NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=8239
Identity and migration
Francis Fukuyama

Modern liberal societies have weak collective identities. Postmodern elites, especially in Europe, feel that they have evolved beyond identities defined by religion and nation. But if our societies cannot assert positive liberal values, they may be challenged by migrants who are more sure of who they are.

Best article I've seen in ages. It tackles all the problems in contemporary politics. It explains MTAE's rants against terrorists, NN's rants against immigrants, everyone's rants against neocons.

Since Fukuyama redeemed himself by leaving neoconservatism behind, he's once again among the top commentators of our time, I reckon.

What do you think?

Prepare to be crucified.

I, personally, find it plausible.

Here is another article that I think accurately describes the mentality of some of the terrorists:

http://www.exile.ru/2004-September-04/war_nerd.html


We've been fighting the Shi'ites for months now, and nobody seems to want to ask the obvious question: who are these loonies, anyway?

War Nerd Alert!

Special nod to Jon Dickey, who sent me a story on Darfur from the Guardian newspaper with a note: "Dude you should check out this sick shit." Well Dude, I did. And it was pretty amazing. Turns out that while the Janjaweed Arab militia is raping the women in black villages, these Janjaweed women, sort of backup singers, sing songs making fun of the women getting raped.

Some of the insults in the songs are a little surprising. For example, one song goes, "You are gorillas, you are black, and you are badly dressed." Who would've thought these Sudanese peasants were such fashion snobs? It's not bad enough being raped and killed, but insulting somebody's clothes -- that's a low blow, ladies. Somebody better call the UN about this.

Well, for starters, there's that embarrassing name, "Shi'ite." I can't help it if it reminds me every time I see it of a certain four-letter word. But that's not their fault either. I don't claim to speak Arabic -- my Spanish isn't even that good -- but from what I've read, in Arabic, "shiat" means something like "party," as in political party, and "Shi'ite" is short for "Shiat Ali," which means "the Party of Ali."

Ali was Muhammad's adopted son. He saved the Prophet's life and became his favorite. Muhammad even gave Ali his favorite daughter, Fatima. But the most important thing to remember about Ali is -- he lost. And Ali's son Husain, another loser, was killed in battle charging the Caliph's whole army with a few friends -- a couple dozen riders against a horde.

To us, that's just stupid. To the Shi'ites, it's glorious. That's what's hardest for Americans to understand about the Shia: they don't think winning is everything. It'd be closer to the truth to say that they think losing is everything, that losing is a sign of being in the right.

The point is, they don't think like us. A whole lot of what's gone wrong in Iraq comes from thinking that everybody in the world wants to be like us. That's just plain wrong. Hell, I'm not sure I even want to be like us. And I know for certain the Shi'ites don't.

We believe in winning. Remember the beginning of Patton, when George C. Scott stands up in dress uniform and says, "No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country -- he won it by making some other poor son-of-a-bitch die for HIS country"? That sounds pretty obvious to us, but it's not the only way you can think about war.

In fact I'd say Patton (Patton in the movie, not the real Patton) is wrong. You can kill twenty of the enemy for every guy you lose -- and still lose the war. That's what happened to us in Nam. We made a million or so of them die for their country, vs. 60,000 of us, and still lost. The British killed dozens of Kikuyu for every settler or soldier they lost fighting the Mau-Mau, and they still got run out of Kenya. Body count is the WORST way to figure out who's winning a guerrilla war.

If the Shi'ites wrote the script for Patton, George C. Scott would get up and say something like, "Go ahead and kill us -- you'll be sorry!" We're talking about a martyr culture here, where dying makes you stronger. You know, that shouldn't be so hard for us to get, because we've got Christ, who won by losing, by dying. But that was a long time ago, and it's so prettified by now that Mel Gibson had to make a whole movie to remind people that martyrdom actually hurts.

The Shi'ites' martyrs are a lot more recent. Their favorite disaster happened in 680 AD, at the battle of Karbala. Yup, THAT Karbala -- the same city where we've been fighting Shi'ites for the last few months. Karbala means "anguish." That should tell you something about the way Shi'ites see the world, that they named one of their holiest cities after something we'd call "clinical depression." They're not smiley-face optimists. If a Shi'ite coached your kid's soccer team, he'd start every practice with a video of the team's biggest defeat: "Yet again we see Jason missing the goal! Truly we AM/PM Minimart Big Gulps are out of the playoffs forever and a day!"

For the Shi'ites, the battle of Karbala is like Christ's crucifixion and the Alamo, all rolled into one: a doomed last stand with God on the losers' side. Karbala was a fight over leadership, the kind you get when an empire based on one man has to deal with that man's death. Muhammad's armies blasted out of the desert in the early seventh century and ended up in control of most of the Middle East. When he died, he left a power vacuum like a black hole centered on Baghdad, the capital of the Islamic world. The winner would become "Caliph" -- a pretty cushy job, sort of like Pope and Emperor rolled into one, with total control over everything, religion and government both.

With that kind of power at stake, the feuding got pretty intense. Ali got himself assassinated, which was a tradition for Caliphs -- life insurance salesmen ran from Caliphs like they were motocross riders. His killers, a rich, mean clan called the Umayyads grabbed the Caliphate. This is the key moment for the Shi'ites. The Umayyads won, Ali's family lost. It's time to face facts, right? You can't argue with success, right?

Wrong. The whole Shia psychology is that you CAN argue with success, and you DON'T have to face facts. Ali's son, Husain, stayed calm when the Umayyad killed his dad; he even accepted the first Umayyad Caliph. But when that Caliph died and the Caliphate went to another Umayyad, Husain realized he had to take back the Caliphate or die trying. Husain was riding to a rendezvous with some rebels with only about 30 men guarding him when he found himself facing the Caliph's whole army near Karbala.

Victory was impossible. Escape was impossible. So Husain did what any red-blooded boy would do: he charged. And naturally, the Caliph's soldiers did a Benihana on Husain and his men.

That's the key moment for Shi'ites. The way they see, everything that happened after Husain's martyrdom is sleazy, dirty, worthless. The real world is trash; the only good people are the martyrs. In Shia culture, you ain't nobody till you're dead. The world won't be worth living in until the return of the "Mahdi," the messiah. (You may remember that Sadr's posse is called the "Mahdi Army.") The Shia are the Travis Bickles of Islam: "someday a real rain will come, to wash the scum off the streets," and if they can help it along with a car bomb or two, so much the better.

They have a huge death wish, so naturally their holiest places are tombs. That's why Shi'ites make that pilgrimage to Karbala, to visit the tomb of Husain. Shi'ites commemorate Husain getting himself sliced and diced for ten days every year, slashing themselves with knives and bashing themselves with chains to celebrate that glorious defeat. Ayatollah Khomeini, the biggest Shi'ite hero of the 20th century, used to preach "Every day is the anniversary of the battle, and every place is Karbala." The inspirational message was: wherever you are, go get yourself massacred. What are you doing sitting around breathing? Why ain't you out there getting slaughtered, you lazy godless bum?

And these are the people we're picking off one by one, then bragging about body counts. Still wonder why the war's going so badly?

He rejected the Neocons? I missed that somewhere...

Not read the article because to be honest...the guy is a fruitcake.

Fukuyama's is a very interesting observation. i would tend to agree, although it seems a shame that people need a collective identity in order to feel secure.

I've read the article, although I was not aware Fukuyama abandoned neoconservatism. It's rather good.

I'd criticize him for ignoring the lack of a unified Sunni national identity, end of the Ottoman Empire, and collapse of the Caliphate (as well as the associated issues with these things), but otherwise it seems to be pretty decent, and I rather liked Dr. Fukuyama's ideas here.

I wrote a paper with a rather similar premise, although with a greater focus on the identity issues amongst Muslim populations, than on the need for westerners to develop their own identities.

And, if I recall correctly, he broke with the Neoconservative movement right around the Iraq invasion, when he began to criticize Rumsfeld and the overly militaristic view that the Bush-neoconservatives took. You must remember that he's into IPE, not strategy so much, and he'd prefer a more subtle method of spreading hegemonony. So, yeah.

Bits and pieces of thoughts from me.

All I got out of that was that its the fault of Europe that we have muslim extremists...

Why am I not surprised?

Very interesting read

All I got out of that was that its the fault of Europe that we have muslim extremists...

Why am I not surprised?I think you missed the main point of the article. Muslim extremists are just an example. I haven't read the whole article, just skim read it as I'm to tired for proper comprehension.

I htink the main point was that the western liberal democracies are facing problems of cohesion because of the shame of nationalism that leaves little room for an all encompassing unifying indentity.

The USA doesn't share this problem quite so much as there is a deep ingrained philosophy which is almost like a religion. Kinda like Confucianism in the East.

I think you missed the main point of the article. Muslim extremists are just an example. I haven't read the whole article, just skim read it as I'm to tired for proper comprehension.

I htink the main point was that the western liberal democracies are facing problems of cohesion because of the shame of nationalism that leaves little room for an all encompassing unifying indentity.

The USA doesn't share this problem quite so much as there is a deep ingrained philosophy which is almost like a religion. Kinda like Confucianism in the East.

I admit to reading it rather quickly but the thing that sprang out at me was this...

It is not an accident that so many of the perpetrators of recent terrorist plots and incidents were either European Muslims radicalised in Europe or came from privileged sectors of Muslim societies with opportunities for contact with the west.

Along with ...

The Bush administration's view that terrorism is driven by a lack of democracy overlooks the fact that so many terrorists were radicalised in democratic European countries.

I admit to reading it rather quickly but the thing that sprang out at me was this...

It is not an accident that so many of the perpetrators of recent terrorist plots and incidents were either European Muslims radicalised in Europe or came from privileged sectors of Muslim societies with opportunities for contact with the west.

Along with ...

The Bush administration's view that terrorism is driven by a lack of democracy overlooks the fact that so many terrorists were radicalised in democratic European countries.I didn't see that... still, it's fairly true. The madrid and london bombers were spanish and british respectively. Weren't they? I'm hazy on the Madrid bombers.

I didn't see that... still, it's fairly true. The madrid and london bombers were spanish and british respectively. Weren't they? I'm hazy on the Madrid bombers.

I don't think Palestinian suicide bombers all come from Europe...

The Bali bombers...they did not come from Europe...the current terrorists working in Iraq...European? I don't think so...

The Madrid bombing...Moroccan I believe?

Its late and now that the crigget highlights are over I am crashing...but I'll come back to this...

Fukuyama?
Seriously?
After claiming that history was over after the end of the Soviet Union, I tend to think his philosophies of anything are meant for grant/publishing money.
After all, it is publish or perish in his industry, regardless of how valid his points at one given moment may be.

I have a pretty damn strong sense of who I am, and I'm a liberal.

All I got out of that was that its the fault of Europe that we have muslim extremists...

Why am I not surprised?
Nope.


Resolution of this problem will require a two-pronged approach, involving changes in behaviour by immigrant minorities and their descendants as well as by members of the dominant national communities.

By contrast, some contemporary Muslim communities are making demands for group rights that simply cannot be squared with liberal principles of individual equality. These demands include special exemptions from the family law that applies to everyone else in the society, the right to exclude non-Muslims from certain types of public events, or the right to challenge free speech in the name of religious offence (as with the Danish cartoons incident). In some more extreme cases, Muslim communities have even expressed ambitions to challenge the secular character of the political order as a whole. These types of group rights clearly intrude on the rights of other individuals in the society and push cultural autonomy well beyond the private sphere.

The article isn't about assigning blame at all, really.

He rejected the Neocons? I missed that somewhere...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/magazine/neo.html?ex=1298005200&en=4126fa38fefd80de&ei=5090
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1715180,00.html

All I got out of that was that its the fault of Europe that we have muslim extremists...

Why am I not surprised?
No, what he said was that Islamic extremism, which eventually can turn to terrorism, is a reaction to a lack of identity.

In the middle east, being Muslim is easy because it's defined by everyone and everything around you.

In Europe, being Muslim is difficult because it is not dictated externally. Following religion becomes an issue, because the world around you doesn't follow it.

So some Muslims try to return to a super-basic, super-strict, world-wide version of Islam.

