Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Reading Between the Steyns: Little Endians and Big Endians”

« That Was Then; This Is Now | Main | Borg Culture: Steyn, Jihad, and the End of Predestinarianism »

December 4, 2006

Reading Between the Steyns: Little Endians and Big Endians

Hatched by Dafydd

The Discordians were (are?) a crazy bunch of weirdos who had some truly great ideas. Led by Malaclypse the Younger (usually Gregory Hill) and Lord Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst (typically Kerry Thornley), and later joined by science-fiction author Robert Anton Wilson (usually writing as Mordecai Malignatus), they invented a whole new religion disguised as an elaborate joke disguised as a religion.

They also invented the Law of Fives, the Sacred Chao (a "chao" -- pronounced cow -- is a single unit of chaos) with its associated Hodge and Podge, and the myth of Eris and the golden apple. (Well, they didn't actually invent the last; the ancient Greeks did. But the Discordians pontificated about it a lot.)

They also invented a great game called Po that I've used endlessly to my amusement and enlightenment (and to my neighbors' annoyance and reporting to the authorities). The idea is that you take two contradictory concepts, say "fire" and "water." Then you write them in a line with the word "po" in between.

Po stands for some relationship: this begins the game, which is to find what relationship the po stands for and what is the result of the equation. In this case, we have "fire po water," and the most obvious answer is that po =
"heats," and the solution is "steam." You could say this game of po gave us the industrial age, when humans realized that by superheating water, they could produce steam that would drive steam engines.

(The Discordians would point out that po could also equal "puts out," and the result of "fire po water" would be a soggy campfire. Some solutions are more useful than others.)

Well, the past is prologue. (And what follows is epilogue, since there is no actual content to this post, at least nothing worth reading.) I have been metaphorically devouring Mark Steyn's book America Alone: the End of the World as We Know It; and I have also just read the New York Times' breathless speculation about what will be in the Baker-Hamilton report from the Iraq Study Group and how the president will respond to it.

Steyn, the demography predestinarian, believes that the plummeting birthrate of the West (minus the United States) will inevitably (or at least barring a miracle) lead to the countries of continental Europe being denuded of Europeans, who will be replaced by Moslems, bringing Europe fully into the ummah.

The Times is jazzed about its own prediction -- based upon leaks to them from "commission members" and "officials familiar with" the report (excuse our presumption in assuming that those commission members willing to leak to the New York Times are probably in Lee Hamilton's group of Democrats, rather than James Baker's cabal of "Realist" Republicans).

These leaks to the Times indicate the ISG will recommend we abandon the idea of democratizing the Middle East and withdraw to the "Realist" position (now apparently shared by some of the lads at Power Line) of sitting in our Iraq-based Fortress of Solitude, striking at al-Qaeda when they mass together, and otherwise allowing Iraq to turn into a Shiite dictatorship... but an America-friendly dictatorship (hah). I don't know that the ISG will suggest this course, but they may well.

I know this post is jumping around like a liberal ducking facts, but I'm actually going somewhere with this. Using the game of Po, the secret to my widespread failure, I get this: "Steyn po ISG." The po in this case is "eats," and the result anent Iraq is this very interesting formulation:

In the long run of the war on jihadism, planting a stable democracy in Iraq is far more important than defeating al-Qaeda.

Take a moment and think about that: it's the exact opposite of the Power Line position, which has become the mainstream position: that our only legitimate interest in Iraq is stomping al-Qaeda in Iraq; promoting stable democracy -- or even stopping the gangland war between militias and death squads -- is an irrelevant conceit that we must abandon, in our Realist way, for the good, old-fashioned, .time-honored, and extraordinarily successful tactic of allying with certain dictators against other dictators.

I think I can prove it. Suppose we succeed in destroying the organization formerly led by Musab Zarqawi and now by Hamza Muhajir, but we allow the bloody massacres to continue until the Sunni of Iraq flee into Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. This would leave nothing but Kurdistan in the north -- and in central and south Iraq, a Shia-dominated Iraqi government under the thumb of Muqtada Sadr, hence under the grandthumb of Hezbollah and the great-grandthumb of Iran. Haven't we just jumped out of the pot and into the kettle?

