition to Islam. They deliberately define democracy as a religion in opposition to Islam. That is why their opposition to democracy is so fierce. To believe in democracy is to be apostate and thus, deserving of death.

Modernity is also suspect is the Muslim world. We can define modernity as the change brought about by self expression, higher education and modern economies that function efficiently and seamlessly. Ayatollah Khomeini resisted modernity, as do the Wahabbi Saudis, ostensibly for religious reasons. They reject modernity because modernity, like secularism, favors democracy. That said, Saudi religious ideologies are roundly rejected by countries like Morocco, Jordan, Egypt and even Syria.

The rejection of modernity also explains the indifference the Arab world has to education and functioning economies. Failed and dismal Arab world education levels and economies are of little and no concern to Arabs because education and functioning economies represent the reality of a real future. Recognizing and anticipating the future is an integral part of modernity. The future is a reality the Arab world has consciously rejected, by word and deed.

Healthy societies do not naturally reject the future and modernity. Every parent does what they can to address their children's future and to ensure they the future well prepared. That is how society functions and perpetuates itself. Children are the future and it is incumbent on us to ensure their success. It is also incumbent upon us to do what we can to leave a better world for our children- a concept not at all understood in much of the Arab world, for decades led by dysfunctional political and religious leaders. How this dysfunction operates needs to be understood.

In fact, the Arab world has made clear their intent and desire to return to the past, and not have to face the future. Facing the future means the Arab world would have to be held accountable for their dysfunctional behavior that has made poverty and failure a part of the Arab world reality of today.

Children want to please their parents. What does it say about a society where a parent applauds a child's bigotry, hate and violent tendencies? What does it say about a society where that bigotry, hate and violence are taught in schools? What does it say about a society where parents approve of such educational priorities, and then has those priorities reinforced by media and religious instruction? The tragedies of these dysfunctional societies cannot and will not be overcome easily.

Samuel Huntington makes clear the cost of rejecting modernity. Turkey, a candidate for EU member status has the highest has a population of sixty million and has a GNP equal to that of Denmark, with a population of five million- and Turkey is the most successful Muslim nation in the region. Any shift by Turkey towards Islamism (already a reality and bolstered by Arab world, Islamist-centric satellite broadcasts) will result in that country's economy slow deterioration. The standard of living for Turks will drop as education levels drop and will unlikely recover for decades.

The Arab world is a galaxy away from the 'Turkish way.' Certain realities, already widely reported, bear repeating: The Arab world translates about 300 books a year. Greece translates about 1500 books from foreign languages into Greek in the same 12 months.

The degree of the self imposed isolation of the Arab world can be put another way. The total number of books translated since the 9^th century numbers about 100,000. That is equal to the number of books translated in Spain every year. To be clear, there are far more books translated into the Spanish language every year. In 12 centuries, the Arab world has translated 100,000 books- the same number of books translated in Spain each year.

The Muslim world deliberately attempts to reshape and redefine the conversation, blaming America and Europe for their failures. In fact, much of the attempt is deliberately misplaced. There is an attempt to discredit 'Orientalism' as as legitimate attempt by westerners to understand the Islamic world. In fact, the Europeans went to study and learn about the Islamic world. The Islamic world could not be bothered to do the same, to learn and come to understand the western world.

In the 19^th and early part of the 20^th century, Europeans learned the various versions of Arabic, Turkish and Farsi. Muslims did not study English, French or German. While Istanbul was chock full of Europeans engaging in trade, there were no equally motivated Turks in Europe. European embassies were crowded together in Istanbul. There were no Turkish embassies anywhere in Europe for decades.

When the Arab and Islamic world look to point the finger and assign the blame for their failures, they immediately point to the English, the French, the Americans and of course, the Jews. They are satisfied with that. They never look in the mirror or look to what they can do now, to fix the problem. Many are happy to see guns and bombs directed at the west. That they believe, is a form of justice- and it eliminated the reality of tremendous Islamic failures.