And on the other hand, these kids have no real opportunity to try and define themselves as anything but Muslim, because the European nationstate isn't inclusive. "Multiculturalism" doesn't offer an identity to anyone. The underlying sense of community in European countries is still from the 19th century, still defined by ethnicity and Christianity, and therefore doesn't include immigrants.

So what he says is that European countries need to develop a new identity that is centered around the values important to us, but also is inclusive of different religions and identities.

Also read here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,440340,00.html

After claiming that history was over after the end of the Soviet Union, I tend to think his philosophies of anything are meant for grant/publishing money.
He didn't say that. He said that liberal capitalism had won, and even if another ideology would come up, it could only do so through the framework of the free societies of the western world. So the great, violent clash of ideas that defined history was over, at least for the near future.

You can disagree with it, but you shouldn't misrepresent it.

As far as the general question of radical Islam, he is pretty much right; it is a reaction to the breakdown of traditional religion in a modern world.

I don't really think a lack of national identity on the part of Europeans has much to do with it, though; it seems a rather lackluster explanation for the failure of integration.

All I got out of that was that its the fault of Europe that we have muslim extremists...

Why am I not surprised?

That's what I got from it too.

That's what I got from it too.

Why is it that people are incapable of reading the last post on a page?

Resolution of this problem will require a two-pronged approach, involving changes in behaviour by immigrant minorities and their descendants as well as by members of the dominant national communities.

By contrast, some contemporary Muslim communities are making demands for group rights that simply cannot be squared with liberal principles of individual equality. These demands include special exemptions from the family law that applies to everyone else in the society, the right to exclude non-Muslims from certain types of public events, or the right to challenge free speech in the name of religious offence (as with the Danish cartoons incident). In some more extreme cases, Muslim communities have even expressed ambitions to challenge the secular character of the political order as a whole. These types of group rights clearly intrude on the rights of other individuals in the society and push cultural autonomy well beyond the private sphere.

He talks about problems with the migrants plenty.

Also, not every attempt at solving a problem is about assigning blame.

Why is it that people are incapable of reading the last post on a page?

He blames immigrants plenty.

Also, not every attempt at solving a problem is about assigning blame.

Well, us "dominant national communities" shouldn't have to change shit. I'm sorry, but that's how it is.

Am I the only one who gets the feeling that Australia will be the last bastion of Western civilisation?

Well, us "dominant national communities" shouldn't have to change shit.

That's the first thing that'll have to change.

That's the first thing that'll have to change.

We own land, don't change shit. They don't like, GTFO.

That's the first thing that'll have to change.

Don't even try it, nationalists will cling to their romantic ideals in spite of all the logic and reason in the world. Trying to get them to change is like trying to scrape barnacles off a ship's hull with a wet noodle.

We own land, don't change shit. They don't like, GTFO.

Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for liberalism, tolerance, and human decency, things don't work that way.

They aren't going anywhere.

We own land, don't change shit. They don't like, GTFO.

You are not the sole speaker for all Europeans, and "they" have the right to own land just as much as you or any other European do, despite their religion or skin color.

(I really aught to listen to myself) *sigh*

They aren't going anywhere.

Oh, they will. Cronulla forever!

Well, us "dominant national communities" shouldn't have to change shit. I'm sorry, but that's how it is.

Am I the only one who gets the feeling that Australia will be the last bastion of Western civilisation?
I'm guessing you're Australian?

I'm guessing you're Australian?

Mmm hmm. Europe's a lost cause, and America's too PC to lift a finger to defend themselves.

Mmm hmm. Europe's a lost cause, and America's too PC to lift a finger to defend themselves.
There's always Iceland (part of Europe, but a law unto itself), or even England should it decide to withdraw from the abortion by the name of the EU (very unlikely, but still). :) I seriously doubt the USA is that bad though. Idiotic in terms of its foreign policy? Definitely. But hardly unwilling to defend itself (as if it needed to).

Well, us "dominant national communities" shouldn't have to change shit. I'm sorry, but that's how it is.
Agreed. I don't see why we should be bending over backwards for these people. If they're not keen on the way we do things then tough, they can leave. I don't see why we should suddenly alter our society because of relatively recent waves of malcontents reaching our shores. We (Britain) have been fine going our own way without these people before, so I don't see why we should suddenly start crawling to them. Britain's just fine the way it's always been.

Also, it's still the indigenous population of Britain that controls the authorities and therefore controls nearly all of the guns. So why on earth do we need to crawl to these people?

I seriously doubt the USA is that bad though.

If your concern is contamination of the Pure White Race and its glorious culture? Yes, it is.

Indeed, that's one of its best features.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=8239


Best article I've seen in ages. It tackles all the problems in contemporary politics. It explains MTAE's rants against terrorists, NN's rants against immigrants, everyone's rants against neocons.

Since Fukuyama redeemed himself by leaving neoconservatism behind, he's once again among the top commentators of our time, I reckon.

What do you think?

Post-moderny drivel.

Now granted that most post-modern literature doesn't have a clear thesis,
but if I had to make a stab at what he's actually claiming causes terrorism, it would be something like this: they are rejecting modern liberalism's absence of clearly-delineated cultural norms, and responding by radically internalizing their old norms as a response to the anomie of contemporary culture and officially-sanctioned mistreatment. That of course is complete and utter baloney. Marsh Arabs and Sikhs experience every bit as much of the same kind of anomie and officially-sanctioned treatment, and in many ways suffer worse because they are mistaken for Muslims. Yet they commit no terrorism. Basques and Northern Irish, by contrast, are well-integrated into their society, but they respond by blowing crap up.

Why? Fukuyama has no real response to this other than blather about culture, but the old liberal tradition like Smith and Locke could tell you quite easily: the Northern Irish who bombed did so because they did not consent to the form of government they found themselves in, and being unable to form their own government or move to Ireland, responded by trying to alter or abolish the government they found themselves under. Same thing with the Basques. As for those radical Muslims? Most of them were the elites of the elites, the people whom things like a Western education would most benefit when liberalization came to places like Saudi Arabia. Yet as we are all aware, liberalization did not come to Arabia, because that would bring instability, and instability was unacceptable in such a vital region during the Cold War. So we educated these people, we told them that they would be the Horatio Algers of their people . . . and then we made very, extra-carefully sure that the structural conditions necessary for their success never ever came to pass. Now say what you will about real politik and our policies during the Cold War; I personally think that many of those things were probably necessary evils. But we gave these people hopes and dreams, the means to carry them out, and then we systematically denied them any effective use of all their training. It seems to me to be unsurprising that at least a few of them would be deeply skeeved about it.

If your concern is contamination of the Pure White Race and its glorious culture? Yes, it is.
The imagery that comes to mind given his choice of words is more one of a society on the verge of implosion rather than that.

Indeed, that's one of its best features.
If you say so. I've grown indifferent.

Now granted that most post-modern literature doesn't have a clear thesis, but if I had to make a stab at what he's actually claiming causes terrorism, it would be something like this: they are rejecting modern liberalism's absence of clearly-delineated cultural norms, and responding by radically internalizing their old norms as a response to the anomie of contemporary culture and officially-sanctioned mistreatment.

Forget terrorism for a moment; I agree with you that his analysis fails to explain it effectively. What about the question of radical Islam more generally?

Forget terrorism for a moment; I agree with you that his analysis fails to explain it effectively. What about the question of radical Islam more generally?

Well, I know how I would explain it: it's what happens when people deeply dislike and do not consent to their government, but have been convinced through government propaganda efforts that the real problem is external to their society. Imagine what might have happened if the Pope, the Holy Roman Emperor, and the various national heads of Europe had responded to the decline of feudalism by declaring Orthodox Christianity or Islam responsible and made concerted efforts through the Church to convince their followers of it, and you have some idea of what is happening in Saudi Arabia.

Of course, Fukuyama can't say that, because he hasn't really turned his back on neo-conservatism. He's turned his back on the negative externalities of neo-conservatism, but he still thinks basically as a neo-con does, and a neo-con thinks first and foremost in cultural rather than economic or political terms. The fact that globalization has been going on for a hundred years, but Muslims are only now engaging in suicide bombing campaigns is something he can't explain. The fact that their beginning of jihad against the west and the beginning of massive slides in the standard of living in the Middle East is a thought he doesn't entertain.

Mmm hmm. Europe's a lost cause, and America's too PC to lift a finger to defend themselves.

OHNOES WHITE EUROPE HALP ITS MUSLIMS.

You never learn. Stay in Australia. No one gives a shit about your opinion there.

OHNOES WHITE EUROPE HALP ITS MUSLIMS.

You never learn. Stay in Australia. No one gives a shit about your opinion there.

That's why you speak Arabic.

The imagery that comes to mind given his choice of words is more one of a society on the verge of implosion rather than that.

Pretty much. Europe was in less chaos during WWII than it is now.

In Europe, being Muslim is difficult because it is not dictated externally. Following religion becomes an issue, because the world around you doesn't follow it.

So some Muslims try to return to a super-basic, super-strict, world-wide version of Islam.

And on the other hand, these kids have no real opportunity to try and define themselves as anything but Muslim, because the European nationstate isn't inclusive. "Multiculturalism" doesn't offer an identity to anyone. The underlying sense of community in European countries is still from the 19th century, still defined by ethnicity and Christianity, and therefore doesn't include immigrants.

Only partly true. If that is the only factor, we would be seeing hindu and sikh immigrants in UK blowing up because of this identity crisis.

I hope this post makes sense. I'm a bit out of it today. Weird...must be the weather.

Marsh Arabs and Sikhs experience every bit as much of the same kind of anomie and officially-sanctioned treatment, and in many ways suffer worse because they are mistaken for Muslims. Yet they commit no terrorism. Basques and Northern Irish, by contrast, are well-integrated into their society, but they respond by blowing crap up.
Only partly true. If that is the only factor, we would be seeing hindu and sikh immigrants in UK blowing up because of this identity crisis.
Well, ETA or the IRA can't really be compared to this, because they were very political movements. They had clear goals, and they saw themselves as soldiers fighting for them and creating a better world for themselves and their families.

Islamist terrorism doesn't have clearly defined goals, and its soldiers have no real-world interests. They blow themselves up because they don't see a place for themselves in the world that could stand up to martyrdom. There are few if any distinctly political aspects to it.

Now, concerning other, non-Muslim immigrant groups, you have a point. I suppose there is a distinct mindset in Muslim communities that is different from, say, Sikhs or Hindus. The Sikhs and Hindus that I know aren't particularly religious people, they honour their religion a little bit, but they keep it seperate from the needs of the real world. But if they still occasionally visit a temple, or stick to their eating habits, they can still say they're Hindus or Sikhs.

For whatever reason Muslims seem to have a much harder time divorcing one from the other, probably because Islam has developed into such an all-encompassing religion/identity that governs so many parts of its followers' lives. To be a real Muslim means to do many little things differently. That's easy to do in Egypt, where society is set up that way and cultural and religious norms are the same, but it's more difficult in Europe.

But still, you can't tell me that there aren't Hindus or Sikhs out there with serious identity crises. Hell, watch Bend it like Beckham. :p
The difference in that case is probably that one can say they are being persecuted, singled out and generally being treated badly in the world. An angry Muslim teen just has to look into a newspaper to get the feeling that everyone is against them. Not so an angry Hindu or Sikh teen, who might instead rebel against his parents rather than against society or material existence as a whole.

Which doesn't invalidate the point Fukuyama ultimately makes. You can't help that it's difficult to be a fundamentalist Muslim in a society that is largely secular. But you can help that it's impossible for a foreigner to be part of anything but one of those fringe groups.

As for those radical Muslims? Most of them were the elites of the elites...-snip-
But that doesn't offer nearly as good an explanation for what happened. Osama Bin Laden has done quite well for himself, no one kept him down. Ayman al-Zawahiri was making good money, but gave that up when he came into contact with the West on one hand and anti-Western preachers on the other.

The kids who blew themselves up in London certainly weren't being kept down.

Look, your point may well have relevance in the grand scheme of things. But if offers no explanation on an individual-, or even group level. Believe it or not, on that level psychological issues like these seem a better path to understanding than economics or even politics.

Also a good article on that issue: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,460559,00.html

This is only one individual, but...