In the short view, if southern Iraq simply becomes part of Greater Iran, we have just helped our greatest non-Communist enemy to become vastly stronger.

But in the long view, it's even worse. If Steyn is right that Europe is committing societal suicide, and white Christian Europeans are abdicating sovereignty over the continent to the influx of Moslems... then how can we stop it? There are only two ways:

We could possibly find some inducement for Europeans to have more babies. This is true terra incognita: the problem is not physical impotence but the loss of belief in the future, which leads (Steyn argues persuasively) to a turning inward towards the present, towards pure narcissism: live for today, and damn tomorrow!

Alternatively, we could go the American route (which seems to be working here): rather than stop the substitution of Moslems for Christians in Europe, we could try to create a new Moslem ideology to compete with Islamism and jihad. So far as I can think, the only ideology that could prove strong enough is freedom, individualism, and true capitalism.

This way, as Moslems sweep into control in Europe, they will have effectively been Westernized: this is Islam shorn of its totalitarianism, its tribalism, and its worship of death over life.

What difference does it make to drive al-Qaeda out of Iraq if they just regenerate in Sudan, Pakistan/Kashmir, or Saudi Arabia? For that matter, so what even if we wipe al-Qaeda out of existence entirely -- if that just cleans the docks for Iranian-Hezbollah jihadis instead? As Caiaphas sings in Jesus Christ, Superstar, "we need a more permanent solution to our problem."

Al-Qaeda is a symptom; the symptom is itself dangerous and must be treated... but we'll never be safe, in the Middle East, Europe, or here in America, unless we likewise cure the disease itself. And the disease is a death-cult ideology that is sweeping the fastest-growing and most aggressive culture on the planet.

We need to introduce anti-jihadism leukocytes into Islam's circulatory system. I have actually been arguing this point since long before Big Lizards began, during a long-running discussion, "Are We There Yet?," in the Heinlein Journal in the 1990s; and I continued this discussion in the first week of this blog in my post Where Are All the Moslem Methodists?

Simply put, we need to break the link between Islam and jihad. Just as Christendom finally broke the link between Christianity, crusades, and combustion of heretics, the ummah must do the same -- or World War IV will dwarf its three predecessors, each of which has been more horrific than the last.

We would probably win; but what world would we inherit as our prize? Would enough people survive to maintain civilization? Alternatively, the Moslems could "win" -- but the cost would be even greater, as it's only the science, medicine, technology, and creativity of the Western world that keeps Islam afloat. There are 1.2 billion Moslems today; but during Islam's "Golden Age" (A.D. 700-1400 -- and yes, the irony of the dating is delicious), the entire human population of the earth never exceeded 300 million, which is about all that a pre-technological planet can sustain.

Thus, even if the jihadis succeeded in converting everyone to a Taliban-style Islam, the cost would be the destruction of 75% of all Moslems on Earth. The ummah would consist of scattered, disconnected villages dotting the otherwise unpeopled wilderness. Oh, joy.

Regardless of the Realists and liberals at the Iraq Study Group -- and the forest-missing microwarriors and isolationists now populating the conservative movement -- defeating al-Qaeda is an important but very minor goal. The true war for survival of the West, the GWOT, will be vision battling vision for the soul of Mankind: and either Islam or Individualism will win.

We need to turn our attention to that war; and for that reason, Mark Steyn (whether he realizes it or not) makes a wonderful case for the expansive goal of President Bush to plant a functioning democracy in the heart of the Arab-Moslem-jihadi Middle East.

