Pages

Showing posts with label Islamic Conquests. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamic Conquests. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Also Sprach Zarathustra. And What Say You, Khamenei?

Afshin Ellian is blogging today on the rich pre Islamic cultures and religions of Iran. This Wednesday marks an important day in the tradition of Zoroastrianism. But it's caught up in the crack down of the regime on dissenters.

Rather than translating the entire post, due to time constraints have chosen in part for the descriptive style.

Iran is the only Muslim country with a strong pre Islamic consciousness. For centuries people have been trying to keep the traditions alive, none to the pleasure of the Ayatollahs.

In the Middle Ages the Islamic authorities declared the people of Zarathustra dhimmis, on par with Jews and Christians. This saved their lives.

- Capture: Chehel Sotoun's Wall painting, that dates back to the Safavid era, depicts a Chaharshanbe Suri celebration - 

Festivities begin on the eve of the last Wednesday of the year: Chaharshanbe Suri. Bonfires are lit. Jumping the flames cleanses the soul. It is followed by the green celebrations, the feast of the resurrection of nature. Not death, matyrdom, not paradise, but life in the here and now is celebrated.

Last night millions of people in Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Kurdistan celebrated victory of light over darkness. The Ayatollahs have been trying for centuries to declare the festivities unislamic. This year Ayatollah Khamenei pronounced a fatwa, denouncing the celebrations as irrational perfidy.
"Irrational? Is Islamic prayer rational? Is chopping off hands in the 21st century rational? Is the adoration of a building in Mekka rational? Perfidy? Is the rape of protesters not perfidy? What is perfidy? Having sex with a nine year old girl, or the celebration of the eternal light?
Will Khamenei's fatwa be respected? Will there be no celebrations this year? What's quite rational are the security measures taken in Tehran. The leaders of the green movement, Mousavi and Karoubi have been calling for the celebrations to proceed as usual. As a matter of intimidation the Revolutionary Court convicted six protesters to death. To no avail."
It started after sunset. Violent confrontations between security forces and protesters have been reported in Tehran, Isfaham, Mashhad, Ardebiel, Rasht, Boroujerd and other cities. The green movement isn't against Islam, but against the tyranny of the Islamists. Most greens want a secular state.

Watch the videos in the original post.

Update

Der Spiegel sits down with Neda Agha Soltan's fiance, the 38 year old journalist Caspian Makan, who fled the country and now lives in Canada.

Related dossiers

- "Ellian Blogs"
- "Persian Power Play"
- "Nuclear Proliferation"
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Friday, February 5, 2010

"We Didn't Know" is No Excuse

Andrew Bostom is publishing a series on Pajamas on the history of infidels in Iran. Bostom is an authority on the fate of non Muslims in Muslim conquered lands, the so-called dhimmis. Part II was just released. Part III is coming up soon. We'll link to it as soon as it becomes available. The historian Bat Yeor coined the term in her book "Islam and Dhimmitude".

Would the Amsterdam anti discrimination Court, where Geert Wilders is currently on trial, be aware of all that? Given that 15 expert witnesses out of the 18 requested by Wilders were rejected by the Court, defending counsel's reaction was that "apparently they already know".

The series is reminiscent of Wilders' proposal for the rag head tax! Regretably it went nowhere. It would have given cause to a lifely debate. A junior journalist who went undercover in Wilders' party, said he even regretted it.

Turns out, the Nazis invented very little themselves. Antisemitism laws appear to have been lifted 1o1 from Muslim tradition. Part II of Bostom's series relates that even the World War II Star of David badge is an old Iranian custom. All that might well have had something to do with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, an uncle of Yasir Arafat, who was a regular on the Nazi scene.

We have our own theory here, that the genocide of the Jewish tribe of Medina, the Banu Qurayza, later stood model for both the Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocide, as well as the Holocaust of World War II. At least it must have justified it, because it gave the mass murders a religious base.

Read all about it in "The Medina Precedent for Holocaust and Genocide" and "The Turkish Genocides, the Endless Story".

Also by Andrew Bostom: "The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims" and "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism".

Pajamas: "Jihad and Genocidal Islamic Anti-Semitism in Shi’ite Iran": Part I - Part II - Part III

Related dossiers:

- "The Unholy Alliance"

Thursday, December 3, 2009

The Turkish Capacity for Chutzpah

In a recent entry on the Articles file "In Defense of Liberty" we brought up the matter of a Dutch Parliamentary delegation headed for Turkey running into trouble, because the Turkish Government refused to meet with Geert Wilders, a member of the party. It's just become official and to his honor, the Socialist leader of the group has cancelled the tour altogether.

The Turkish Government kindly confirmed for us a number of 'preconceptions' we are allegedly laboring under. For one, true to tradition and in a fit of psychological projection, they're blaming the other party. Secondly, that they are not mature enough to join the EU. The Muslim sense for solidarity trumps objectivity every time. And get this! It's not them who are intolerant, but Wilders, the xenophobes, the Dutch, the Swiss, the Islamophobes, the fascists!

The Erdogan Government's top EU negotiator Egemen Bagis just commented on the Swiss anti minaret plebiscite. (N.B. Switzerland is not an EU member state.) He's advising rich muzzlemen to remove their pots of gold from Swiss banking paradise and place them on Turkish halal banks: that'll make the Alpine fascists see the error of their intolerance!

He went on to state that Turkey easily meets the EU requirement of respecting minorities. Yeah, ask the Greeks, the Armenians, the Assyrians, the Kurds, or any other former subject of the Ottoman Empire or of the current secular state! Your jaw hitting the pavement yet? There's more where that came from.

Yassin Musharbash writing in Germany's Der Spiegel makes an argument which truly defies all logic. He's asserting that the rationality behind the often heard demand for Islamo-Christian reciprocity is bizarre! (By the way, has anyone heard anything of late about the Pope's talks with 138 Muslim clerics?)

- Caption: Head uncovered, Patriarch Athenagoras prays before the overturned altar table of the destroyed Panagia Church in Belgratkapi. (Photo by Demetrios Kaloumenos) - Hat Tip: My Greek Odyssey -

It's false equivalence, says Yassin Musharbash in his Spiegel article, because ... as we all know ... Christians in Muslim countries are indigenous, while Muslims in Christian countries are not! Makes all the difference, right?! Of all false arguments this one fairly takes the cake!