My sister's boyfriend, a second generation immigrant born in Egypt, is odd. Did someone post a link that said 90% of muslim youths support sharia law being introduced? Well, he is among one of them. What really got me is that as soon as he said this he asked my how to crack WEP encryption so that he could hack into someone's home network to 'borrow' their bandwidth.

He definitely has an indentity crisis. Whenever we talk, it always leads eventually to Islam. He leads, I just follow as I have nothing better to do. Frequently he poses questions such as 'who are you', 'why do you do what you do', and so forth.

He's also compared Islam to Marxism. Whether this is a good comparison or not is irrelvant (but there are definately some idealistic 'care-for-others' teachings in Islam). What is that during the era in which right-wing governments dominated Europe there was a large socialist disaffected youth. They had trouble resolving their indentity with that of the society they lived in, but most never got involved in terrorism. However, some did. Socialist terrorist groups include: the IRA; Baader-Meinhof; Red Action and others.

Oh, they will. Cronulla forever!


White drunken arseholes on the rampage for eternity. What were you saying about Australia remaining the last bastion of Western Civilisation? I'd imagine most Austrlians would be horrified by your idea.

White drunken arseholes on the rampage for eternity. What were you saying about Australia remaining the last bastion of Western Civilisation? I'd imagine most Austrlians would be horrified by your idea.

Not really. Most people I know are anti-islam. Some of my friends avoid McDonald's because it has halal meat.

Pretty much. Europe was in less chaos during WWII than it is now.

Utter tripe with no justification whatsoever.

Not really. Most people I know are anti-islam. Some of my friends avoid McDonald's because it has halal meat.


And what, might I enquire, is wrong with Halal meat? Do they avoid Kosher meat similarily?

And what, might I enquire, is wrong with Halal meat? Do they avoid Kosher meat similarily?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halal#Criticisms_of_Dhabi.C4.A5a_Halal

And, it's supporting the enemy.

I like the fact that he refers to Roy. For, Roy and Keppel are leading experts on the development of Islamism

i have one comment, to quote maxwell smart: "would you believe one boyscout with a pocket knife?"

=^^=
.../\...

Well, ETA or the IRA can't really be compared to this, because they were very political movements. They had clear goals, and they saw themselves as soldiers fighting for them and creating a better world for themselves and their families.

Islamist terrorism doesn't have clearly defined goals, and its soldiers have no real-world interests. They blow themselves up because they don't see a place for themselves in the world that could stand up to martyrdom. There are few if any distinctly political aspects to it.
[....]

I have to disagree.

Despite popular belief of the contrary, political Islam or Islamism is a modern political ideology, rather than simply an orthodox view of Islam. Subsequently, Islamist movements are a product of the modern world; the Islamists are well adapted to modern society, in their use of, mass protests, modern communication media and weaponry, as well as in their incorporation of the modern urban values of consumerism and social mobility, and their frustration originating from the lack of attainability thereof. Additionally, their leaders have seldom received the traditional Islamic education of the ulama, but are rather university educated, often in scientific fields9. Moreover, they consider Islam to be as much an ideology as a religion, something which is remains abomination to the ulama.

Islamism did not evolve in a vacuum; it has entered in a revolutionary development from the nineteenth century onwards as a reaction to the occupation and domination of the Islamic world by western powers . As such, it has had much in common with other ideological movements popular in the Third World. Note that Europe has had its own share of both leftist and rightist as well as anti-globalist fringe groups, contributing to a better understanding of radical Marxist and Nationalist factions. However, despite the similarity between Western and Third World militants, and consequently Islamist militants, the latter seem alien from a Western viewpoint. To many a Western eye these other movements, such as Marxism and Arabic Nationalism seem a more rational approach to challenges of the modern world, than the Islamist return to a religious dogma as ancient as it is considered rigid. However, we need to look beyond the traditional Islamic terminology Islamist use to frame their modern struggle, solutions, and ideology. For, Islamists despite their outward appearance “remain in their social origins, relationship to knowledge and even in the values that replaced their Marxist universalism, the cousins of the western militants”1.


1-O. Roy (1994) The Failure of political Islam, Cambridge: Harvard University press

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halal#Criticisms_of_Dhabi.C4.A5a_Halal

And, it's supporting the enemy.
I find it hard to believe that animal rights is high on the anti-Islamists' agendas...

Out of curiosity, do these people drive cars?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halal#Criticisms_of_Dhabi.C4.A5a_Halal

And, it's supporting the enemy.

Yet you don't mention being opposed to Kosher meat....

"enemy"...Dear me. What paranoid fantasies run through the minds of the snot nosed idiots these days....30 years ago, it would have been some other group of "not us" you were taking your angst out on.

Out of curiosity, do these people drive cars?

I suppose. Why?

I suppose. Why?
Well, they probably use Middle Eastern oil, which is 'supporting the enemy'.

[...]"enemy"...Dear me. What paranoid fantasies run through the minds of the snot nosed idiots these days....30 years ago, it would have been some other group of "not us" you were taking your angst out on.

Dangerous fantasies, you mean... These poor misguided sools pose many times the threat that the Jihadists pose... *sigh*

Well, they probably use Middle Eastern oil, which is 'supporting the enemy'.

Well, I can't help it if they're hypocrites.

And, it's supporting the enemy.

McDonald's supports the enemy? Gee whiz. Go figure. It's food for crying out loud. What are they going to do? Throw non-halal chicken drumsticks at you?

And by enemy, I assume you mean all Muslims? If so, I patiently await the day they lock you up behind bars for assaulting the average person on the street because of their faith.

Geez PF, you used to be a bit more reasonable then this. What happened, Ny Nordland put the bite on you?

All I got out of that was that its the fault of Europe that we have muslim extremists...

Why am I not surprised?

That's what I got from it too.

The difference is that I was not talking about the extremists per se....but rather about the author and the passion neocon dickheads like him have to blame all the worlds ills on Europe.

You see...you are a racist. Has it occurred to you that one of the reasons integration is not easy is because of the filth you and your ilk come out with.

Do you think killing someone because of their skin colour is amusing? No? You don't? Then why are you a racist? You might spew crap about repatriation...but lets face it...you'd rather see the world populated by people of your own colour and belief.

I am not kidding about the killing either...you might say oh...send them back to their country of origin (or maybe implement Sharia Law) ...but if you could depopulate those areas you would do. You would have no problem with killing them off. Or use them as slave labour. However I will err on the side of killing. Thats what barbarians are into...and racism is barbaric.

Make no mistake...any rubbish you spew, it boils down to one thing...you want people who are not of your colour or belief to be removed from the gene pool.

Now kindly crawl back into your hole. Have a real deep think about what you want...if you decide killing is ok...then frankly you (and all racists) are not fit to be a member of the human species. Maybe you might see the light. I hope you do.

* yes part of this post is aimed at The Potato Factory because I do not want anyone to think that I support racists, but most of it is aimed at all racists of whatever colour.

/eof
----------------------------------------

Regarding the article....I am still surprised no one has grokked the fact that this is a puff article. Its full of nice sounding analysis...but at the end the point of the article was to blame Europe.

And blatantly false. More extremists died in Algeria committing terrible deeds than have hit the entire west (I am talking about the 90's...not the French/Algerian War). Oh Algeria was secular in government but the main religion is Islam. Odd that Fukky forgot that. Or the Palestinian suicide bombers...obviously all educated in Europe... :rolleyes:

Sorry....but Fukky has not changed his spots.

You see...you are a racist.

Well, DUH. I just don't think it's a bad thing.

Its full of nice sounding analysis...but at the end the point of the article was to blame Europe.
Except that of course it is no different than one side of the debate actually taking place in Europe as we speak. There are plenty of Europeans saying exactly the same stuff. Mainly the ones like me: people who used to be all about hands-off multiculturalism, but notice now that the values that were formerly taken for granted are not givens. If some girl is forced to stay at home all day and then married off to her brother's schoolmate without ever having met him, that's not cool. And then you can either respect the different group morals - or you can stick by the guns that would deem this unacceptable anywhere, any time.

If you want to hear blame (though Broder's a complicated man and a satirist, so you never know what to think of him), check these out:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,462149,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,398532,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,456899,00.html (the best one, but in German)

Well, DUH. I just don't think it's a bad thing.
No, you just have your own identity crisis to work out.

No, you just have your own identity crisis to work out.

I identity nothing. I'm a wog.

I identity nothing. I'm a wog.
No, you're not. Your friends are Anglos, Croats, Serbs, Greeks and whathaveyou. You used to call yourself German, but all the Germans told you to bugger off, because we don't do that sort of thing.

And now you call yourself a wog?

McDonald's supports the enemy? Gee whiz. Go figure. It's food for crying out loud. What are they going to do? Throw non-halal chicken drumsticks at you?
Make him eat their food? :p

Except that of course it is no different than one side of the debate actually taking place in Europe as we speak. There are plenty of Europeans saying exactly the same stuff. Mainly the ones like me: people who used to be all about hands-off multiculturalism, but notice now that the values that were formerly taken for granted are not givens. If some girl is forced to stay at home all day and then married off to her brother's schoolmate without ever having met him, that's not cool. And then you can either respect the different group morals - or you can stick by the guns that would deem this unacceptable anywhere, any time.

If you want to hear blame (though Broder's a complicated man and a satirist, so you never know what to think of him), check these out:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,462149,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,398532,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,456899,00.html (the best one, but in German)

You see this is the fallacy I believe....that because the west thinks that the stuff you mention is wrong it is the cause of extremism....when I have offered plenty of examples where ordinary Muslims...in a Muslim nation become extremist.

I notice that Fukky does not go into that in any depth or not at all...unless I missed it...

No, you're not. Your friends are Anglos, Croats, Serbs, Greeks and whathaveyou. You used to call yourself German, but all the Germans told you to bugger off, because we don't do that sort of thing.

And now you call yourself a wog?

Wogs are Australians of European descent. I'm an Australian, and I'm of European descent. 1 + 1.

The Germans can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned. They're a dead race, a dead culture.

You see this is the fallacy I believe....that because the west thinks that the stuff you mention is wrong it is the cause of extremism.
The cause of extremism is, in part at least, a search for identity. It's the same with born-again Christians, isn't it?

I notice that Fukky does not go into that in any depth or not at all...unless I missed it...
I'm not sure what it gives you to call him "Fukky", but whatever.

Olivier Roy overstates the case for viewing radical Islamism as a primarily European phenomenon; there are many other sources for radical ideologies coming out of the middle east. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan have all ex-ported radical Islamist ideology, and Iraq may do so in the future. But even in Muslim countries, Roy's analysis remains valid because it is the importing of modernity into those societies that produces the crisis of identity and radicalisation. Globalisation, driven by technology and economic opening, has blurred the boundaries between the developed world and traditional Muslim societies. It is not an accident that so many of the perpetrators of recent terrorist plots and incidents were either European Muslims radicalised in Europe or came from privileged sectors of Muslim societies with opportunities for contact with the west. Mohammed Atta and the other organisers of the 9/11 attacks fall into this category, as do Mohammed Bouyeri (the murderer of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh), the 11th March Madrid bombers, the 7th July London bombers and the British Muslims accused of plotting to blow up an aircraft last summer. It should also be noted that al Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are both educated men, with plenty of knowledge of and access to the modern world.

I suppose you can make a matter of intepretation of it, but fact of the matter is that Algeria has a pretty secular government, for example, which has worked hard to introduce modernity into the country, and thus caused the identity issues. It falls together with the sense of hurt pride (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,460559,00.html) that came with colonialism (or a persecution complex, if you want to call it that), so the guy suddenly becomes a fighter for Islam as a whole.

Wogs are Australians of European descent.
Nope. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog#As_a_racial_reference_in_Australian_English)

Like I said, you have got your own identity issues to sort out. I just hope you don't hurt anyone before you get there.

Nope. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog#As_a_racial_reference_in_Australian_English)

Like I said, you have got your own identity issues to sort out. I just hope you don't hurt anyone before you get there.

My family was considered wog by the Australians. Other wogs consider me wog. Maybe those people who write that Wikipedia should actually spend some time here.

Why am I even DEBATING this with you? I LIVE around other wogs. You're GERMAN. It's like trying to explain something to an alien.