Nothing less will save our children's children's children.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, December 4, 2006, at the time of 4:30 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1530

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reading Between the Steyns: Little Endians and Big Endians:

» XVOA from Big Lizards
In the last two posts on Big Lizards, we discussed demography, democracy, and Americanism: Reading Between the Steyns: Little Endians and Big Endians Regardless of the Realists and liberals at the Iraq Study Group -- and the forest-missing microwarrior... [Read More]

Tracked on December 5, 2006 5:17 AM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: SallyVee

Excellent, and a must read. You are the wizard of nut shells:

Regardless of the Realists and liberals at the Iraq Study Group -- and the forest-missing microwarriors and isolationists now populating the conservative movement -- defeating al-Qaeda is an important but very minor goal. The true war for survival of the West, the GWOT, will be vision battling vision for the soul of Mankind: and either Islam or Individualism will win.

The above hissed in response by: SallyVee at December 4, 2006 8:25 AM

The following hissed in response by: Karl Gallagher

Yep, whacking alligators won't end the problem if we don't drain the swamp. And I'd hate to see us burning down the swamp and all surrounding areas to get the gators. There's a diagram of how the different possible strategies lead to alternate outcomes for the war which you may find interesting.

The above hissed in response by: Karl Gallagher at December 4, 2006 10:05 AM

The following hissed in response by: Robert Schwartz

Dafydd wrote:

Simply put, we need to break the link between Islam and jihad.

Spengler argues that:

Jihad is not merely the whim of a despotic divinity, as the pope implied. It is much more: jihad is the fundamental sacrament of Islam, the Muslim cognate of the Lord's Supper in Christianity, that is, the unique form of sacrifice by which the individual believer communes with the Transcendent. To denounce jihad on theological grounds is a blow at the foundations of Islam, in effect a papal call for the conversion of the Muslims.

Time to start building fallout shelters?

The above hissed in response by: Robert Schwartz at December 4, 2006 10:17 AM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

While I respect and read Spengler, I think he has it a bit wrong. Jihad is a sort of sacrament, but is defined many ways. It can be an inner struggle as well as an extant struggle.

Protestants sects gave up many of the concepts of the Catholic Church (the trinity, confession, indulgences, etc.) that were part and parcel of the church. It was difficult, but not impossible.

Want to break the connection between Jihad and Islam? Discontinue the use of Middle Eastern Oil by whatever means necessary. It is the only thing that keeps the region functional, and able to project any power in the world. Without vast amounts of oil income the whole sorry mess will collapse in a few years, if not months. It will force an adoption of western concepts and a de-emphasis on religion.

The above hissed in response by: Big D at December 4, 2006 11:40 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

From what I hear the ISG is not going to come up with anything all that radical. I think it will try for some middle course which will probably mean it won't make anyone happy.

I also think that democracy and capitalism are the greatest hope for the future of the ME, but it might take awhile. This is not something that will happen in a decade, it is generational. So we need to create a broad based policy that more people can support if we are to have any success.

And I like Steyn, but I don't think that demographics follows a straight line. These kinds of projections always remind me of the people who used to talk about the population explosion that was going to bring about the demise of the speices as we starved to death due to depleted resources. Never happened.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye at December 4, 2006 12:50 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Perhaps there are 2 Power Line sites or i just keep missing your point/s on them?

Anyway, the GWOT has lost. It was a great idea, a fairly good effort, but the Will and support of the People is simply not there. War is about killing and breaking 'Thangs, and Americans get upset over waterboarding the Enemy...

i agree that Europe is headed down the tubes, leaving an opening for Islam to take over. America is not far behind...

Islam sees the Western weaknesses, and attacks on several fronts...Acts of Terrorism, mass protests, and through the Western Court systems. It's been going on in Europe for a long time, and is growing in America (Muslims Seek Prayer Room at Airport).

BTW, the recent US elections just gave Islam a Green Light...

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at December 4, 2006 3:33 PM

The following hissed in response by: Beerme

The fact is that Americans will never allow the overthrow of this country by jihadists. In the end the country will do anything required to conquer that enemy. The problem is, if we don't do it now, with a little collateral damage and some fully functional cajones, we will need to do it later with a total disregard to innocents and geography.