Specifically noteworthy from a revisionist view point is:
"As Islam spread from Saudi Arabia, the number of Christians dropped as many people converted to the new religion. Forced conversions were the exception; many sought the tax benefits that came with being Muslim. Today, of course -- primarily on account of massive exoduses -- there are relatively few Christians in the Arab and Muslim world, perhaps only a few percent. Even Bethlehem no longer has a Christian majority.
Let me translate that for you. As Mohammed's conquering hordes swept through Christian lands, Christians heartily and voluntarily converted to the new "religion of peace". The choice of death, conversion or jizyah never came into it. (It's the first time I've seen it described as a "tax benefit".) The entire arrangement was so successful that said converts - again entirely of their own free will - exited Muslim conquered lands en masse. That's why there are now only few Christians left in the Arab world, including Bethlehem and quite a few other locations in the Dar-Al-Islam ...

Turks truly are the champion producers of chutzpah. It fairly takes your breath away.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Geert Wilders and the Rag-Head Tax Plot

During the debates that mark the beginning of the Dutch Parliamentary year Geert Wilders once again had his opponents enraged to the point of breaking blood vessels and generally getting their multicultural knickers in a twist.


What's he done now?

Well, he's proposed a rag-head tax ... eh what?

That's a tax on head-scarves. Here's an article on the site of Dutch International Radio. You can read Wilders' entire speech for Parliament here.

- Caption: Ottoman revenue stamps (Crete) - 

Wilders proves once again to be a clever politician while his opponents appear to be in a permanent state of collective psychosis induced by postmodern outrage (feigned, or otherwise). Wilders on the other hand, has laid his ambush with patience and care. 

He's probably preparing more of the same, only to turn the table on the political correctness brigades at the last moment, possibly at the height of the campaign for city council elections early next year.

Special taxes is the sort of measure in the time honored tradition of the Dar-al-Islam*. In the West it is now sadly forgotten (or whiped from our carefully sanitized history text books). Muslim conquerors were wont to give the vanquished three choices: convert, pay or die.  

- Caption: scene of a trial on Crete during Ottoman rule (1879) - 

Pay, consists of a tax called jizya, another discriminatory injustice, according to this wiki rooted in the prehistory of the Arabian dessert. Sadly, that doesn't explain why the conquering Turkish hordes did the exact same thing. The most bitter aspect of it is that the subjugated - in effect - financed their own defeat and occupation. That this practice still exists in the Dar-al-Islam is described in colorful terms in this article.

The Muslim conquerers were masters in thinking up methods to humiliate and oppress the dhimmis. The Greeks for example were forbidden to ride horses, because that would make them appear more impressive than a Muslim riding a donkey, and that would never do. The dhimmi must be kept in place. This was institutionalised in the Ottoman millet** system.

At present, development aid, subsidies and other NGO and Government sponsored programs benefiting the Dar-al-Islam may be construed as
a form of jizyah; appeasement of terrorism a non-monetary manifestation of jizyah.

Wilders also demanded from the Government to submit to Parliament a cost benefit analysis of migration policies over the last couple of decades or so. In a constitutional novelty the Government has refused to do so, justifying their Contempt of Parliament with the excuse that it is technically not possible to produce such figures. If the cost exceeds the benefit, that's also a form of jizyah.

Wilders, the clever man, is in stitches while the multiculti condemn his proposals as barbaric, uncivilized, fascist, racist, and what have you - only to be confronted with the fact that this is precisely what Muslims do to non Muslims living in what they consider to be "the lands dominated by Islam".

Go, Geert!

* The home of the Ummah (Muslim collective) is the Dar-al-Islam, the land that "belongs" to Islam. It was largely Christian before the conquests. Land that doesn't "belong" to Islam is the Dar-al-Harb, the land of war - that's us; until we submit that is, and become incorporated in Dar-al-Islam.

**
The millet system is explained quite well in this video about the Armenian genocide.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

The Cross and the Crescent (II)

From the desk of Dr Sam C. Holliday, director of the Armiger Cromwell Center

~~-:-~~

Strategy of the Third Jihad
It is a mistake to focus only on terror. The strategy of the Third Jihad is far more complex. It is to be expected that the media, politicians, and those trained for conventional War will focus on the violence of Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban. After all, this is why the current conflict is called a War on Terror – although terror is only a tactic.

However, the most significant threat to Western culture comes from non-violent means: infiltration into Western countries; the conversion of people to Islam; subversion of Western institutions – particularly academic; manipulation of the media; demonstrations and other forms of confrontation; penetration of Western political parties through funding; and manipulation of Western legal systems. The objective is to undermine confidence in traditional values as well as legal and political systems.

This is not to suggest that terror, and the direct action units of Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban, are not important tools used by the Third Jihad, but to suggest that they are not necessarily the most important. Neutralizing those using terror tactics is a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient condition.

The Third Jihad is a continuation of a religiously inspired movement based on an ideology teaching that it is every Muslim's duty to use any means necessary to compel everyone’s submission to "the way of the Prophet." After Muhammad’s death, in the seventh century, the First Jihad spread under the caliphs (vice regents) west from Medina across North Africa and then into Spain, France, and Italy, and east across the Middle East deep into Southwest Asia. Then Islam consolidated its control of the lands conquered.

The First Jihad ended in 1492 when Islam was driven out of Spain. The Second Jihad started with the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The Ottoman Turks then implanted Islam in the Balkans and established hegemony over lands from North Africa to India. The Second Jihad was stopped in 1682 with an unsuccessful attempt to capture Vienna; it was held in check during the modern era (eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) by European power, and ended in 1924.

In 1979 the Third Jihad started with the Shah of Iran being overthrown by Shiite followers of Ayatollah Khomeini. It was given focus in February 1998 with a Sunni fatwa, which declared war on America and its allies. The Third Jihad is just another effort to spread Islam – and to take down the Great Satan. The goal of the Third Jihad is to replace all secular governments from Morocco to Indonesia with a single Great Caliphate that would then be able to convert the rest of the world to Islam. This is why it is an illusion to think that the threat will end just as soon as Western armed forces are withdrawn from the Middle East.