My family was considered wog by the Australians. Other wogs consider me wog. Maybe those people who write that Wikipedia should actually spend some time here.
:D

Let's drop it. If you want, you can start another thread about it. But right now, we're not gonna sort you out over the internet.

Why am I even DEBATING this with you? I LIVE around other wogs. You're GERMAN. It's like trying to explain something to an alien.
Believe it or not, but I'm pretty comfortable with who I am. Meaning that I can sit here and watch the world around me, and understand it, but never have to claim that I am something in particular.

It's just not that important to me.

:D

Let's drop it. If you want, you can start another thread about it. But right now, we're not gonna sort you out over the internet.

Sort me out? You're GERMAN.

Believe it or not, but I'm pretty comfortable with who I am. Meaning that I can sit here and watch the world around me, and understand it, but never have to claim that I am something in particular.

It's just not that important to me.

You're GERMAN!

Well, DUH. I just don't think it's a bad thing.


Of course you don't. That would require far more comprehension and self-confidence than 99% of racists poessess.

You're GERMAN!
That's what it says on my passport, yes. Which doesn't mean that I'm oblivious to what Australia is like, or indeed what the word "wog" means. So you can yell my nationality at me all you like, but you're not gonna be strengthening your argument a whole lot, if indeed you have one in mind.

That's what it says on my passport, yes. Which doesn't mean that I'm oblivious to what Australia is like, or indeed what the word "wog" means. So you can yell my nationality at me all you like, but you're not gonna be strengthening your argument a whole lot, if indeed you have one in mind.

You're GERMAN. So I don't see where you get off telling someone else they have problems.

The cause of extremism is, in part at least, a search for identity. It's the same with born-again Christians, isn't it?

Or is it the opposite...to give your life for a cause...you need to identify quite strongly to that I would have thought?

I'm not sure what it gives you to call him "Fukky", but whatever.

Pronounced 'fooky'...not 'fucky'...I used that as I can't be arsed to type the blokes name properly...lazy on my part? yes. Disrespectful? Probably...but then I don't respect neocons.



I suppose you can make a matter of intepretation of it, but fact of the matter is that Algeria has a pretty secular government, for example, which has worked hard to introduce modernity into the country, and thus caused the identity issues. It falls together with the sense of hurt pride (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,460559,00.html) that came with colonialism (or a persecution complex, if you want to call it that), so the guy suddenly becomes a fighter for Islam as a whole.

Thats my point...Algeria was a secular government with a wide spread and adhered to religion...infact you may as well call it a state religion...like Anglicanism is in the UK..there was no loss of identity ala Europe...and yet...there was extremism....as a reaction to modernity...hmmm you could have a point but I find it hard to swallow as Islam was quite progressive (Moors)...

Is it that perhaps the religion has been hijacked by a reactionary 'priest hood' (yeah I know its the wrong word but I am not sure what the Islamic equivilent would be)? I don't know. All I do know is that Muslims are human and as humans have the same foibles as the rest of us.

Wogs are Australians of European descent. I'm an Australian, and I'm of European descent. 1 + 1.

The Germans can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned. They're a dead race, a dead culture.


Yet you werent saying that until they rejected you and your childish illbegotten notions of what that constituted. Now you're whinging.

And you still havent answered vis a vis Kosher meat.

You're GERMAN. So I don't see where you get off telling someone else they have problems.

I was unaware being German meant a psychosis was awared along with citizenship....

Please explain.

I was unaware being German meant a psychosis was awared along with citizenship....

Please explain.
If only I didn't have to go to a history class. This could have been fun watching live.:(

I was unaware being German meant a psychosis was awared along with citizenship....

Please explain.

The Germans have an entire collective problem that they have to... work out on the board, or something.

Yet you werent saying that until they rejected you and your childish illbegotten notions of what that constituted. Now you're whinging.

Being rejected by the Germans is like being rejected by the chess club; it's probably a good thing, really.

You see this is the fallacy I believe....that because the west thinks that the stuff you mention is wrong it is the cause of extremism....when I have offered plenty of examples where ordinary Muslims...in a Muslim nation become extremist.
...

Ordinary Muslims in a Muslim society can become extremist; note the takfir wa-l-higra for example. However, this is another more nationalistic kind of Islamism. It is classical Islamism, The new globalized form of Islamism of which we speak is different, in both its goals as well as its target audience.

Ordinary Muslims in a Muslim society can become extremist; note the takfir wa-l-higra for example. However, this is another more nationalistic kind of Islamism. It is classical Islamism, The new globalized form of Islamism of which we speak is different, in both its goals as well as its target audience.

the new globalised form of Islamism?? Please...you don't think that the PLO actions were not 'global' back in the 70's and 80's??

That they were not reaching a global audiance?

Being rejected by the Germans is like being rejected by the chess club; it's probably a good thing, really.

In nature the runt of the litter is rejected. There might be a lesson in that for you.

Either that or you going through the teenage angst thing. Who knows... you might grow out of whatever problem you have.

I hope you do.

The Germans have an entire collective problem that they have to... work out on the board, or something.

Says the self proclaimed German "wannabe" whose idea of 'Western Culture' seems to consist of stereo-typing others, boycotting a type of food prepartion in an inconsistent manner, and drunken idiots getting beaten up by cops.

I suggest that the trauma of puberty has left you confused and shorted your brain. The internet is not the place for you, you are too emotionally wraught.

You have not answered my question re the Germans, or Kosher food.

I wonder how long it will take for us to base our identity on the only thing we have in common, being human. If only we all wore the same hats...

the new globalised form of Islamism?? Please...you don't think that the PLO actions were not 'global' back in the 70's and 80's??

That they were not reaching a global audiance?

I do not contest that they were trying to reach a global audience. However, their goals like that of the Algerian FIS were foremost of a Nationalistic nature, aimed a specific territory, coinciding with state borders. Moreover, their main support base was found among members of their Nationality, and even those situated in Europe had strong ties with their “home”-territories.

I do not contest that they were trying to reach a global audience. However, their goals like that of the Algerian FIS were foremost of a Nationalistic nature, aimed a specific territory, coinciding with state borders. Moreover, their main support base was found among members of their Nationality, and even those situated in Europe had strong ties with their “home”-territories.

It is not an accident that so many of the perpetrators of recent terrorist plots and incidents were either European Muslims radicalised in Europe or came from privileged sectors of Muslim societies with opportunities for contact with the west.

Which is not true.

The Bush administration's view that terrorism is driven by a lack of democracy overlooks the fact that so many terrorists were radicalised in democratic European countries.

Yeah. Right. /sarcasm.

The point of Fukuyama's article was to explain Islamic terrorism. And it fails at that. In one year Iraq there have been more Islamic terror attacks and deaths than there have been in the west for...well...forever really.

A very interesting article.


[I]dentity becomes problematic precisely when Muslims leave traditional Muslim societies by, for example, emigrating to western Europe. One's identity as a Muslim is no longer supported by the outside society; indeed, there is strong pressure to conform to the west's prevailing cultural norms. The question of authenticity arises in a way that it never did in the traditional society, since there is now a gap between one's inner identity as a Muslim and one's behaviour vis-à-vis the surrounding society.

This, of course, is true of many immigrant groups, and minorities in general - just as it was true of colonised majorities subjected to colonial rule. One's sense of identity as a group is constructed in great part through the perception of what makes one different from a more powerful or influential "other". (Which is why there is and has been a Scottish identity more easily defined than an English one, for example... Or why ni-Vanuatu national identity was a product of / reaction to colonisation. And so on...).

It is not an accident that so many of the perpetrators of recent terrorist plots and incidents were either European Muslims radicalised in Europe or came from privileged sectors of Muslim societies with opportunities for contact with the west.

Which is not true.

Yes, it is. As he shows by quoting examples.


The Bush administration's view that terrorism is driven by a lack of democracy overlooks the fact that so many terrorists were radicalised in democratic European countries.

Yeah. Right. /sarcasm.


It's true. I'm sorry if reality doesn't fit in with your preconceptions...


The point of Fukuyama's article was to explain Islamic terrorism. And it fails at that. In one year Iraq there have been more Islamic terror attacks and deaths than there have been in the west for...well...forever really.

The situation in Iraq was destabilised by foreign invasion, giving Islamist groups a perfect opportunity to recruit, by pointing at the "war of civilisations", insisting on the atrocities committed by American soldiers against Iraqis, and so on... The context created by Bush has been an ideal breeding group for terrorism.

Besides, European Islamists have gone to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now, concerning other, non-Muslim immigrant groups, you have a point. I suppose there is a distinct mindset in Muslim communities that is different from, say, Sikhs or Hindus. The Sikhs and Hindus that I know aren't particularly religious people, they honour their religion a little bit, but they keep it seperate from the needs of the real world. But if they still occasionally visit a temple, or stick to their eating habits, they can still say they're Hindus or Sikhs.

Visit a local ISKCON temple nearby and you will see plenty of ultra-orthodox hindu folks.

To be a real Muslim means to do many little things differently. That's easy to do in Egypt, where society is set up that way and cultural and religious norms are the same, but it's more difficult in Europe.

That is a value judgment (who is a real muslim) that you and I are not qualified to make. Islam is not monolithic despite popular belief based on the islamist's say so.

Yes, it is. As he shows by quoting examples.

errr...he is trying to imply that all the terrorists came form the west. Which is just not true. I have never denied that some do come from the west. But there are a shed load more that are locals.



It's true. I'm sorry if reality doesn't fit in with your preconceptions...

My preconceptions? What a ludicrous statement.



The situation in Iraq was destabilised by foreign invasion, giving Islamist groups a perfect opportunity to recruit, by pointing at the "war of civilisations", insisting on the atrocities committed by American soldiers against Iraqis, and so on... The context created by Bush has been an ideal breeding group for terrorism.

Besides, European Islamists have gone to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq.

and that is just fluff.

It is not an accident that so many of the perpetrators of recent terrorist plots and incidents were either European Muslims radicalised in Europe or came from privileged sectors of Muslim societies with opportunities for contact with the west.

Which is not true.

The Bush administration's view that terrorism is driven by a lack of democracy overlooks the fact that so many terrorists were radicalised in democratic European countries.

Yeah. Right. /sarcasm.

The point of Fukuyama's article was to explain Islamic terrorism. And it fails at that. In one year Iraq there have been more Islamic terror attacks and deaths than there have been in the west for...well...forever really.

I do not agree with the latter part of the Fukuyama article, I consider it lacking. However, one cannot explain “Islamic terrorism”. For it is not a valid categorization; there is a difference between fundamental causes underlying the attacks in Iraq on the one hand and the attacks in the US and especially those in Spain and England on the other hand. Any attempt to use a single explanation for these distinct forms of terrorism is likely to fail.

The first prong of the solution is to recognise that the old multicultural model has not been a big success in countries such as the Netherlands and Britain, and that it needs to be replaced by more energetic efforts to integrate non-western populations into a common liberal culture. The old multicultural model was based on group recognition and group rights. Out of a misplaced sense of respect for cultural differences—and in some cases out of imperial guilt—it ceded too much authority to cultural communities to define rules of behaviour for their own members. Liberalism cannot ultimately be based on group rights, because not all groups uphold liberal values. The civilisation of the European Enlightenment, of which contemporary liberal democracy is the heir, cannot be culturally neutral, since liberal societies have their own values regarding the equal worth and dignity of individuals. Cultures that do not accept these premises do not deserve equal protection in a liberal democracy. Members of immigrant communities and their offspring deserve to be treated equally as individuals, not as members of cultural communities. There is no reason for a Muslim girl to be treated differently under the law from a Christian or Jewish one, whatever the feelings of her relatives.


Hmmm... He seems to be arguing for the French approach. Integration with great importance laid on common values ([i]les valeurs de la République(/i]), seen as common to all French (if not universal), and non-ethnic, rather than what Fukuyama calls the British and Dutch model of multiculturalism ("multiculturalism as a framework for the coexistence of separate cultures rather than a transitional mechanism for integrating newcomers into a dominant culture").

That in itself is an interesting topic for discussion.

Visit a local ISKCON temple nearby and you will see plenty of ultra-orthodox hindu folks.

It seems each religion has its own set of nutters.

That is a value judgment (who is a real muslim) that you and I are not qualified to make. Islam is not monolithic despite popular belief based on the islamist's say so.