In the need to create a 'monster,' to rally a rationale for isolationism. America is the obvious choice. To any thinking person, that of course is absurd. America can no more impose modernity on any society than can Japan, Korea or the Chinese. The market place of free economies and the market place of the free exchange of thoughts and ideas will determine the face of the future. If the Arab and much of the Islamic world is to 'catch up' with the west, modernity will have to be a part of that society and culture.

Christianity learned from it's failures. The wars and hardships of a culture and society forged reforms (another word for deeper and a more meaningful understanding) and a bond with modernity. The radical Islamists have yet to learn those lessons.

In the interim, we will remain 'at war.' We will remain at war for decades. When the 'mission' will be 'accomplished,' will be determined by generations that will follow.

The sooner we understand what and whom we are fighting, the sooner we will emerge victorious over our adversaries.

Portions of this post have been previously published.

A Hero In The Making?

Last night, Fatima Bhutto gave more than a small indication that she may well be on her way to making her mark in Pakistani politics. Speaking from Karachi, she gave a wide ranging interview to latest the Sanity Squad podcast. She offered up insight and clarity on the goings on in a much misunderstood and unknown part of the world.

Ms Bhutto answered questions about the current state of affairs in Pakistan and what the future may hold. She discussed the the radical Islamists that have made inroads into Pakistani politics, the legacy of corruption that has plagued Pakistan for decades and the challenges that nation faces.

Ms Bhutto also addressed some tough questions about her support for Hugo Chavez (she sees the Venezuelan anti poverty and literacy programs as a model for Pakistan). She also recognizes the danger terror poses both inside and outside Pakistan's borders.

Educated in the US and Great Britain, Fatima Bhutto is an eloquent and passionate advocate about the future of her native Pakistan. Whether or not she can transfer that passion into a plan that will lead her country into a democratic and economically state remains to be seen.

Of course, her ideas alone will not determine Pakistan's future. That destiny will be determined by the Pakistanis themselves. They will have to recognize reject past failures and embrace real democratic values.

Fausta remarked in an early morning exchange that 'keeping your eye on the ball' is an absolute necessity for third world nations. A crucial problem of underdeveloped nations is a seeming inability to focus. They are more concerned with not being a 'satellite state' than they are about actually fixing the problems that plague them.

This reality applies to Pakistan, but that nation is hardly unique in those matters. In virtually all dysfunctional regimes, actually fixing problems and educating populations is feared- because an educated and enabled society is dangerous to dysfunctional and corrupt regimes. It is only when real problem are addressed and the focus on solutions as a priority that real progress is achieved. Those are the real measures of a successful regimes and leaders.

The differences between India and Pakistan are stark. Whereas India has begun to focus on actual solutions to problems and real empowerment to her citizens, Pakistan is embroiled on focusing on who is responsible for the problem.

Heroes are not those who find problems and lay blame. Heroes fix problems, regardless of who is to blame.

If she 'keeps her eye on the ball,' Fatima Bhutto may very well turn out to be the first hero Pakistan has seen in a long time.

The Sanity Squad podcast with Fatima Bhutto can be heard here.

Live, From Karachi...

The Sanity Squad will be podcasting live on BlogTalkRadio tonight beginning at 9:30 pm. PLEASE NOTE THE TIME CHANGE...due to time difference between here and Karachi, Pakistan.

In what promises to be a fascinating podcast, The Sanity Squad's Dr Sanity, Neo-neocon and Shrinkwrapped will interview Fatima Bhutto, niece of Benizir Bhutto who is one of the opposition leaders in Pakistan. We will discuss the state of emergency in Pakistan; upcoming elections and the prognosis for that country and its relations with the U.S. and the West.

Ms Bhutto recently penned an important editorial for the LA Times.

Her Website can be found here; and More from wiki, with links and From MSNBC .

She will undoubtedly be a player in Pakistan in coming years, regardless of the fortunes of her famous aunt.

You will be able to call in live starting at 9:30 pm (until then, if you click on the link it will play the podcast recorded last Monday) .