Among the tactics and techniques used by the Third Jihad are:

  • Infiltrating and taking over existing political, social, campus, and cultural organizations to realign them towards the goals of the Third Jihad;
  • Using deception to mask the intended goals;
  • Cultivating the intellectual community into "understanding Islam," including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize positions of the Third Jihad and to chronicle the peaceful history of Islam;
  • Using destructive criticism to weaken those in authority by suggesting they are an elite mistreating the “disadvantaged” for their own personal interests;
  • Maintaining the appearance of “moderation” by avoiding public alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals;
  • Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratic institutions on all levels in Europe and America, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;
  • Using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into the service of the Third Jihad;
  • Monitoring Western media in order to quickly respond to "smears against Muslims;" Forming alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that can provide aid and support to Islamic action groups;
  • Keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind;”
  • Establishing a right to Sharia law within their communities;
  • Making the Palestinian cause a global wedge issue for all Muslims;
  • Collecting funds to indefinitely support the Third Jihad globally; and
  • Establishing financial networks to fund actions in target countries.
These tactics and techniques are used differently within each target country to weaken or overthrow those in authority. However, the Third Jihad does have a general strategy of five stages in which conflict moves from peace, through irregular warfare, to war. This is the same strategy used by insurgents for centuries. The tactics and techniques listed above are the activities by the insurgents – who can be either home grown or from other countries – during the first, second, and third stages.

Terror is not used in the first stage (Creation), and it has an insignificant role in the second stage (Organization). Terror plays an important role in the third stage (Control of the People) and is expanded in the fourth stage (Territorial Control), as the conflict becomes hybrid war. In the final stage (Overthrow) violence goes beyond terror to become conflict between the insurgents/embryonic state and the authorities of a state/failed state. In fact often the final stage can accurately be called a civil war.

- Creation
A few individuals organize clandestinely. They increase the size of the underground and attempt to cause or accentuate insecurity among the people and weaken the government’s influence.

- Organization
The leaders continue to build their organization, camouflaging it behind legitimate political, social, humanitarian, campus, religious, and labor organizations. Action to cause insecurity and dissatisfaction grows bolder with strikes, riots, selective terrorism, and intimidation. The insurgents’ aim at this stage is to cause the officials to react awkwardly and to take politically unwise steps.

- Control of the People
Direct action units are organized, but terrorism is restricted. The aim is to weaken loyalty to the government. Warfare is everywhere and nowhere. The insurgents control certain areas, which the police avoid. The goal is to transfer the loyalty of the people from the government to the insurgent organization.

- Territorial Control
The insurgents create a base of operations and establish a “liberation government” to rival the legal authorities. Direct action units start to operate from the base areas, and the use of terror increases. Psychological operations, to gain approval for the insurgents and contempt for the government, are intensified both internally and externally.

- Overthrow
Operations are conducted to cause the fall of the government and to establish the insurgents as the legal government. During this stage the conflict might remain irregular warfare or it might be transformed into civil war.

Strategy to Defeat the Third Jihad
More effective ways to neutralize the tactics, techniques and strategies of the Third Jihad must be used in the future if it is to be defeated. We must defeat, deter, or neutralize our enemy. In irregular warfare there is never the final victory of conventional war – success is defined by stability.

First, we must recognize that destroying a few leaders will not end the Third Jihad. The leaders represent an important segment of our enemy, but not its totality. Second, we do not want to make Islam or an entire culture our enemy. Third, we must recognize that the demise of Israel will not mean an end of the Third Jihad, even though Israel will always be used to rally support for the Third Jihad. Fourth, we must recognize that withdrawal from the Middle East will only embolden the evildoers (Hirabahists) and make the final clash of civilizations more likely.

The best strategy for those that want to defend Western culture would be to:

1. Assure that Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East, is stabilized and that worldwide no state is willing to support insurgents attempting to overthrow those in authority.

2. Work toward energy independence through: (a) developing alternative sources of oil so that our economy is not dependent on energy sources that our enemies can disrupt; (b) using less oil, and less energy overall, while maintaining our standard of living; (c) developing new sources of energy – primarily nuclear.

3. Adopt a policy of containment until the faults within the Third Jihad cause its ideological certitude to collapse, and pursue policies, both overt and covert, to hasten this collapse.

4. Face the fact that communication superiority is a prerequisite for success in irregular warfare, just as air superiority is a prerequisite for victory in conventional war. To date we have been ineffective in the strategic communication campaign to strengthen the will of our own people, to weaken the will of our enemies, and gain the support of people around the world. In the current battle of wills, strategic communication is the center of gravity. This conflict is not to be won through economic, diplomatic, and military means.

5. Develop a message as effective as Muhammad's in winning hearts and minds and a sociopolitical structure based on that message which is more powerful than that of the global revivalist movement known as the Third Jihad. Recognize that the true believers of the Third Jihad are willing to suffer, sacrifice, deceive, kill, conquer, and die for their cause. Recognize that we need true believers in our cause.

6. Encourage the respected leaders and scholars of the Islamic world to condemn those using violence in the name of Islam in religious terms, rather than in Western secular terms, and condemn those in the West who give aid, comfort, and support to the evildoers (Hirabahists).

7. Make a distinction between war, irregular warfare, and peace and develop stability forces, distinctive from war fighting forces, specifically for operations in irregular warfare. Integrate members of all government agencies (specifically Defense, State, CIA, USIA, USAID, and Commerce) into the stability forces. Deploy war fighting forces as a deterrent in peace and irregular warfare but only engage them in combat for extended periods of time with a declaration of war by Congress. Use stability forces in overt and covert operations during peace and irregular warfare. Revise the JCS Unified Command Plan into a National Security Operations Plan so that the stability forces have adequate supervision and support during peace and irregular warfare.

8. Take actions to counter the effects of postmodern thought on Western culture. The weakening of the will in Europe and America, and ability to protect Western culture as it developed in the modern era (until the 1960s), has many causes. Partly it is the result of actions by those disillusioned by World War I and World War II, and partly it is the result of the cycle of rise and fall common to all groups. The ability to counter the Third Jihad depends on strengthening the will of all of those who value Western culture.

Nation-building
We need to become more skillful in getting others to build their own nations at little or no cost to us. Those identifying with the nation being built must accomplish nation-building. Others can assist, but the leadership, dedication, vision, and energy must come from within – from those who are part of the nation being built. At the heart of nation-building is the creation and maintenance of a common sense of identity from which behavior is self regulated without coercion. Neocolonialists (those of the Wilsonian School) often assumed that the United States can build nations – this is foolhardy.