Good point and worth bearing in mind. I cannot see how someone who wants blow themselves to pieces and take out a bunch of innocents would be accepted by Allah...

Before we can speak of Globalized Islamism we should first turn to Globalization...

In the contemporary world, communities are no longer defined by a well-delineated territory or geography. Large migration flows continuously change the cultural and ethnical demographics of modern countries, which consequently are no longer static but have become fluid. Certainly, migration has always been part of human life, and a neighbouring village or country might have been as alien to an observer in the past, as the other end of the world is today. Still, globalization has undeniably changed the nature and especially the extent of travel and migration across the globe. Modern technologies did not only increase the reach and fluidity of migration, it has also allowed for extensive contact between people, irrespective of distance. These technological developments have provided the means for sustaining niches and communities irrespective of territory .

Through the use of electronic media like the internet, people can feed the imagination of their own world view; one can easily find likeminded individuals whom can provide one with a sense of belonging, be it Marxists, Islamists, Iranians or Stamp collectors. It is essential to grasp the central importance of the internet in the establishment and upkeep of the imagination of a worldview, for people generally do not like to be confronted with conflicting views, but rather seek confirmation of their beliefs. On the web one could spend a lifetime among the likeminded, visiting a great number of sites, and finding extensive support for existing views, without ever being subjected to conflicting beliefs.

errr...he is trying to imply that all the terrorists came form the west. Which is just not true. I have never denied that some do come from the west. But there are a shed load more that are locals.


He didn't say all, and he was referring only to terrorist attacks carried out (or planned) in Western countries. Most of those were by people from Western countries.


My preconceptions? What a ludicrous statement.


Then explain why you think he's wrong on that specific point.


and that is just fluff.

No, it's simple, undeniable truth. (Though I'd be amused to see you try to deny it.)

Before we can speak of Globalized Islamism we should first turn to Globalization...

In the contemporary world, communities are no longer defined by a well-delineated territory or geography. Large migration flows continuously change the cultural and ethnical demographics of modern countries, which consequently are no longer static but have become fluid. Certainly, migration has always been part of human life, and a neighbouring village or country might have been as alien to an observer in the past, as the other end of the world is today. Still, globalization has undeniably changed the nature and especially the extent of travel and migration across the globe. Modern technologies did not only increase the reach and fluidity of migration, it has also allowed for extensive contact between people, irrespective of distance. These technological developments have provided the means for sustaining niches and communities irrespective of territory .

Through the use of electronic media like the internet, people can feed the imagination of their own world view; one can easily find likeminded individuals whom can provide one with a sense of belonging, be it Marxists, Islamists, Iranians or Stamp collectors. It is essential to grasp the central importance of the internet in the establishment and upkeep of the imagination of a worldview, for people generally do not like to be confronted with conflicting views, but rather seek confirmation of their beliefs. On the web one could spend a lifetime among the likeminded, visiting a great number of sites, and finding extensive support for existing views, without ever being subjected to conflicting beliefs.

Spot on. Very true. And well argued. Well done.

I do not agree with the latter part of the Fukuyama article, I consider it lacking. However, one cannot explain “Islamic terrorism”. For it is not a valid categorization; there is a difference between fundamental causes underlying the attacks in Iraq on the one hand and the attacks in the US and especially those in Spain and England on the other hand. Any attempt to use a single explanation for these distinct forms of terrorism is likely to fail.

Now that I can pretty much agree with. And that is what Fukuyama is trying to do.

I really do think (as a previous poster said) that this article is a fluff piece to pay the bills.

The eleventh of September 2001 may well have been a milestone in the development of a modern Islamist community of sentiment. A community of sentiment is the aforementioned shared imagined world view not bound by territory.

When the radical fringe group of al-Qaeda successfully struck the United States it did not strike at the heart of the imperialist demon, but at root of traditionalist Islam. Watching television broadcasts, we were told that they were out to destroy our Western way of life; this could not be further from the truth. For, terror attacks cannot destroy a society; they can however induce a rally behind the flag as well as a rally behind the knight’s banner. With a sudden bang this fringe group demonstrated itself to be a contender to lead the universal ummah it desired to create.

Both Salafism (the Saudi variant) as militant Jihadism attempt to promote a universal version of Islam and they consequently target the same pool of followers. They have similar values, yet the first is traditional in that it endeavours to influence merely the domestic and religious sphere, while the second is Islamist however and also strives to influence the political sphere. For, Islamist Jihadist groups like al-Qaeda strive to create a single Islamic state, spanning all Islamic countries. Their target Muslim audience, however, does not reside in the Middle Eastern dictatorships, but in the periphery of Islam: in Europe and to a lesser extent the US . For, this global community of sentiment, required for a global ummah, is especially attractive to those that lack territorially based community to which they belong: the Westernized youth of Islamic migrants . Consequently, they are forming this new community of sentiment through the Internet.

Due to large flows of labour migration from Islamic countries to European countries, there are currently large groups of immigrants residing in Europe, whose children are well adapted to living in Europe. However, they can no longer truly identify with the regional religious belief structures of their parents, but sadly nor can they fully identify with European society . They lack the ties with the diasporic communities of their parents. Moreover, the European country in which they were brought up plays a significant role in their development. For, they generally have had a Western education, and a Western social life, including relationships and not seldom the drinking of alcohol. Nevertheless, the bonds with the society they live in remain weak. This bond can be broken, due to exclusion, racism, a lack of emancipation and lower prospects in life . Subsequently, some seek the sense of belonging available in Islam. These newborn Muslims, as are newborn Christians, are usually willing to make great sacrifices for their newly discovered religions, and can consequently more easily be turned to violence

Before we can speak of Globalized Islamism we should first turn to Globalization...

In the contemporary world, communities are no longer defined by a well-delineated territory or geography. Large migration flows continuously change the cultural and ethnical demographics of modern countries, which consequently are no longer static but have become fluid. Certainly, migration has always been part of human life, and a neighbouring village or country might have been as alien to an observer in the past, as the other end of the world is today. Still, globalization has undeniably changed the nature and especially the extent of travel and migration across the globe. Modern technologies did not only increase the reach and fluidity of migration, it has also allowed for extensive contact between people, irrespective of distance. These technological developments have provided the means for sustaining niches and communities irrespective of territory .

Through the use of electronic media like the internet, people can feed the imagination of their own world view; one can easily find likeminded individuals whom can provide one with a sense of belonging, be it Marxists, Islamists, Iranians or Stamp collectors. It is essential to grasp the central importance of the internet in the establishment and upkeep of the imagination of a worldview, for people generally do not like to be confronted with conflicting views, but rather seek confirmation of their beliefs. On the web one could spend a lifetime among the likeminded, visiting a great number of sites, and finding extensive support for existing views, without ever being subjected to conflicting beliefs.

Well put.

However (2nd paragraph) this has been going on for a very long time...before the www anyway...what...say 50's onwards...all that the electronic age is doing is amplifying the ability to disseminate information by several magnitudes.

Now that I can pretty much agree with. And that is what Fukuyama is trying to do.

I really do think (as a previous poster said) that this article is a fluff piece to pay the bills.

I do as well. For he takes some of the excellent analyses of Roy in order to come to some weak solutions...

Well put.

However (2nd paragraph) this has been going on for a very long time...before the www anyway...what...say 50's onwards...all that the electronic age is doing is amplifying the ability to disseminate information by several magnitudes.

This is true, the process does not rely solely on the internet it is, however, greatly sped up by it.

electronic media and fluid migration patterns allow for global comunities no longer dependent on territory. This, can subsequently provide a sense of belonging like any other community, but this is no longer based on territory.

He didn't say all, and he was referring only to terrorist attacks carried out (or planned) in Western countries. Most of those were by people from Western countries.

Look up the definition of the word imply.



Then explain why you think he's wrong on that specific point.

I thought I was quite clear...that there are more islamic terrorists who have never been to europe than those from europe who went to Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines, Malaysia etc etc.

What has that to do with my 'preconceptions'? Please...the floor is yours...I am interesting in hearing how you figure that...


No, it's simple, undeniable truth. (Though I'd be amused to see you try to deny it.)

I never said it was not true. I said it was fluff. World of difference.

This is true, the process does not rely solely on the internet it is, however, greatly sped up by it.

electronic media and fluid migration patterns allow for global comunities no longer dependent on territory. This, can subsequently provide a sense of belonging like any other community, but this is no longer based on territory.

And these migrations are not limited to Islamics...

One thing that alot of people forget though is that the economic migrates, for the most part, return to their country of origin.

Of course there are exceptions...you are unlike to return to a war zone...but for the most part they do go back.

So this could well be another reason not to integrate. Besides the usual reasons - fear, language, customs...

Look up the definition of the word imply.

He never implied any such thing with terrorism in general. Only in reference to terrorist acts in the West.


I thought I was quite clear...that there are more islamic terrorists who have never been to europe than those from europe who went to Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines, Malaysia etc etc.


See above.


What has that to do with my 'preconceptions'? Please...the floor is yours...I am interesting in hearing how you figure that...


Based on what you've said since, it wasn't so much preconceptions as a case of you not reading properly.


I never said it was not true. I said it was fluff. World of difference.

Yes, because when an invasion greatly increases terrorist activity (a few thousand-fold), mentioning the impact of that invasion is just "fluff"... :rolleyes:

And these migrations are not limited to Islamics...

One thing that alot of people forget though is that the economic migrates, for the most part, return to their country of origin.

Of course there are exceptions...you are unlike to return to a war zone...but for the most part they do go back.

So this could well be another reason not to integrate. Besides the usual reasons - fear, language, customs...

No they are not, rather these migrations create the desire and the electronic media the opportunity to create communities no longer based on territory.

The next point is, that young people that are actually well-integrated, can no longer identify with their parential culture and seek connection with the culture they live in. Sadly they sometimes fail and consequently become attracted to the "universal" forms of Islam that are popular today.

It is on the internet where the modern universal and Fundamentalist forms of Islam such as Salafism (saudi variant) and Jihadism flourish. The visitors and administrators of these fundamentalist sites are generally the aforementioned young urban Western Muslims that seek community, and a way out of Isolation. They can subsequently directly access the perceived core of their religion without the mediation of classical religious institutions . This accessible core of fundamentalist Islam, limited to Qur‘ân and Hadith, is especially attractive to those that did not receive an Islamic education, either through their parents or a traditional institute. For, without much effort they can be part of this community of sentiment, and acquire respect as autodidact or self appointed sheikh. As such, they nonetheless discard the rich but less accessible traditions of Islam.

Consequently, a specific Western and youthful public has direct access to this limited body of knowledge, which is likely to have its effects on the way in which Islam is experienced. Moreover, as the core texts are being interpreted by those without a territorial base or a traditional Islamic education, new radical forms of Islamism are being developed. For, the desire to recreate an Islamic community, based on their fundamentalist view of Islam, has led Jihadist fringe groups to try to convert the general Muslim population to become part their imagined community. This is not only done through preaching or da’wa on the internet, but also through the search for a common enemy. This potential enemy is consequently found in the Western world, which is well known to these westernized Muslims. Through referring to the atrocities perpetrated by the Western world and the Western reactions to terrorist attacks, they attempt to rally the idealized traditional Islamic community behind their newfound religion. Some fight the West in the periphery of Islam, such as in Bosnia or in Afghanistan or by attempting attacks in Europe or the United States , but this struggle is not expected to destroy the west, but to recreate the imagined Islamic empire that once was. For, though these new Islamists have no territorial base they nonetheless long for this imagined empire of Islam, encompassing the territory of all Muslim lands .

Hmmm... He seems to be arguing for the French approach. Integration with great importance laid on common values ([i]les valeurs de la République(/i]), seen as common to all French (if not universal), and non-ethnic, rather than what Fukuyama calls the British and Dutch model of multiculturalism ("multiculturalism as a framework for the coexistence of separate cultures rather than a transitional mechanism for integrating newcomers into a dominant culture").

That in itself is an interesting topic for discussion.

It is :)

Pretty much. Europe was in less chaos during WWII than it is now.
Europe is a mess in general, a hodge-podge of conflicting ideologies, but hardly in a state of chaos.