I am of the opinion that, people being people, Islamism will fall apart from the law of unintended consequences, just like all other human movements. Not that we shouldn't give it a little push when the time is right, mind you...Perhaps what I'm thinking is that this concept of a non-jihadist muslim ideology is an inevitable development? Oh, and by the way, the idea of the jihadists reverting to the technologies of the middle ages seems odd while talk of Iranian nuclear tests and Osama's laptop/cell phone netcasts are being reported upon left and right. Sure, the masses may be beaten back to the bronze age, but the leaders will have all that modern technology can provide them.

I'm not even sure Europe is doomed to be toppled by this enemy. Is all this talk of impending dhimmitude, a little over the top?

The above hissed in response by: Beerme at December 4, 2006 4:52 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Beerme:

Sure, the masses may be beaten back to the bronze age, but the leaders will have all that modern technology can provide them.

Until the machine breaks. Cf. South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at December 4, 2006 6:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Dafydd:

But the world is not Zimbabwe.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye at December 5, 2006 4:06 AM

The following hissed in response by: madconductor

No, the world is not Zimbabwe - or Somalia. Both are examples of what happens when jihadists win the smaller wars. Their strategy is not hidden from view nor do they deny it. Mark Steyn also wrote of Hussein Massawi, a former Hezbollah leader, who said in an interview - "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." I understand that. Eliminating the jihadist function in Islam would transform that desire and, hopefully, eliminate it. I think dafydd is on to something.

And in the 'educate the ummah' discussion, one must recall the Kurds in northern Iraq - the most peaceful area in Iraq. The Kurds, while not 'in love' with Americans, do respect us and largely support our efforts. Due mostly to the US keeping a promise and protecting them after the 1st Gulf War. We didn't do nearly as well with the Shiites in the south and we are paying for that today. Tashbih Sayyed wrote in Islam Watch:

Kurds can be sighted as an example of this change of heart: the U.S. provided them with protection to establish their autonomy in northern Iraq. Today, that part of Iraq is the most U.S. friendly: the Kurds feel gratitude toward Washington and are ready to support it. Similarly, Shiites must also be allowed to feel that the U.S. is not trying to put them once again under the Sunni control in any way just because it wants to appease its Sunni Arab “friends”.

An example, to be sure, of how Democracy can work in Muslim countries. It hasn't survived in Zimbabwe and was never tried in Somalia. But look how long the Kurds had that protection before they were pro-America. Can we succeed in the same manner with the Shiites? Sayyed thinks so. And we have already seen the Sunni's of Anbar province supporting the Iraq government's effort at fighting al-Qaeda - at least most of them.

I think you have a good plan dafydd. What next?

The above hissed in response by: madconductor at December 5, 2006 5:46 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

I didn't cite Zimbabwe as an example of Moslem anything.

I cited it as a place where the people who had created the technology, infrastructure, and civic structures of civilization were kicked out, and the peons rose up and looted (nationalized) everything the white farmers created.

Yet rather than making the looters rich, all this wealth just fell into decrepitude: the machines broke, they lost the parts, they didn't perform maintenance, they forgot how to turn the crank.

And now, Zimbabwe, once one of the shining jewels of sub-Saharan Africa, is an economic and health catastrophe; where once it was a "breadbasket of Africa," now it's a net food importer.

And all that Robert Mugabe can think to do is blame the few remaining white farmers... to lead pogroms against them, where mobs murder entire communities, seize the farms, and proceed to run them into the dust.

Similarly, I suspect that if radical Islamists manage to seize control of a civilized, European country, the net result may not be that the looters become rich: instead of the wealth and civilization of France pulling the Wahhabis into the 21st century, it's more likely the latter will pull France back to the 8th.

The only thing that civilizes the barbarians is assimilation... not conquering the civilized.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at December 5, 2006 8:13 PM

The following hissed in response by: LarryD

The problem may be that they want to return to the 8th century, modernity is destroying them.

Assimilation into European secularism is death.

The above hissed in response by: LarryD at December 6, 2006 12:53 PM