- Caption: Afghan heroin, police woman Malalai Kakar -

Nation-building requires continual attention to four interrelated tasks:

1. Achieve stability within a specific territory.
2. Provide effective local authority.
3. Organize and motivate the people.
4. Satisfy aspirations of the people.

Achieving stability is a prerequisite for the other three tasks. However, stability cannot be seen as an end in itself. It is merely a means to the end of nation-building. However, when the focus is on the creation of a state, actions to control the territory of that state can be carried to the extreme – such actions actually hinder nation-building since they do not produce a self-regulating equilibrium. This has been a major reason the neo-colonialists have failed to achieve long-term benefits.

Stability is achieved when the government of a state has a monopoly on force within the territory of that state, and no other group within that territory is willing, or thinks it is able, to use force to achieve political ends. Police forces of the provinces must be integrated into an alliance coordinated by the central government. In addition the central government would have armed forces stronger than any of the provinces. Any group committed to the use of force to weaken or overthrow the established government, i.e. insurgents, must be neutralized. It makes no difference where the insurgents come from.

  • First of all, this requires an effective intelligence system that will allow rapid response to any attempt at intimidation by the insurgent group, or payment to it.
  • When terrorism becomes a tool, policing appropriate for ordinary crime must be supplemented with counterinsurgency units, tactics and techniques. This will usually require some temporary limitations on civil rights and the legal system. This will require agreement on a social contract, which establishes limits on police activity, and the appropriate checks and balances. Finally, if the insurgent group gains control of any territory, control must be regained, with armed force if necessary, and the leaders must be neutralized.
A second task of nation-building is to provide effective local authority. Each individual lives in a concrete, human, face-to-face world of clear and specific events and situations. Aspirations and an unseen environment may shape his spiritual and material life, but he knows through what he sees, hears, smells, and feels.

This nation-building task provides local leadership – leadership which is: alert for signs of problems, inequalities, and injustices; able to use initiative and flexibility to win loyalty and produce results; capable of countering acts of intimidation, violence, and destruction; able to see that everyone can earn a decent living; loyal to the established institutions; creates a climate to encourage civilian investment; and is capable of educating each individual with values that blend freedom, ambition, duty, and responsibility in accordance with the customs and traditions of his nation. These judgments must be as seen through the eyes of the people and culture involved; they should not be as perceived through postmodern views in a wealthy, western, secular state.

The third nation-building task is to organize and motivate the people. A nation is no more than people welded together by a common destiny, which binds together tomorrow, today, and yesterday into an active whole. This nation-building task creates and maintains shared values, attitudes, habits, and goals which shape the institutions through which a nation lives and grows: the patterns of cooperation and conflict; the fabric of sanctioned relationships; the unseen lines of magnetic strength which link, join, and confine; the elusive cultural environment. This task creates kinship.

The fourth nation-building task is to satisfy aspirations of the people. The fuel of progress is the never-ending attempt to satisfy aspirations. Aspirations can unite people in a common effort; yet, aspirations can set one against another, preventing progress. Satisfying aspirations is an elusive, two-faced task of nation-building. Sole concern with satisfying aspirations can only result in turmoil, frustration, and bitterness; as past aspirations are approached new and more demanding ones are invented. This task means that each nation has its own, unique, ideology.

For all Arab-Muslim countries this means a replacement of the pseudo-religious radicalism taught in the mosques with the progressive, compassionate teaching of Islam. This task, just like achieving stability, will actually hinder nation-building when it is carried to an extreme. If this conceptual framework is to be useful, actions to accomplish these four tasks must be interrelated, and the building and maintenance of a nation must be seen as a never-ending process.

Conclusions
Muslim extremists (Hirabahists) are indeed a serious threat to modern Western culture, but so is postmodernism. We should attempt to weaken the evildoers (Hirabahists) through separating them from those Muslims who accept pluralism, and through encouraging secular Muslim states to neutralize them. While our strategy must attempt to eliminate the evildoers (Hirabahists), it must also seek alliance with those Muslims who want spiritual purity in the eyes of Allah together with better lives – freedom, equality, self-determination, representative government, and the pursuit of happiness.

Western culture must be freed from the decline and decay caused by postmodern thought. The balance between secular authority (the control of behavior through the rule of law) and sacred authority (the control of behavior through shared moral, ethical, and religious convictions that provide an inner compass for individuals) must be reestablished [ed. see "Secular and Sacred Authority: why we need it!"].

Traditional patriotism needs to be respected, and national identity must be valued more than multiculturalism and diversity. The U.S. government needs to reorganize so as to reflect the reality of irregular warfare, rather than the War and Peace dichotomy of the past 300 years.

Copyright © 2008 Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319-1322. 404-201-7374. Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net

More by Dr Sam Holliday filed in "The Armiger Cromwell Center"

Related:

- "Reforming Islam: Beware of the Fifth Column"
- "Effectively Communicating Jihad: a spade is a spade"



- Filed on Articles in "The Unholy Alliance" -

The Cross and the Crescent (I)

From the desk of Dr Sam C. Holliday, director of the Armiger Cromwell Center

~~-:-~~

In his 1996 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel Huntington predicts a clash between the West and the Islamic world as some Muslims continue their attempt to establish the Great Caliphate – in which everyone is governed by “the ways of the Prophet.” In 1921 Hendrick Van Loon, in The Story of Mankind, described the struggle between the cross and the crescent. He explains how peaceful Arab shepherds listened to Muhammad, mounted their horses, drew their swords, and in less than a century pushed to the heart of Europe and proclaimed the glories of Allah, “the only God,” and Muhammad, “the prophet of the only God.”

Today we face the third episode in the Great Jihad (Holy War). The current so-called War on Terror could be a precursor for a final Clash of Civilizations, or it might be only a skirmish, which if handled correctly can prevent death and destruction of a magnitude the world has never seen. This essay is an attempt to determine the nature of the current threat to Western culture and to suggest what should be done.

Possible Outcomes
If ever there is conflict to the point that either Western culture or Islamic culture is utterly vanquished the world will be fundamentally altered. There will be more death and destruction than in World War I, II, and the Cold War combined. Terror will be an everyday occurrence, and weapons of mass destruction will kill millions.