Wogs are Australians of European descent. I'm an Australian, and I'm of European descent. 1 + 1.
Of what descent are you? Are you Kievan-Prussia by the way?

The Germans can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned. They're a dead race, a dead culture.
By your definition, wouldn't Germans be considered wogs too? That is irrelevant though really. The word "wog" nowadays seems to mean Middle Easterners anyway.


Do you think killing someone because of their skin colour is amusing? No? You don't? Then why are you a racist?
How does the one follow from the other?

Regarding the article....I am still surprised no one has grokked the fact that this is a puff article. Its full of nice sounding analysis...but at the end the point of the article was to blame Europe.
Except that he makes many valid points. Europe does have some weaknesses with regard to immigration that the US does not face. I would say he is being rather realistic. And to be honest, Europe deserves to be heaped with blame (especially its sickening politicians). Perhaps that will encourage its citizens to reassert themselves and instill some confidence in their beliefs.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/thinktanks/story/0,,2000984,00.html
A growing minority of young Muslims are inspired by political Islam and feel they have less in common with non-Muslims than their parents do, a survey reveals today. The poll, carried out for the conservative-leaning Policy Exchange thinktank, found support for Sharia law, Islamic schools and wearing the veil in public is significantly stronger among young Muslims than their parents.

In the survey of 1,003 Muslims by the polling company Populus through internet and telephone questionnaires, nearly 60% said they would prefer to live under British law, while 37% of 16 to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law, against 17% of those over 55. Eighty-six per cent said their religion was the most important thing in their lives.

Nearly a third of 16 to 24-year-olds believed that those converting to another religion should be executed, while less than a fifth of those over 55 believed the same. The survey claimed that British authorities and some Muslim groups have exaggerated the problem of Islamophobia and fuelled a sense of victimhood among some Muslims: 84% said they believed they had been well treated in British society, though only 28% thought the authorities had gone over the top in trying not to offend Muslims. Munira Mirza, a doctoral student at Kent University who wrote the report, said: "The government should engage with Muslims as citizens, not through their religious identity."

On the web one could spend a lifetime among the likeminded, visiting a great number of sites, and finding extensive support for existing views, without ever being subjected to conflicting beliefs.
That's what NS is for. :)

Except that he makes many valid points. Europe does have some weaknesses with regard to immigration that the US does not face. I would say he is being rather realistic. And to be honest, Europe deserves to be heaped with blame (especially its sickening politicians). Perhaps that will encourage its citizens to reassert themselves and instill some confidence in their beliefs.

Heaped with blame is a bit harsh... It could have taken some other actions but you might expect both too little and too much of government.

Heaped with blame is a bit harsh... It could have taken some other actions but you might expect both too little and too much of government.
Hey, I have as much respect for European politicians in general as I do for Bush. Merkel is the notable exception, so yes, it is a bit of an exaggeration. But not much.

It's not as if I recommended they be taken to the guillotine (yet). :)

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/thinktanks/story/0,,2000984,00.html
These are the young people I described earlier :)

Note that they have far more in common with their western counterparts than their parens who are tied to traditional and regional forms of Islam

Hey, I have as much respect for European politicians in general as I do for Bush. Merkel is the notable exception, so yes, it is a bit of an exaggeration. But not much.

It's not as if I recommended they be taken to the guillotine (yet). :)

:)

I believe I read the same article cited by Aryavartha, albeit in the Telegraph.

Given that the Think Tank in question is decidedly right wing, I might question the full legitimacy of the findings, however, they are disturbing in themselves. I would personally concur with the suggestion that multiculturalism, and pluralist policies that have given rise to Islamic extremism, in elevating any form of Islamic culture to the equal of "British" culture.

I can appreciate that "feelings of social disillusionment" amongst young muslims are the result of the context with which they are greeted, however, I maintain that the diminution in "Britishness" Labour has allowed to occur through ardent multiculturalism has reduced the allure of integration, and thus increased the lustre of extremism.

He never implied any such thing with terrorism in general. Only in reference to terrorist acts in the West.

No. He lumped the entire lot together. Forgetting that there are terrorist attacks outside of the west...it is a global phenomenon is it not? He is trying to imply that Europe is responsible. How that can be when, for example, there are/were Islamic extremists in countries outside of Europe.



See above.

Quite.



Based on what you've said since, it wasn't so much preconceptions as a case of you not reading properly.

Oh dear. That is weak. I suspect you know that as well.



Yes, because when an invasion greatly increases terrorist activity (a few thousand-fold), mentioning the impact of that invasion is just "fluff"... :rolleyes:

It was fluff with regards to the discussion. I am sorry if you are unable to grasp that.

I have to disagree.

Despite popular belief of the contrary, political Islam or Islamism is a modern political ideology, rather than simply an orthodox view of Islam. Subsequently, Islamist movements are a product of the modern world; <snipped>

Sorry for the late reply, but this post of yours is interesting and deserves discussion. I dunno if that is the right choice of words to describe what you are trying to describe.

It can certainly be argued that political Islam is Islam. Mohammed himself was a warlord and established a political entity for the ummah. It is for this reason that the modern salafi movement (now appropriated by AQ and co) seeks to establish a caliphate as a core aim - for the muslims to come out of the new jahilya (in their view) by overthrowing present political leadership in muslim lands (and what they see as muslim lands under non-muslim rule).

Islamism is not a modern political ideology. Shah Waliullah was an islamist and did not live in modern times (if we are considering late 19th and 20th century as modern times). The phenomenon of AQ, MB and to some extent the various assorted separatist jihadi groups (Lashkar e toiba, jaish e muhammed, the Abu Sayyef etc etc at their present stage) should be actually called the modern salafi movement because the salafi movement in itself is not modern. They owe a lot to Qutb, Maududi who are called the fathers of modern salafi movement.

How does the one follow from the other?

Except that he makes many valid points. Europe does have some weaknesses with regard to immigration that the US does not face. I would say he is being rather realistic. And to be honest, Europe deserves to be heaped with blame (especially its sickening politicians). Perhaps that will encourage its citizens to reassert themselves and instill some confidence in their beliefs.

Because there is documented proof that racists kill those they 'oppose'.

Never said he did not make valid points. The Bible makes valid points. That does not mean I agree with the general message.

Europe is not entirely innocent. Only a utter fool would say otherwise. But to blame all of the extremist Islamic threats on Europe is...well patently ridiculous.

Regarding the US...case in point...Iran.

These are the young people I described earlier :)

Note that they have far more in common with their western counterparts than their parens who are tied to traditional and regional forms of Islam

The article is about UK and I believe UK is rather unique amongst European countries because the majority of its muslims come from one particular country which has quite a lot of problems with islamism.

Because there is documented proof that racists kill those they 'oppose'.

Never said he did not make valid points. The Bible makes valid points. That does not mean I agree with the general message.

Europe is not entirely innocent. Only a utter fool would say otherwise. But to blame all of the extremist Islamic threats on Europe is...well patently ridiculous.

Regarding the US...case in point...Iran.

Beyond the monumental cock-up we made as regards Palestine, neither Britain, nor Europe, is remotely guilty for the state of the middle east. Admittedly, Suez hardly improved relations with Egypt, however that does little to explain contemporary extremism, given that Egypt is not among the truly "extreme" Islamic states.

In any case, the suggestion that Europe's values are to be held to account for extremism amongst Islamic extremists is false. As I previously state (different post btw), Europe, or, rather, Britain and France, have fostered extremism through reducing the allure of native culture. However, if we accept that certain tenets of Islam are irreconcilable to European culture, why should we accomodate Islam? We were damn well here before them, our culture conquered the damn world, and proved rather nice before extra-European immigration occurred.

The article is about UK and I believe UK is rather unique amongst European countries because the majority of its muslims come from one particular country which has quite a lot of problems with islamism.

UK - Pakistan

France - Alegeria & Morocco

Netherlands - Indonesia (this is off the top of my head...it might well be different now...)

Germany - Turkey

Out of those ... Pakistan is having a mare as is Turkey. Morocco has had some terror activity as has Algeria (although not for some time as far as I am aware).

Indonesia - Seems to be pretty stable...but is also beset with problems as well..

Sorry for the late reply, but this post of yours is interesting and deserves discussion. I dunno if that is the right choice of words to describe what you are trying to describe.

It can certainly be argued that political Islam is Islam. Mohammed himself was a warlord and established a political entity for the ummah. It is for this reason that the modern salafi movement (now appropriated by AQ and co) seeks to establish a caliphate as a core aim - for the muslims to come out of the new jahilya (in their view) by overthrowing present political leadership in muslim lands (and what they see as muslim lands under non-muslim rule).

Islamism is not a modern political ideology. Shah Waliullah was an islamist and did not live in modern times (if we are considering late 19th and 20th century as modern times). The phenomenon of AQ, MB and to some extent the various assorted separatist jihadi groups (Lashkar e toiba, jaish e muhammed, the Abu Sayyef etc etc at their present stage) should be actually called the modern salafi movement because the salafi movement in itself is not modern. They owe a lot to Qutb, Maududi who are called the fathers of modern salafi movement.

Interesting remarks, you make some valid points. But your statements would require some careful consideration, and elaboration on my part.

First of all let me state that there does not exis a single form of Islam, nor does there exist a single form of Islamism. The universal form of Islamism I was refering to is indeed a modern political ideology.

Second there is more than one Salafist movement, I was refering to the Wahabite version. As you will probably know the way of the Salaf, is literraly the way of the pious forefathers. Historically, Islam has been divided into four schools of Sunni religious law, or madhabs, with each its own territorial base and local customs . From the Hanbali Madhab developed a puritan sect after the severe eighteenth century religious reformist Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab , which came to be know as Wahhabism or Salafism . Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab entered into a successful alliance with the tribal leader Muhammed bin Saud, which eventually led to the foundation of state of Saudi Arabia. As becomes clear from their self-assigned title they wish to follow the way of the Salaf: the pious forefathers and companions of the prophet . This strict school seeks the solutions for modern problems in the literal implementation and adherence to the Qur’an and the actions of the prophet in the Hadith. Wahhabism deems individual judgment as well as human reason unacceptable and flawed. Still they are nonetheless selective in the sources and contested hadith they follow . Note that since no text can be understood without interpretation, they interpret as well; it is merely part of their imagined identity that they do not. Another essential characteristic of the Salafist movement is its claim to be a universal form of Islam, in sharp contrast to other traditional, regionally based forms of Islam. It is due to this universalistic pretension that Salafism may pose for Muslims as a viable community of sentiment.

This Salafi movement globalized but clerical, rather than political; it does accept a political leader as long as the Shari'a and the religion in the domestic sphere are upheld. Islamists, and the modern Jihadis variant of AQ are globalized and political. They struggle with traditional Clerical Islam over religious influence.

In this internal struggle over the heart of Islam, the ulema, including the traditional salafist ulama , have lost the sole power to declare Jihad to the Jihadists. Moreover, they are powerless to stop young westernized Muslims to abandon the rich traditions of Islam for their novel intepretations . The struggle in Europe between the traditional ulema in the mosque and the new salafists and Jihadists on the internet may well define the future of Islam. For, through the development of new information technologies and large-scale migration, a new Western form of popular Islam has emerged on the internet. Consequently, we are also witnessing the emergence of a new form of Islamism; a form of Islamism that has developed outside the traditional borders, both territorial as well as intellectual, of Islam. Through its struggle with an imagined Western enemy this form of Islamism attempts to reunite the global Islamic ummah, in a state spanning all Muslim lands. Though this project is likely to fail, the successful attacks and the US reaction in Afghanistan and Iraq has provided these movements with enough momentum to increase their standing in Europe and the US and to a lesser extent in the Middle East. Consequently they may well prove to form a growing threat to the more traditional schools of Islam in the Future.

The article is about UK and I believe UK is rather unique amongst European countries because the majority of its muslims come from one particular country which has quite a lot of problems with islamism.

No this is not only in the UK, and it does not matter that Mawdudi was from Pakistan. For, these young people are breaking the ties with their parental culture and creating new forms of Islam.

Sadly I have to go home now :)

but I will respond tomorrow :)

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=8239


Best article I've seen in ages. It tackles all the problems in contemporary politics. It explains MTAE's rants against terrorists, NN's rants against immigrants, everyone's rants against neocons.