The call-in number for the live program is (646) 716-9116

“History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives.”

The one constant of all wars lie in the origins of conflict. Wars exist as an extension of fundamental economics.

Europe isn’t a Muslim dominated continent today, because the Islamic invaders that were stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683, could no longer pay the price of advance. European defenders were extracting too high a price from the invaders. When it became clear to the invaders that war was no longer worth the effort, the Islamic invaders world found religious justifications to live in peace with their Christian neighbors. The same thing happened when the Crusades failed. Christan European found a way to be Christian and live with the Levant with their Muslim neighbors in peace.

The vast majority of Germans and then the nations that chose to join the German alliance under Hitler’s National Socialist regime, were willing to pay a very high price for the 'Thousand Year Reich.’ The nations that opposed the vision of National Socialism and that thousand year dream were more numerous and were willing to pay an even higher price to stop National Socialism and everything it stood for. When it was all over, the cost to Germany for their aggressive war was astronomical. As a result of cost those dark times (50 million dead), there is little chance of future German misadventures.

Wars begin and end because of the various costs of waging war. That is as true today as it has been in the past, and that will be true in the future.

Wars have long term economic costs and moral costs. The moral costs of war can passed forward from one generation to the next, long after the economic costs have been paid. The Germans are still paying for the moral failures that led to the implosion of a nation, a continent and a world. In many ways, they have become the conscious of modern Europe.

Today, Dr Sanity noted in The Strategy Of The New Barbarians, that war means the rules of civilization are suspended. She remarks on moral confusion:

The conundrum that many on the left in the West seem to run into is the concern that, by fighting back against those manly modern barbarians who cavalierly behead innocents and slaughter fellow muslims with abandon; hide behind women and children and use children and babies as human bombs to murder infidels; and even by voicing a condemnation of such acts or criticizing the fanatical intolerance of Islam toward other religions--they are being, well...intolerant. And not politically correct; and--let's face it--really really mean.

Dr Sanity makes her point crystal clear. In fighting this war- more of conflicting ideas than of weapons, she notes,

I am confident that we in the West are not in danger of losing our fundamental values; and that our overall moral heading can be recovered should we need to temporarily deviate from the course of the moral compass that guides us. Because, in order to combat and defeat this new barbarism, we must confront it directly and be willing to do whatever it takes to defeat it.

If we appease or ignore it, it will continue to menace everything we hold dear; and sooner or later, it will sink us--no matter how moral we are or how much restraint we demonstrate to their provocations. Moral virtue and saintly restraint will not win this conflict, at least not without the help of pure, unadulterated brute force to back them up.

But, first we must be sure in our own hearts and minds of the endurance of our own values in order to use whatever force is necessary. Morally vacuous intellectuals; and historically ignorant churchmen are not the kind of leaders that will help Western values and Western civilization triumph over the new barbarians. They are plagued by pervasive doubts about the worth of our civilization, and are not troubled by the idea of its demise and replacement. In fact, they rather stupidly believe that their own little socialist version of utopia will win over the new barbarians to their way of thinking; that, their lovely tolerance and good intentions will convince the jihadist that he can safely live in peace with them...

Peace among nations is arrived at when the cost of war becomes overwhelming. Racism, bigotry and hate are overcome when the cost of racism, bigotry and hate becomes too great for society to bear.

As long as nations and peoples perceive the cost of war as acceptable, then we will have war.

Wretchard once noted that wars are fought as wars, not as tea parties. Innocents die, great cities are laid to waste and vast populations suffer for years. Bad things happen, and in the heat of battle, barbarism will occur. That is all part of the cost of war. If most people had their say, there would be no aggressive wars. They after all, are the ones who suffer the most and they understand who really bears the cost. The leaders of nations and faiths that demand war aren’t usually made to pay the price till long after most if the damage has been done- if ever.