Our challenge is not to accept the inevitability of this final Clash of Civilizations, but to do whatever is possible to prevent it. True excellence is not killing all of your enemies, but defeating your enemies without killing. Reasonable people must have the conviction, knowledge, and courage to challenge the extremists on both sides – evildoers (Hirabahists) and postmodernists.

However, from what we see on TV reasonable people might be in short supply. Reasonable Muslims around the world need to step forward and challenge those advocating the Third Jihad, for they are subverting Islam to advance their own agenda. The extremists call themselves jihadists (holy warriors), but they are hateful unholy warriors (Hirabahists) defaming the Prophet Muhammad.

Reasonable Westerners, and their allies around the world, need to prevent postmodern thinking from weakening Western culture to the point it is unwilling to defend itself and becomes an easy target for conquest by the Third Jihad. Postmodern thought attempts to eliminate or modify many of the roles, rules, standards, and character that were accepted as proper, good, and right in Western culture prior to the 1960s. Postmodernism visualizes "progress" toward an ideal “Postmodern Culture” that is nonjudgmental and nondiscriminatory, in which disagreements are resolved by universal law, debate, and compromise – but never by the use of force.

The Role of Islam
It is true that there are many violent apostates (Hirabahists) in mainstream Shi'a and Sunni Islam who claim they are faithful to the teachings of Muhammad. They often claim that the only basis in the Qur'an for Muslims to address non-Muslims is to struggle until the non-believers are converted, expelled, or destroyed. If most Muslims accept this view, the final Clash of Civilizations is inevitable.

But the teachings of Muhammad are not so simple – they combine opposites: struggle and tolerance. They present several kinds of jihad. It all depends on what Muslims are led to read into Muhammad’s words and actions. Hopefully there are Muslims who want to avoid the death and destruction of the final Clash of Civilizations. If so, they must find ways to be faithful to the Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an while they stress inner jihad for themselves and practice compassion, mercy, and tolerance toward non-Muslims. However, this is certainly a long shot. Yet we must convince any such Muslims that they are our allies – that all Muslims are not our enemies.

Initially Muhammad spoke to the pagans who worshiped the meteorite now enclosed by the Kaba at Mecca. Islam was then expanded into a reform movement – in part to replace Judaism and Christianity that had, according to the Prophet Muhammad, gone astray and were no longer the proper legacy of Abraham, Moses, David, and Solomon. The Qur’an clearly states that the Bible is false, and rejects Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God.

Islam from the very start was a religion of struggle, both inner and against non-believers. It sought to eliminate temptations that the devil might use to erode commitment to Allah. It sought to get all people to submit to Allah. Islam does not give a high priority to economic wealth, prosperity, freedom, self worth, or comfort. Islam seeks purity. Thus in many ways Muslim true believers are less concerned about non-Islamic religions or Western armed forces being in their lands than they are about non-Islamic ways, i.e. movies, pop culture, dress and behavior. The challenge we all face is to show that Islamic purity is compatible with Western Culture—a very difficult challenge.

Obstacles
Islam is hostile to pluralistic, representative, secular government, since true believers consider Qur’an law and its sharia derivatives the only basis for governance. It is true that Christianity, Shinto, and other religions also do not have stellar records in this regard. However, dhimmi status (subordinate, disfranchised residents subject to discriminatory taxation and limits on freedom) is unique to Islam. Only when Islam controls a country and all non-Muslims have accepted dhimmi status can evildoers (Hirabahists) accept diversity.

Neither Islamic fundamentalism nor Western postmodernism can tolerate the coexistence of religion and reason. Neither will accept the suggestions in the lecture of Pope Benedict XVI at Regensburg on 12 September 2006. The Pope called for the rejection of dogmatic faith, cultural relativism, and forced conversion. But these seeds of hope fell on the unwelcoming ground of Islamic fundamentalism and Western postmodernism. Even some fundamentalist Christians did not welcome the Pope’s comments.

Islamic extremists see nonbelievers as too weak, too easily tempted, too confused to govern themselves; therefore, they must be shown the way, and protected, by scholar-jurists that know the way of Allah. With the same reasoning, postmodernists think people must be shown the way, and protected, by secular authority.

The evildoers (Hirabahists) see the Third Jihad as a way to seek their Utopian vision of restoring Islamic rule to all lands ever ruled by Muslims but now governed by Christians, Jews, and apostate Muslims. The secular transnational postmodernists of the West are equality rigid in their convictions as they seek their Utopian vision of a worldwide postmodern culture that is nonjudgmental, nondiscriminatory, and in which disagreements are resolved by law, debate and compromise – but never by the use of force.

It is true that Islamic extremists want to expel Western influences from all territory formerly under Muslim control. They want their politico-economic and philosophical views to be dominant. While most insurgents in the past were motivated by a Utopian view of a better world with economic equality and social fraternity, Islamic extremists seek spiritual purity in the eyes of Allah. They seek to protect people from worldly temptations; therefore they attempt to remove anything that will prevent people from submitting to Allah. Postmodernists solve the same problem by giving in to all temptations, thereby making the very idea of “temptations” moot.

Continued in Part II, "Strategy of the Third Jihad" ... "It is a mistake to focus only on terror. The strategy of the Third Jihad is far more complex. It is to be expected that the media, politicians, and those trained for conventional War will focus on the violence of Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban ..."

Copyright © 2008 Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319-1322. 404-201-7374. Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net

More by Dr Sam Holliday filed in "The Armiger Cromwell Center"

Related:

- "Reforming Islam: Beware of the Fifth Column"
- "Effectively Communicating Jihad: a spade is a spade"




- Filed on Articles in "The Unholy Alliance" -

Friday, May 30, 2008

Celebrating the Conquest of Byzantium

Today in History ...

Turkish Daily News: "Conquest celebrations depict Istanbul as a Muslim city"

As Istanbul's municipality and governorship celebrate the 555th anniversary of the conquest of Istanbul, academics believe the significance attached to the celebrations has been increasing over the last decades due to a rise in Islamist sentiments in Turkey. (...) Nilüfer Narlı (an academic at Bahçeşehir University) (...) argued that, though the conquest has significance in Turkish history in general, the idea of Istanbul becoming a Muslim city is particularly important to Islamist segments of the population. The municipality and government have also been criticized for choosing to highlight the importance of the day, and its Islamic elements in particular. It is celebrated with the same fervor as the conquest and the Youth Day for the first time this year." (...) >>>

- Caption: Golden Horn building showing its Greek heritage, now housing a private college -

Here are some YouTube images of the large scale celebrations last year.