Since Fukuyama redeemed himself by leaving neoconservatism behind, he's once again among the top commentators of our time, I reckon.

What do you think?

So muslims need to be integrated and to do that both muslims and the hosts need to work towards it. Why?
Why does the host need to change to accomodate? There is only 1 Netherlands in the world. If the Dutch (and flemish) culture becomes half Dutch half muslim 70 years later, that'd suck, in my opinion. Kinda like the extinction of a species. In this case hybridisation of a species to prevent it from going extint ("muslims need to be integrated or they may take over because they are more sure..." Something like that)

People are giving a lot of thought to this integration bussiness. More can be achieved if more thought is given to develop poorer countries instead of importing poverty into modern countries ("half of muslims are on welfare")

Except that of course it is no different than one side of the debate actually taking place in Europe as we speak. There are plenty of Europeans saying exactly the same stuff. Mainly the ones like me: people who used to be all about hands-off multiculturalism, but notice now that the values that were formerly taken for granted are not givens. If some girl is forced to stay at home all day and then married off to her brother's schoolmate without ever having met him, that's not cool. And then you can either respect the different group morals - or you can stick by the guns that would deem this unacceptable anywhere, any time.

Its quite a quandry. On the one hand the roots of multiculturalism are base in Enlightenment values. I won't mind your Christian faith if don't mind my butt plug sorta thing. Many Muslims haven't ingrained these Enlightenment values within themselves. However, many who want to are opposed to Islam are willing to forsake these very same values. Its a big mess.

Fukuyama's thoughts that a kind of collectivistic framework is needed for pluralistic individualism to thrive is interesting. I'm somewhat surprised that some libertarians seem to readily accept this.

Why does the host need to change to accomodate? There is only 1 Netherlands in the world.
No, there are about 16 and a half million different Netherlands. Every person sees it differently. Every person within it sees themselves as part of a specific subculture.

And secondly, you seem to think that there is an ownership aspect here. There isn't. It's just a question of living together with other people, and offering everyone a chance to personal success.

If the Dutch (and flemish) culture becomes half Dutch half muslim 70 years later, that'd suck, in my opinion. Kinda like the extinction of a species.
Except of course that the "Dutch culture" won't stand still either way. Nor will the "Muslim culture". Unless you quickly freeze everyone in a big cryo-machine, this species is gonna go extinct either way.

People are giving a lot of thought to this integration bussiness. More can be achieved if more thought is given to develop poorer countries instead of importing poverty into modern countries ("half of muslims are on welfare")
That's a long-term solution that doesn't even begin to cover the issues faced today. And besides, you'll never get the third world or even the middle east developed quite as well as Europe, so the difference remains.

Fukuyama's thoughts that a kind of collectivistic framework is needed for pluralistic individualism to thrive is interesting. I'm somewhat surprised that some libertarians seem to readily accept this.
As long as it's not done through government (which would fail anyways, government can't change the way people see themselves or others), libertarians aren't any more sceptical of any particular group activity than anyone else.

Because there is documented proof that racists kill those they 'oppose'.
Just like there is documented proof that Muslim or Christian bigots can kill. It is a gross exaggeration, and I'm sure you're aware of it.

Europe is not entirely innocent. Only a utter fool would say otherwise. But to blame all of the extremist Islamic threats on Europe is...well patently ridiculous.
Europe (or better yet, Europeans) is mostly to blame for its inaction rather than its actions, as opposed to the USA.


Fukuyama's thoughts that a kind of collectivistic framework is needed for pluralistic individualism to thrive is interesting. I'm somewhat surprised that some libertarians seem to readily accept this.
From what I could surmise he believes Westerners ought to reassert themselves and have confidence in their values. Which is fine by me.

As long as it's not done through government (which would fail anyways, government can't change the way people see themselves or others), libertarians aren't any more sceptical of any particular group activity than anyone else.
Exactly. This is something a group of individuals as a culture must decide for themselves. It cannot be imposed from above, nor should it be.

No, there are about 16 and a half million different Netherlands. Every person sees it differently. Every person within it sees themselves as part of a specific subculture.


"Different" is relative. You may say there are 1 billion Netherlands since people's thinking change as they age. So your comment makes no sense.


And secondly, you seem to think that there is an ownership aspect here. There isn't. It's just a question of living together with other people, and offering everyone a chance to personal success.


Given the problems, the situation is far from ideal.


Except of course that the "Dutch culture" won't stand still either way. Nor will the "Muslim culture". Unless you quickly freeze everyone in a big cryo-machine, this species is gonna go extinct either way.


Where did I say/imply that they should stand still?


That's a long-term solution that doesn't even begin to cover the issues faced today. And besides, you'll never get the third world or even the middle east developed quite as well as Europe, so the difference remains.


South Korea became wealthy pretty quickly. So did Ireland.

Of what descent are you? Are you Kievan-Prussia by the way?

Well, DUH. I thought everyone know that.

By your definition, wouldn't Germans be considered wogs too? That is irrelevant though really. The word "wog" nowadays seems to mean Middle Easterners anyway..

Only to confused Aussies and bogans.

As long as it's not done through government (which would fail anyways, government can't change the way people see themselves or others), libertarians aren't any more sceptical of any particular group activity than anyone else.

From what I could surmise he believes Westerners ought to reassert themselves and have confidence in their values. Which is fine by me.

Exactly. This is something a group of individuals as a culture must decide for themselves. It cannot be imposed from above, nor should it be.

Fukuyama praised the quasi-ritualized civil religion of nationalism and patriotism that most US follow to one degree or another. This has political consequences, and I don't think all of them would be to a libertarian's liking. Take for example secession. If some state wanted to secede from the Union then any war to keep them together would have immense popular support, in the short term at least. A whole state leave would be tantamount to blasphemy.

For another thing Fukuyama seemed to support immigration quotas and controls. Not the most anti-statist option ever.

Well, DUH. I thought everyone know that.
I only keep track of the posters I debate with, and next to none other. I thought you had left the boards anyway (as in KP). Aren't you of German ethnicity?

Fukuyama praised the quasi-ritualized civil religion of nationalism and patriotism that most US follow to one degree or another.
We make the Orwellian distinction between patriotism and etatism. That is to say, we have no problem in general with love of one's country and such. The State is another matter.

This has political consequences, and I don't think all of them would be to a libertarian's liking. Take for example secession. If some state wanted to secede from the Union then any war to keep them together would have immense popular support, in the short term at least. A whole state leave would be tantamount to blasphemy.
And that we disagree with. Nationalism is to an extent unnatural even. Notice how people tend to associate more with their cities than their nation in most of their lives.

For another thing Fukuyama seemed to support immigration quotas and controls. Not the most anti-statist option ever.
European countries have extensive welfare systems that no libertarian would ever support, and which the USA certainly does not have. It's with this in mind that Fukuyama argues limits on immigration I believe. A minarchist state would have open borders.

I only keep track of the posters I debate with, and next to none other. I thought you had left the boards anyway (as in KP). Aren't you of German ethnicity?

German/Ukrainian. Although I'm starting to like this term "German" less and less. Ever since they got together in 1871 they've had some collective problem in the head that they haven't worked out yet.

We make the Orwellian distinction between patriotism and etatism. That is to say, we have no problem in general with love of one's country and such. The State is another matter.

Secession is a betrayal of the country. Patriots then want to argue for the State to punish or at least stop the seseders. I argue that individual rights can be easily put in jeapordy for the good of the country.

And that we disagree with. Nationalism is to an extent unnatural even. Notice how people tend to associate more with their cities than their nation in most of their lives.

Actually I would argue that people associate more with their country in that most people may live in various cities throughout their lives but usually only one nation. I do not see the difference between nationalism and patriotism.

European countries have extensive welfare systems that no libertarian would ever support, and which the USA certainly does not have. It's with this in mind that Fukuyama argues limits on immigration I believe. A minarchist state would have open borders.

Actually many Europeans want to limit immigration to save the welfare state. No, I think Fukuyama wants the Western nations to control the make-up of its citizens, to keep them Western.

I hope you don't think Fukuyama is a classical liberal. He's not. Just look up his name and transhumanism.

Secession is a betrayal of the country. Patriots then want to argue for the State to punish or at least stop the seseders. I argue that individual rights can be easily put in jeapordy for the good of the country.
I wouldn't say they're patriots then, but rather the type that puts the nation-state above the individual. I should clarify, when I say patriotic I mean a love for a territory, whatever, but not to the degree you describe (which boarders on authoritarian).

Actually I would argue that people associate more with their country in that most people may live in various cities throughout their lives but usually only one nation. I do not see the difference between nationalism and patriotism.
Perhaps because there is little - etatism (the word I meant to use for nationalism) and nationalism/patriotism are distinct, but can go hand in hand. Either way, in Europe (and especially England) the tendency is for city patriotism more so than towards a country, even if it occurs.

Actually many Europeans want to limit immigration to save the welfare state.
Exactly. The problem is that many of the immigrants are actually needed to fund it. This is the dilemma presently facing Sweden.

No, I think Fukuyama wants the Western nations to control the make-up of its citizens, to keep them Western.

I hope you don't think Fukuyama is a classical liberal. He's not. Just look up his name and transhumanism.
I know he's not.

German/Ukrainian. Although I'm starting to like this term "German" less and less. Ever since they got together in 1871 they've had some collective problem in the head that they haven't worked out yet.
Ah yes, I remember now. Funny that I hadn't realised it the whole time... You used to say you're allemanic, not German, no? Plus you used to be a lot more depressive, or emo as they call it.

"Different" is relative. You may say there are 1 billion Netherlands since people's thinking change as they age. So your comment makes no sense.
Why not? What I'm saying is that countries don't represent monolithic cultural entities, because within every country there are thousands of different subcultures and groups. To say that you can't be Dutch and Muslim is like saying you can't be Dutch and like Heavy Metal music.

Where did I say/imply that they should stand still?
You said that Dutch culture could go extinct. But that means that you have a clearly defined Dutch culture, which is different from whatever the immigrant communities believe in. That is the case today, but it probably won't be the case in fifty years.

Both cultures will be subject to change during that time, and chances are that the distinction between them will water down (as it has in other communities throughout history). By keeping the distinction static, you're keeping vital parts of the two cultures static as well.

South Korea became wealthy pretty quickly. So did Ireland.
Ireland was already doing fairly well. All it needed was the integration into the EU.

South Korea is a valid point, but even if every poor country could pull something like this off (which they couldn't), it would still be a long-term strategy at best. It took them forty years to get to a level where people will stop fleeing economic hardship.

Fukuyama praised the quasi-ritualized civil religion of nationalism and patriotism that most US follow to one degree or another.
Where?

All he said was that the national identity, as far as it is needed to make people feel happy, needs to be based on the values that the West believes in (which I think we can both agree upon), and that it needs to be divorced from relics like ethnicty and religion (which again doesn't sound half-bad).

National identity doesn't have to be patriotic or nationalistic. I'd say that Germany for example has a strong national identity, mainly given by history, but it's not one that is manifested through greatly patriotic feelings, or even favourable opinions of the place.

Ah yes, I remember now. Funny that I hadn't realised it the whole time... You used to say you're allemanic, not German, no? Plus you used to be a lot more depressive, or emo as they call it.

No, it was depression. Common with Asperger Syndrome.

I'd say that Germany for example has a strong national identity, mainly given by history, but it's not one that is manifested through greatly patriotic feelings, or even favourable opinions of the place.

http://www.smileyhut.com/laughing/hysterical.gif

No, it was depression. Common with Asperger Syndrome.
I get that from time to time as well, hence my occasional nihilism.

I wouldn't say they're patriots then, but rather the type that puts the nation-state above the individual. I should clarify, when I say patriotic I mean a love for a territory, whatever, but not to the degree you describe (which boarders on authoritarian).

Patriotism is the love for a country. The concept of a country encompasses shared territory, culture, history, ect. The nation-state is intertwined with this concept as well. This love may or may not lead one to put the nation-state above the individual, but it doesn't dismiss it out of hand.

Perhaps because there is little - etatism (the word I meant to use for nationalism) and nationalism/patriotism are distinct, but can go hand in hand. Either way, in Europe (and especially England) the tendency is for city patriotism more so than towards a country, even if it occurs.