The problem is that most people don’t have a say. Nations and leaders that demand aggressive wars are not free nations. They are ruthless tyrannies that exist only to serve themselves and their needs. As we have noted,

When nations that are that are led by or are under the influence of tyrants or dictators, attempt to justify those actions, we can rightly assume that justification is false. Tyrants and dictators do not make moral choices, because moral choices can only lead to the demise of the tyranny.

Anyone that comes to the defense of tyrannical regimes and their leaders, have themselves made a conscious choice to defend and stand by what is immoral. It should be repeated.

Abba Eban remarked that

History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives.

The economics of conflict, explained clearly.

Dr Sanity:

The best strategy of these new barbarians seems to be to unleash their own barbarism, then let the intellectuals of the West make the appropriate apologies for them.

In other words, we are paying the price for Islamic radicalism, bigotry and hate because there are those on the left who equating radical Islamic stated ideologies as equal to our own.

The radical Islamist’s readily admit to their agenda of a global Caliphate. Those agendas are finding greater acceptance, as we ‘talk’ and ‘discuss’ them, even as the radicals become more vicious and violent- and all the while, chemical and biological agents are cooked up in bathtubs. Hamas has threatens to use those weapons.

It also has to be made clear that the problems in the Middle East are not derivative of Israel’s existence.

American troops would have been invited to the region's Kings and Princes, regardless of Israel. Saddam would have invaded Kuwait and years earlier, the Egyptians would have used chemical weapons in Yemen. Hafez Al Assad would have butchered 15,000 to 30,000 in Hama, irrespective of American foreign policies .

Israel’s fight with Lebanon based Hizbollah is not political and never was. Hizbollah sees the conflict with Israel as an existential, having nothing to do with politics or borders. Indeed, Nasrallah, Fadlalah, et al, have made clear that the existence of Israel, with any borders and regardless of peace treaties, cannot be tolerated. Nasrallah makes not even the slightest attempt to hide his agenda. He rejoices that there are many Jews in the land he wants to eliminate. In speaking of his murderous intentions toward Jews, he is deliberate- 'It will save us the trouble of rounding them up.'

Clearly, as far as Hizbollah is concerned, violence in the region is not predicated in political differences. The violent elimination of Israel are clear and unequivocal stated goals. In Hizbollah’s world, Israel is simply not permitted to exist. Most of the Arab world share those beliefs. They have thrown down the gauntlet, by refusing to recognize the Jewish state. They have issued the challenge.

It is up to Israel and the civilized world to reiterate, underscore and remind Hizbollah and other Arab opponents, the cost of their call to arms, to ‘’slaughter the Jew!’ or 'Slaughter the American!'

There has to be a clear message at the upcoming peace talks at Annapolis. The cost of violence and terror will extract a higher cost from those who unleash that terror and violence. To reward the Palestinians, Hizbollah and much of the Arab world for their venom by ‘holding back,’ and not repudiating their stated bigotry and hate is absurd.

The rules of civilizations are far more preferable to war. Those rules however, are applicable to those who understand that war is preferable to peace. For over 60 years, we have been ‘talking’ and ‘discussing’ with regimes that would harm our interests at at moment notice, and regimes who openly admit that if given the opportunity, would eliminate Israel, America and for that matter, the western world that doesn't share the 'values' that celebrate misogyny and the subjugation a of women, the slaughter and oppression of some non Muslims, including Jews, gays, apostates and others. (That is no exaggeration. In 2002, Saudi Arabia's 'religious' police prevented schoolgirls from escaping a burning school building because they weren't wearing 'appropriate' religious garb).

For sixty years, the American position on Israel and the Arab nations in the Middle East under every administration since Truman has been remarkably consistent. Irrespective of the Republican or Democrat occupants of the White House, American policy has been remarkably consistent and clear:

• Cessation of hostilities.
• diplomatic recognition.
• secure borders.

What exactly is so onerous a burden for the Arab world? After 60 years, those things have yet to be fully accepted by the Arab world.