Jihad Watch has the story of Constantinople's fall, narrated in part by historian Steven Runciman:

"Today marks the anniversary of the real Nakba, or perhaps more precisely the καταστροφή -- the Catastrophe: on this day in 1453, the armies of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II entered Constantinople, marking the end of the Eastern Roman Empire, more commonly known as the Byzantine Empire.

If anything deserves to be called an occupation, and a nakba, it is this, although it has, like so many other bloody conquests in human history, been legitimized by time. Still, if the descendants of the Christian inhabitants of Constantinople and Anatolia were to demand, and receive, a right of return, rapidly-Islamizing Turkey would look vastly different from how it looks now.

On this day in 1453, the conquerers were extraordinarily brutal. Historian Steven Runciman notes that the Muslim soldiers "slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women, and children without discrimination. The blood ran in rivers down the steep streets from the heights of Petra toward the Golden Horn. But soon the lust for slaughter was assuaged. The soldiers realized that captives and precious objects would bring them greater profit." (The Fall of Constantinople 1453, Cambridge University Press, 1965, p. 145.)

Some jihadists "made for the small but splendid churches by the walls, Saint George by the Charisian Gate, Saint John in Petra, and the lovely church of the monastery of the Holy Saviour in Chora, to strip them of their stores of plate and their vestments and everything else that could be torn from them. In the Chora they left the mosaics and frescoes, but they destroyed the icon of the Mother of God, the Hodigitria, the holiest picture in all Byzantium, painted, so men said, by Saint Luke himself. It had been taken there from its own church beside the Palace at the beginning of the siege, that its beneficient presence might be at hand to inspire the defenders on the walls. It was taken from its setting and hacked into four pieces." (P. 146.) The jihadists also entered the Hagia Sophia, which for nearly a thousand years had been the grandest church in Christendom. The faithful had gathered within its hallowed walls (...) >>>

- Caption: clay farm figurines from the Athens Byzantine and Christian Museum -

A tutorial on the Eastern Roman Empire is available on the site of Paul Stephenson.

And here are the poems by W.B. Yeats: Byzantium and Sailing to Byzantium

- Filed on Articles in "History Compiled (another catastrophe)" -

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

The Medina Precedent for Holocaust and Genocide

An article by Alyssa Lappen in World Net Daily reviewing Andrew Bostom's book "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History" shot back into memory the matter of our as yet unsubstantiated theory on the origins of antisemitism.

The figure linking Islam, Nazism and mass murder is Haj Amin al Husseini, who was an uncle of Yassir Arafat and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem until 1974.

Pearls of Wisdom has done a great job in compiling a biography which we have reproduced here in a separate post for fear is losing it.

Like so many the blogger subscribes to the line that Nazism introduced antisemitism and anti-Western Jihadism into Islam. Rather, given the sequence of events it must have been the other way around. Bostom's book also aims at repudiating that claim. The historical perspective needs adjustment beyond the last century.

- Caption: The infamous cover of the "Wiener Illustrierte" Magazine, of Al Husseini inspecting a division of Bosnian Storm Troopers , known as the Handzar -

It would seem that the Jews of Medina's rejection of Islam and their subsequent slaughter at the hand of Mohamed was used as a fateful precedent. The actions by Mohamed may well have been invoked by Al Husseini to justify the Ottoman genocidal persecution of Greeks and Armenians in the aftermath of World War I.

Also it may have inspired the Nazi Holocaust during World War II. The common denominator on the scene is Al Husseini, and the Muslim view how proper dhimmis are expected to behave: either die, convert, or pay under the condition of strict loyalty to the master religion.

An important part of Adolf Hitler's justification of the persecution of Jews was his accusation of treasonous behavior during World War I, the so-called Dolchstoss Legend which has as much reality status as the Russian Czarist "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," both having the status of Sorelian myths (see posting "At it again: Political Myths - God nor Reason", of which Leonard Peikoff writes in "The Ominous Parallels": "A 'myth,' in the Sorelian-Fascist-Nazi sense, is not a deliberate falsehood; it is an ideology concocted for the purposes of action (...) it is addressed not to man's capacity for reason, but to a mob's lust for faith, not to the fact-seeking intellect, but to the feeling-ridden, action-craving 'will.' [p. 58]).

The Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians were likewise accused of acts unbecoming their dhimmi status in the Ottoman Empire, during World War I when the Turks fought on the side of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria.

Here's Lappen on Bostom:

World Net Daily: "Exposed: Innate Islamic loathing for Jews," by Alyssa Lappen

(...) several Middle East and Islamic scholars have repeatedly asserted that 20th and 21st century Islamic anti-Semitism sprang solely from Nazi and European Christian influence. Even now, Islamophiles like Bernard Lewis preach (as it were) that virulent Jew-hatred is not inherent to Islam – but rather, anti-Semitism migrated to the Middle East with European colonialism. The Quran uses "hard words ... about the Jews," even Lewis admits. Yet under Islamic rule, he claims they were "only rarely subject to persecution" and "their situation was never as bad as in Christendom at its worst. ..." (...)

Dr. Andrew G. Bostom's extensive, scientific and largely unprecedented new book, "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History," definitively disproves such claims. (...) they can no longer shamelessly blame Christianity as the sole source of anti-Semitism – or more importantly, that Islam does not and never had its own innate brand of loathing for the Jewish people. Islam detests non-Muslims generally – whom sharia laws institutionally oppress and tax as underclass "dhimmis" – but inveighs especially intense odium against Jews. (...) >>>


- Filed on Articles in "The Unholy Alliance" -

Saturday, April 19, 2008

StE Theory: an alternative to "the Dialectics"

The adversarial approach in mentality and attitude that is second nature to generations of earthlings - notably to lawyers and politicians - is today generally taken as the natural course of things. Only very seldom is it recognized as a man-made phenomenon; that things could well have been different had other choices been made in the past. It is hardly ever seen as a deliberate strategy to enforce desired results, the phenomenon so cherished by the Left: 'change to progress', motivated and justified by the ethics of deontology (good-intent-bad-result-never-mind morality).

