Jeremy wrote:
] Paul Berman writes for the New York Times Magazine on Sayyid
] Qutb.
]
] This is some rather deep reading for a Sunday
] afternoon.

So, the problem with this philosophy is obvious, and I mentioned this to you when I met with you in Boston, and I considered writing about this to the English newspaper in Malaysia when they printed an editorial along these lines when I was there. (I still wonder if that wouldn't have been a good idea.)

When you put God and the king in the same chair the result must be despotism. Because you cannot question God. To question God is to commit heresy. And if God is the king, then you cannot question the king, and so the king may do anything that he wants, and there is nothing that you can do about it, lest you be branded a heretic. It is patently naieve to think that the disciplines of Islam will keep leaders from taking liberties. We have, at this late stage of the game, loads and loads of real experience running states like this and we know exactly what happens. THIS is the lesson of human history, these people are quite correct that you cannot build a philosophy which ignores human nature.

Of course, Mcluhan is the only person that I know of who has ever provided a justification for the duality of western society. Religion, he said, acts as a buffer for progress, as progress is disruptive and therefore tends to be painful for people who lag behind. The duality moves things forward at a pace that people can manage.

That having been said, Empires, no matter how benevolent in their intentions, always end in despotism as well. The problem with empires aren't taxes levied nor can I honestly even reconcile the concept of social self-determination with the idea of forcing people to have a liberal democracy even if they don't want it. The problem is that if the king has overwhelming force, you cannot question the king, lest you wind up dead. Eventually, the king always takes liberties with this power. THIS is the lesson of human history. We have, at this late stage of the game, loads and loads of real experience running states like this and we know exactly what happens. If you can force them to have a liberal democracy you can force them to do all kinds of things. Social self-determination means they aren't being forced.

The "neo-conservatives" as they are now being called, much like the radical Islamists, have allowed their self confidence and conviction to blind them to their flaws.

I continue to feel like I'm standing between poles that I cannot align myself with. I've yet to find anyone in this mess who represents what I would consider a solution that will not end in a bloodbath. Northern Canada is sounding like a nicer destination every day.

RE: The Philosopher of Islamic Terror