Imagine negotiating with the Nazi Party for 60 years, during which time it engaged in a limited- but relentless terror and war- as well as their stated genocidal aims.

There comes a point after which negotiations are pointless. Israel and the west reached that point 50 years ago.

Israel must do what it needs to do, as noted in this Der Speigel article.

The pacifist reaction that the Israeli defensive war has triggered in Germany and Europe is not well thought out and is disingenuous. It is also counter-productive. An immediate cease-fire would merely result in a worse conflict in the future. The consequences drawn from Adolf Hitler’s World War II — “Never again fascism! Never again war!” — were intended to prevent an anti-Semitic war from ever again taking place. Today, that lesson has been forgotten. “Never again war against fascism” is all that remains.

Israel must not be forced to abandon its war against Hezbollah, rather it must win the conflict. Just as Hezbollah is fighting the war as Iran’s proxy, Israel is fighting genocidal Islamism as the proxy for the rest of the Western world. The least Israel should be able to expect from the West is that it not be betrayed.

There is a cost to war and there is a cost to defending the rules of civilized nations.

From The Age Of Faith To The Age Of Reason And Other Imaginary Flights

One of the great assumptions (rarely questioned) of the ages, is that progress is the great impetus for secularism. In fact, many argue that secularism and progress are the result of the abandonment of religion and/or long held moral values. These are ideas are taught everyday, if not directly, then by implication, in schools across the country. By the time students hit college, to even question that assumption is to mark oneself as ‘uninformed’ and irrelevant. The well known sociologist, Bryan Wilson stated that modernity and religion are incompatible. Anyone who flushes a toilet or watches television cannot believe in the divine.

How did that come to pass? Why is the assumption that progress, by necessity, means secularism, and that this belief is never challenged? We believe there are two primary reasons.

Firstly, religion has been removed from the public square. Of course, in our value system, religion, specifically any one religion, should not dominate that public square, for a myriad of reasons. Nor should the public square be used to promote the religious dogma of one faith over another. We can all agree on that. Nevertheless, it bears remembering that promoting universal religious values (remarkably consistent expressions in most faiths) is not the same as promoting religious dogma.

It is also clear that we have reached a point where there are no public debates where religion can have an equal voice in helping to shape our communities.

The great Town Hall debates, used to be held in churches, because it understood that in matters from morality to the settling of disputes, the churches had standing (that is not be meant to imply that churches were perfect). The secularists could not abide that. In their world, there was no place for God. They could not tolerate or risk a confrontation on issues of morality with the Churches. They wanted to stack the deck against religion and churches, by obviating and neutralizing them. Liberalism, evolutionary theory, Marxist ideology, and so on were all designed to exclude religion. Man himself was to be elevated to a god-like status. One didn’t need God to be merciful and high minded. We wrote in Battle for The American Soul, the forces that needed to dismiss faith in God as a source of morality and values, accomplished that by focusing on the ‘rights‘ society was obligated to provide, rather than the obligations of individual in society.

While it is true free societies naturally evolve, they must retain some of the original ‘DNA’ that was there at their creation. That original ‘DNA’ that served as the basis of free societies had less to do with the self and a lot to do with the society and community. What causes societies and communities to be be founded and succeed, is the abiding focus on the welfare of that society and community, as a whole. It is true that great emphasis in free societies is placed on the individual, but in the end, that focus is really about the place the individual has within society. In exchange for his contributions, the individual is accorded certain rights and privileges- in exchange for those contributions and obligations.

In addition to ‘neutralizing’ God and faith as sources of credible moral values equal to secular values, there was another movement against religious participation in society- and that ideology further aided the subsequent marginalization of believers. That movement was spearheaded with the false notion that religion and science were incompatible. One could not be a scientist and be religious. That of course, flies in the face of reality. Science was once the purview of the religious communities, from Catholicism, to Islam to Judaism, but it didn’t matter. Illiterate and ill educated masses, weaned on the false gods of agendized ideologies, were nothing more than pawns in a game played by those who sought what all ideologues seek- control.