The culprit is at first sight an unlikely candidate, the German anti-modernist philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). He turns out to be the linchpin in the dichotomy of political Left and Rightism. This is not to be confused with the other popular Manichaism, which pits reactionaries against modernists (or Classical Liberals, or Libertarians; today's 'liberals' are actually Leftist Hegelians). Hegel's Leftist and Rightist followers were and are anti-modern Socialists.

Hegel's dialectic lies at the bottom of the adversarial approach, a fact exacerbated by the 'improvements' made by his follower of the Leftist variety, Karl Marx. The latter's dialectic resulted in the universe being radically and irreconcilably divided into two species of human beings: oppressors (those in power) against the oppressed (everyone else), a recipe for perpetual strife, war and bloody power struggle. The mechanism is admirably and in-depth explained in this article, and made visible in this chart.

Dr Sam Holliday, a regular contributor to these pages, is founder of the Armiger Cromwell Center and developer of the Theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE). He has now published an essay suggesting alternatives to the adversarial approaches of the Hegel and Marxist Dialectics. In an addendum he answers questions that might arise from the philosophical perspective. The importance of this momentous contribution cannot be overestimated. Enjoy!


STABILITY THROUGH EQUILIBRIUM (StE)

Stability Through Equilibrium (StE) originated in 1968 in an effort to define and describe the commonality of the Aristotelian Golden Mean, Chinese Yin-Yang, the stable state of physics, and the homeostatic equilibrium of systems management. It was initially used to explain the prerequisites for development in irregular warfare and to counter the view that stability means permanence or preservation of the status quo. In 1999 it became a focus for the activities of the Armiger Cromwell Center. It is now presented as a guide for decision-making and an alternative to the adversarial approach based on the dialectic.

We are unaware of how postmodern thought, and the adversarial approach, shapes our perceptions, influences our decisions and controls our behavior. We do not recognize them as outcomes of interpretations of Hegel’s dialectic theory and his Utopian vision. Yet we are drifting toward centralization—the “whole” of which Hegel speaks—and endless self-perpetuating conflict.

An Alternative to the Hegelian Dialectic
An alternative is needed for decision-making. The theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE) presented in this essay seeks self-regulating systems of conflict/cooperation that maintain a stable system through coordinated responses of its parts. Also StE would encourage decentralization and greater freedom. The theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE) is presented here in nonacademic language in the hope it will improve the decision of those concerned with public policy. However, it will not challenge Hegel’s dialectic theory as philosophy. Hegel’s place in philosophy is established; however, in the art of decision making the dialectic has serious limitations. It injects continual conflict when conflict/cooperation as a whole more accurately reflects reality. It always visualizes some Utopian future when stability through equilibrium might be more desirable.

The Hegelian dialectic often shapes policy. Perhaps this is because it accurately describes human behavior, or perhaps it has been learned. After Hegel’s death in 1831, Metternich of Austria and the czars of Russia used his ideas to justify authoritarian rule. Since then many very different, and contradictory, movements have claimed Hegel’s philosophy as their inspiration—including the totalitarian passions of fascism, Nazism and communism. The only things these movements have in common are his theory of dialectic, his glorification of centralized authority, and his vision of perpetual progress. Perhaps this is because Hegel’s writing is so abstract and unintelligible people can read into it whatever they want.

Today political, economic, security, and social issues are argued from extreme ideological positions (Hegel’s thesis and anti-thesis) in search of a synthesis. Most lawyers, politicians, members of media, and professors of the humanities depend on this adversarial approach. Debates, spin, conscious raising, intimidation, bribery, and compromise are tools used in progress toward Utopian visions. However, Utopias assume that all humans are the same, an assumption refuted by the facts. All of this can be traced back to the Hegelian dialectic - so can postmodern thought.

In politics feelings, emotions, and self-interests often triumph over thought, reason and the common good. We need to remember that the end of the Hegelian road - progress toward his “World Spirit” - would be world government with the power to enforce “the rule of law” in every corner of this planet. Who is going to decide what is to be enforced?

If people were aware of how the Hegelian dialectic shapes their thoughts, the odds are they would want to replace such rhetorical arguments with analysis and comparison of alternatives. Rather than an ideological outcome as specified by some Utopian vision, they might be satisfied with merely a climate of order and satisfaction resulting from thought and reason seeking the common good. Rather than moral relativism, they might want a way to differentiate good and evil since one person’s good is often another person’s evil. They might want to avoid both the status quo and chaos. Surely they would prefer self-regulating (homeostatic) stable systems involving conflict/cooperation as a whole to endless conflict. Surely they would want continual feedback in order to insure efficiency and effectiveness.

It does no good to seek Hegel’s intentions and motivations, or even to debate his philosophy. However, it is necessary for people to recognize how Hegelian dialectic shapes public affairs. Hegel’s views support the argument of Hobbes that in order to achieve peace people must surrender to absolute rulers; this requires force capable of enforcing decisions made by those with secular authority. This has caused ideology to replace thought and reason, and allowed demagogues to spin perceptions, and distort reality, in ways to increase their power. Capable, intelligent, people with Free Will have been turned into narrow minded, xenophobic slaves of governmental authority. Hegel’s views have insured perpetual conflict. They teach that the only way to spiritual satisfaction is through conflict. They ignore the need for individuals to have an inner compass to guide their behavior.

Postmodern Thought
Since the 1960s Hegel’s views have been the foundation of postmodern thought, in its pursuit of a Utopian vision of a nonjudgmental, egalitarian, nondiscriminatory world, and in which disagreements are resolved by discussion, compromise, and law - but never by the use of force. Postmodernism has pushed aside much of the modernism developed by Western Culture to prevent chaos, and to achieve both order and a climate of satisfaction. Postmodernism attempts to deconstruct the concepts, institutions, roles, rules, and standards associated with Western Culture. It claims that objectivity is an illusion (created by “dead, white, Western men”) used to maintain patriarchal societies and to oppress females, the disadvantaged, and people in less developed countries.

The philosophy behind postmodern thought is an intoxicant that resonates across generational lines. It is a philosophy of redemptive self-esteem that calls for collective action to recognize, address and resolve oppression. It glorifies “progress, hope, change and struggle” to be realized through centralized secular authority. Postmodernism attempts to eliminate or modify many of the roles, rules, standards, and character that were accepted as proper, good, and right prior to the 1960s.

In the past decade postmodernism has become the ally of the Third Jihad - a global religiously inspired movement based on an ideology that teaches that it is every Muslim's duty to use any means necessary to compel the world's submission to “the way of the Prophet.” Postmodernists in Europe and American have lost sight of the fact that we are engaged in a centuries old struggle between the cross and the crescent.

The current conflict pits Western culture, as it has developed since 1500, against Islamic ideas of a proper society, from the 7th Century, which claims the sanction of God. The ideal of Western culture is a balance between freedom and unity, between individual self worth and a sense of common identity, between sacred and secular authority, and between principled convictions of individuals and respect for diversity. This balance is represented in the theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE).

Postmodernists have lost touch with the deepest sources of the Western cultural commitments to belief, nationalism, patriotism, freedom, tolerance and the scientific method. In the strategic communications campaign against the Third Jihad the West must be able to convince everyone that Western culture is superior to Islamic culture, and that the struggle against the Third Jihad is a noble quest worthy of sacrifice.

Many might accept that the way to Truth is through thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis, but it cannot be proven that this is better than other ways (scientific method, sacred authority, and secular authority) to determine Truth. No matter how the Hegelian dialectic is defined, or the arguments make to support its validity, it remains an unproven theory that leads to conflict, uniformity of thought, a lack of freedom, and centralization of power.

The merging and reconciliation of thesis and anti-thesis does produce change, but not necessarily the higher, more complex, and better whole that Hegelianism assumes. The change might be decline and decay. What is difficult to understand about Hegelianism is that after repeated failures it is still advocated as the way to Truth. Are today postmodernists unaware of the history of fascism, Nazism and communism?

Why Stability Through Equilibrium?
Probably the greatest weakness of the Hegelian dialectic, as used by Marxists and postmodernists, is its lack of feedback. No human system is inherently stable. The maintenance of stability requires some negative feedback that will identify, and allow compensation for, any lack of equilibrium. While negative feedback is common to physical systems, feedback is often weak in human systems. They are often governed by emotions and self interests.

Hegel recognized this when he stated: “Nothing great in the world has been accomplished without passion;” and “The history of the world is not the theater of happiness; periods of happiness are blank pages in it, for they are periods of harmony.” Lacking adequate negative feedback accelerates extreme behavior and the well-known cycle of rise and fall. The dialectic theory does not provide adequate feedback for human systems. The theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE) provides for the necessary feedback.

With all of the limitations of Hegel’s dialectic theory there is certainly reason to seek an alternative in decision-making. But what is the theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE) and why is it a better theory for the art of decision-making? What is conflict/cooperation?

Stability is a code for a complex condition that is as old as history. Yet probably no condition is more misunderstood and misused. In Western culture the word stability refers to the Golden Mean: the pragmatic approach that avoids extremes. In Chinese culture it is Yin-Yang: self-adjustment among opposites. In physics it is a stable state: a condition of continual change within an overall state that is not changed. In systems theory it refers to a homeostatic system: a system that maintains balance among its parts through continual adjustments. Unfortunately many people still think of stability as permanence, or preservation of the status quo, as the French did in the 17th century under absolutism.

Equilibrium is a means of self-regulation (homeostasis) to maintain the internal stability of any system through coordinated responses of its parts to any internal disruptions or inputs from its external environment. In human affairs equilibrium involves conflict/cooperation, it requires negative feedback, it requires thought and reason, and it requires judgments to correct imbalances between good and evil, right and wrong. Equilibrium is achieved through responsiveness to reciprocal and endless interactions resulting from negative feedback. Stability is not a sub-set of equilibrium; stability is an outcome, or end, while equilibrium is a means.

Conflict/Cooperation is a dynamic whole with at least two interacting parts. Its unity is achieved through:

- Struggling for dominance: Each party attempts to satisfy its interests, regardless of the impact on others, through various means.
- Co-opting: one party adopts all or part of the agenda of an opponent in exchange for a trade-off.
- Collaborating: Parties seek to satisfy the concerns of others in order to advance their own interests.
- Creating interdependence: Parties make change in order that no party loses any interests and all parties "maintain face."
- Compromising: Some parties are willing to give up some interests.
- Avoiding: A party desires to withdraw from or suppresses conflict.
- Accommodating: Parties are willing to give priority to the interests of others and accept loss of some interests or “face”.

In summary, it is necessary for decision makers to apply the theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE) in a way that minimizes the gap between theory and practice. StE holds that there is objective reality (existence), and thus it includes a moral component. It must be seen as a tool to explore and explain the real world. It must be used as a reality check against ideological fallacy. It must replace the semantic language games of postmodernists. To ensure maximum credibility, conflict/cooperation appropriate to each threat is needed. Frivolous or meaningless threats need to be identified and minimized in order to achieve the greatest benefits and the lowest possible costs. Success is improved when the application of conflict/cooperation is predictable and profitable.

Just as with the Hegelian dialectic, Stability through Equilibrium (StE) can be applied to all human affairs. Stability through Equilibrium (StE) would be a useful alternative in many spheres of human activity:

(1) peace - irregular warfare - war,
(2) secular - sacred authority,
(3) centralization – decentralization governance,
(4) indivisible unity - freedom/liberty.

It is suggested that Stability through Equilibrium (StE) would be a better tool for decision-making than Hegelian dialectic in all of these activities.

Conclusion
The theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE) would be better than Hegel’s dialectic theory in the shaping of our perceptions and in determining how to conduct human affairs. This is not said in anger or with pride, but simply in an attempt to improve decision making in public affairs. Hegel’s theory, as interpreted by Marxists and postmodernists, causes endless conflict in attempts to achieve Utopian visions in the future, and it provides inadequate negative feedback. It assumes that “hope, change and progress” will always result in improvement, yet it might bring about decline. The theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE) uses conflict/cooperation in attempts to achieve order and a climate of satisfaction in the present and future as the result of negative feedback and judgments between good and evil, right and wrong.

Copyright © 2008 Armiger Cromwell Center, 3750 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 374, Atlanta, GA 30319-1322. 404-201-7374. Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net

Printable format (in Google Docs: may require registering)

- Addendum to "Stability through Equilibrium", reasoning behind the theory

- More on the author and the "Armiger Cromwell Center" on Articles.

- Filed on Articles in "The Dystopia of Paradise"

 
RatePoint Business Reviews