History textbooks are replete with the idea that as social structure evolved, so did ‘consciousness’ (read- progress). What is left unclear is why technological progress, by itself, should undermine religion. It is also fair to ask why great migratory shifts, a dominant feature of industrialization, for example, should serve to undermine religion. These assertions are taken as truth- but in reality, they remain theories at best.

It is true that culture, philosophy and value systems are all subjects that merit study on their own. That said, they cannot however, be separated from the belief systems that gave them life- the religious, historical and social systems from which they arose. In fact, it is those origins that help those fields of study to keep on evolving.

It is the secularists that wish to make the distinction from religious influence to secularism a clear and cataclysmic event. The way we learn history reflects that. In less than a century, we were to have gone from the ‘Age of Faith’ to the ‘Age of Reason.’ Supposedly, the legend goes, we went from a universally religious society to an almost universally secular one. That too, is a lie. The idea that primitive man is religious while educated man is not, is a mythology, used as a marketing tool of secularism. The truth is clear- every single version of materialism, skepticism and spiritual devotion can be found across the spectrum of the human condition of recorded human history. Where there was man, there was the drama of human achievement and human failures, of greatness and pettiness, of good and evil. Those real truths correspond to the same spectrum of beliefs found today, all over the world.

In fact, the first real secularists were the Jews and Christians. They were to question everything. They were to debate the meaning of man and life. Within each religion were debates, wars, intellectual truces and eventual compromises. Not quite the description of religion taught, is it?

A strong and real argument can be made that religious thought is far more flexible than secularist thought. Moral beliefs are by fluid and solid at the same time. Trees have trunks that are solid and resolute- and yet, that same organism has branches and leaves that flutter in the wind. Religion has never been anything but forgiving and yet is always resolute. It is the secularist that demands ‘boxes.’

Religion and our struggle with faith, has come a long way, especially in this great nation. In fact, we have contributed mightily to the evolution of religion and the understanding of what is real faith. We wrote:

In truth, for a long time, religion was used as method of oppression. However, that expression of faith has no foothold here. We were founded by those who wished to escape that and other forms of tyranny. It is religion that allowed for and was the original guarantor of freedom in this country.

Is secularism the answer to our future? Secularism, and all it’s derivatives, were understandable reactions to being held underfoot by a Church and faith that cared not a whit for it’s believers. That Church, thankfully, no longer exists, in no small measure due to the reality that human dignity, especially under God’s Dominion, demanded freedom. When a slave broke the chains of his bondage, he didn’t stay long enough to have tea and say good bye to his master. He ran, as far and fast as he could.

Those former slaves to that less than whole and open Church, found a new replacement for God. That new religion, for many, was Science- and Ethics. Nietzsche defiantly and confidently declared that “God is Dead.” He was right. The God that Nietzsche and the other starring cast of the Enlightenment understood and knew, was indeed dead. In it’s place a new belief structure arouse. As the Church once oppressed, in extremis, so too did the resulting backlash of secularism, in a hedonistic orgy of self centered obsession.

Those are not assumptions. They are a realistic assessment of where we came from, where we are and where we are going. Try as they might, secularists have been able to kill God. The great and universal truth that the more freedom man is allowed, the more ready and wiling he is to accept God and faith as part of his reality.

Edward Shils wrote that Western intellectuals espoused four intellectual traditions: scientism, romanticism, apolalypticism and populism. The American intellectual community has embraced the first two traditions. Scientism is self explanatory. Romanticism, as an intellectual pursuit, can be understood as the appreciation of the genius of the individual. That is, anything that highlights and spotlights individual achievements. Traditions, family, community faith all are enemies of individual self expression. The market, and sense of communal obligation are anathema to the individual- they impose restrictions and preclude ’self expression’- as if self expression were the highest of human achievements. The notion that communities have expectations from their citizens is repugnant to these ‘thinkers.’ Communities are an enemy of genuineness and creativity. In The Battle for the American Soul, we posit that is an absurd notion. N