I don't understand what etatism means. I Googled it and it is a synonym of statism. Statism can either mean state socialism, corporatism, a mixed economy, or just having a state, even a minarchist one.

If you think city patriotism is more important then you disagree with Fukuyama's thesis. He finds the US's patriotism superior to Europe's, and American's generally tend towards national patriotism rather than city patriotism. I think its a combinition of it being an immigrant nation combined with greater mobility, i.e. fewer and fewer people grow up and live in the same city their whole lives.

http://www.smileyhut.com/laughing/hysterical.gif
Look, I don't expect you to understand until you move and live there. And it could probably take a while.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,k-6896,00.html

Particularly these three examples might be of interest:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,416230,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,418781,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,420110,00.html

Patriotism is the love for a country. The concept of a country encompasses shared territory, culture, history, ect. The nation-state is intertwined with this concept as well. This love may or may not lead one to put the nation-state above the individual, but it doesn't dismiss it out of hand.
I never said it does. My point was simply that we have no issue with patriotism kept separate from etatism.


I don't understand what etatism means. I Googled it and it is a synonym of statism. Statism can either mean state socialism, corporatism, a mixed economy, or just having a state, even a minarchist one.
That is more or less it. It used to be synonymous with 19th century nationalism, glorifying the nation-state and such.

If you think city patriotism is more important then you disagree with Fukuyama's thesis. He finds the US's patriotism superior to Europe's, and American's generally tend towards national patriotism rather than city patriotism. I think its a combinition of it being an immigrant nation combined with greater mobility, i.e. fewer and fewer people grow up and live in the same city their whole lives.
I never said I agree with him entirely. He just makes some valid points. I wouldn't want Europe emulating US-style nationalism.

Look, I don't expect you to understand until you move and live there. And it could probably take a while.

I understand that they have a common self-loathing, with a general spike in something resembling patriotism every four years.

Where?

All he said was that the national identity, as far as it is needed to make people feel happy, needs to be based on the values that the West believes in (which I think we can both agree upon), and that it needs to be divorced from relics like ethnicty and religion (which again doesn't sound half-bad).

National identity doesn't have to be patriotic or nationalistic. I'd say that Germany for example has a strong national identity, mainly given by history, but it's not one that is manifested through greatly patriotic feelings, or even favourable opinions of the place.

Here
According to the late Seymour Martin Lipset, American identity was always political in nature and was powerfully influenced by the fact that the US was born from a revolution against state authority. The American creed was based on five basic values: equality (understood as equality of opportunity rather than outcome), liberty (or anti-statism), individualism (in the sense that individuals could determine their own social station), populism and laissez-faire. Because these qualities were both political and civic, they were in theory accessible to all Americans (after the abolition of slavery) and have remained remarkably durable over the republic's history. Robert Bellah once described the US as having a "civil religion," but it is a church that is open to newcomers.

and here

Despite its very different starting point, America may have something to teach Europeans here as they attempt to construct post-ethnic forms of national citizenship and belonging. American life is full of quasi-religious ceremonies and rituals meant to celebrate the country's democratic political institutions: flag-raising ceremonies, the naturalisation oath, Thanksgiving and the 4th of July. Europeans, by contrast, have largely deritualised their political lives. Europeans tend to be cynical or dismissive of American displays of patriotism. But such ceremonies are important in the assimilation of new immigrants.

Here ... and here ...
Granted.

Though the ceremonies don't have to stand for anything in particular. If all he means is the rituals because they make newcomers feel like they belong, then fine, I guess.

Personally, I don't see the point, ceremonies don't give me anything. I wouldn't participate either. But I know that there are people who enjoy that sort of thing, and maybe that could be part of a strategy for integration.

I never said it does. My point was simply that we have no issue with patriotism kept separate from etatism.

Yet how can you separate them completely?

That is more or less it. It used to be synonymous with 19th century nationalism, glorifying the nation-state and such.

Ummm....which one did you mean? Because most libertarians believe in some form of state, though a small one.

Yet how can you separate them completely?
I can because it is a specific development of Hegelian nationalism to link the two together. There is no necessary correlation between the two, even though one manifests itself frequently.

Ummm....which one did you mean? Because most libertarians believe in some form of state, though a small one.
The 19th-century ethnolatry.

I can because it is a specific development of Hegelian nationalism to link the two together. There is no necessary correlation between the two, even though one manifests itself frequently.

Explain.

That's why you speak Arabic.

You're not even making sense here.

Is this some sort of half-assed attempt to suggest I'm an Arabic terrorist?

Or do you actually believe I speak Arabic, on the basis that I mock your racist xenophobia?

Why not? What I'm saying is that countries don't represent monolithic cultural entities, because within every country there are thousands of different subcultures and groups. To say that you can't be Dutch and Muslim is like saying you can't be Dutch and like Heavy Metal music.


This is a non sequitur. You are comparing apples and oranges. The extensiveness of heavy metal "subculture" is MUCH MUCH lower than Muslim culture. Its relationship with the main culture is also different. For ex, having premarital sex is no problem for heavy metal "subculture" and in line with main culture but same can not be said about most people from muslim culture.
And sharing a culture does not imply being same. You are confusing personality with culture.


You said that Dutch culture could go extinct. But that means that you have a clearly defined Dutch culture, which is different from whatever the immigrant communities believe in. That is the case today, but it probably won't be the case in fifty years.


This is a straw man. Preserving cultures does not equal freezing them, it means letting them advance in their "natural" course. 50 years later, "full" NL would be fundamentally different than "hybrid" NL and hence would be "extinct", despite the fact that "full" NL would also be moderately different than current NL.
Ex: Native American culture would be preserved if Europeans didnt dominate North America, despite the fact that native culture would be much different than it was 500 years ago.


Both cultures will be subject to change during that time, and chances are that the distinction between them will water down (as it has in other communities throughout history). By keeping the distinction static, you're keeping vital parts of the two cultures static as well.


By eliminating the distinction, you ARE destroying the vital parts as well as a senthesis of two bodies may not have each distinct characteristics of each body. So, I wouldnt want everyone being same in future, that'd be so boring.
And your argument is wishful thinking. It's not based on current trends. And you can not always generalize past experiences to apply to present. Not all cultures converge. Although mostly destroyed, there's a distinct native culture in North America which hasnt converged. And your argument is single directional. If culture in Europe become "hybridized", culture in Islamic part would still be Islamic because of no immigration and that culture would also affect the "European Islam".


Ireland was already doing fairly well. All it needed was the integration into the EU.

South Korea is a valid point, but even if every poor country could pull something like this off (which they couldn't), it would still be a long-term strategy at best. It took them forty years to get to a level where people will stop fleeing economic hardship.

I do hope, when I'm old, if I go to Europe, I wouldnt find it with mosques everywhere and most of the women in veils and Arabic being the second language, if not first, and the liberal custums such as topless women in the park, gays kissing in streets replaced with a more conservative/subdued culture. It'd take away the charm for me even if muslims abide by democratic principles. Canada is already a multi-cultural, immigration society and it should be but I'd feel like as if something inside me was missing, if Europe underwent such a drastic change, which it could be, given the massive influx of muslims into the continent. You may not like where you come from but I do.

Interesting.

Explain.
Romantic nationalism is a specific feature of Hegel's philosophy - i.e. the notion that the people make up the nation, and therefore should foster a love for it (contrast with the Divine Right as invoked under absolute Monarchy). In prior times there was a distrust of the ruling elite, even a dislike of them. They were seen as something separate. The idea of mixing etatism with patriotism came with this advancement (although Rome and Macedone were themselves precursors to it in ancient times). Before the nation-state, there was love of land but never love of State (perhaps because a State per se wasn't fully elaborated at the time). One could of course love their King and nobility, much in the way one could love a celebrity or a benefactor. The fact that territories changed hands all the time didn't help much either.

The essential distinction to understand is that back then the kingdom was property of the King/Queen (and hence it is the King/Queen and their elite who were its most ardent defenders, given their inherent property interest), whereas nowadays the nation is believed to be everyone's property, hence everyone has a joint interest in its defence; a belief instilled by several cunning 18th century absolute Monarchs (e.g. Peter and Catherine the Great, Frederick the Great etc.) and statesmen (e.g. Bismarck) in order to aid them achieve their goals.

Romantic nationalism is a specific feature of Hegel's philosophy - i.e. the notion that the people make up the nation, and therefore should foster a love for it (contrast with the Divine Right as invoked under absolute Monarchy). In prior times there was a distrust of the ruling elite, even a dislike of them. They were seen as something separate. The idea of mixing etatism with patriotism came with this advancement (although Rome and Macedone were themselves precursors to it in ancient times). Before the nation-state, there was love of land but never love of State (perhaps because a State per se wasn't fully elaborated at the time). One could of course love their King and nobility, much in the way one could love a celebrity or a benefactor. The fact that territories changed hands all the time didn't help much either.

The essential distinction to understand is that back then the kingdom was property of the King/Queen (and hence it is the King/Queen and their elite who were its most ardent defenders, given their inherent property interest), whereas nowadays the nation is believed to be everyone's property, hence everyone has a joint interest in its defence; a belief instilled by several cunning 18th century absolute Monarchs (e.g. Peter and Catherine the Great, Frederick the Great etc.) and statesmen (e.g. Bismarck) in order to aid them achieve their goals.

I'm no sure I'd call the love of a land you describe patriotism. I mean if say England was broken up ino four separate countries, in the 1600s, how can someone be said love England when it no longer exists? Or say I love this piece of land I own, but not enough to pass up a good offer.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=8239


Best article I've seen in ages. It tackles all the problems in contemporary politics. It explains MTAE's rants against terrorists, NN's rants against immigrants, everyone's rants against neocons.

Since Fukuyama redeemed himself by leaving neoconservatism behind, he's once again among the top commentators of our time, I reckon.

What do you think?

So, its the Europeans' fault that immigrants to Europe don't like it. That's absurd. Islamic terrorism is caused by Islam. Simple as that. If it weren't, it would just be plain generic terrorism instead of Islamic terrorism.

So, its the Europeans' fault that immigrants to Europe don't like it.
What?

It's the fault of an antiquated sense of community hung up on things like ethnicity or religion that newcomers who don't happen to be part of that ethnic or religious group feel excluded, yes.

I'm no sure I'd call the love of a land you describe patriotism.
Perhaps because I use a rather restrictive definition of the word, which would be little more than an elevated form of territorialism, and as localised as possible. This is also more in line with pre-Hegelian patriotism.

I mean if say England was broken up ino four separate countries, in the 1600s, how can someone be said love England when it no longer exists?
I think you're confusing nationalism with patriotism. They're usually closely linked, to be sure, but the above is a case of nationalistic tendencies.

Or say I love this piece of land I own, but not enough to pass up a good offer.
Then your attachment to it wasn't as great as you thought it was, clearly.

What?

It's the fault of an antiquated sense of community hung up on things like ethnicity or religion that newcomers who don't happen to be part of that ethnic or religious group feel excluded, yes.

Have you ever actually been to Europe? Europeans are some of the most tolerant people in the world, especiialy the Dutch. They are definitely not hung up on ethnicity. Religion isn't much of an issue for them either since Europe has become very secularized. Europe is not "antiquated" at all. If the immigrants don't like it, they should stay out of Europe.

Have you ever actually been to Europe?
I was born there and spent 16 years there. So, yes, I've been.

And despite all the nice things people like to say on the media...I've seen how people reacted when the Russians came and lived in the new houses they were putting up. Or the Turks. Or even when the Polish happened to come over to pick up old couches and TVs we were throwing away.

Hell, have you ever had a look at citizenship law in Germany or Holland? Don't tell me ethnicity is no longer important.

Perhaps because I use a rather restrictive definition of the word, which would be little more than an elevated form of territorialism, and as localised as possible. This is also more in line with pre-Hegelian patriotism.

Only we live in a post-Hegelian word and therefore pariotism today is post-Hegelian.

I think you're confusing nationalism with patriotism. They're usually closely linked, to be sure, but the above is a case of nationalistic tendencies.

I think you have a screwy definion of patriotism.

Only we live in a post-Hegelian word and therefore pariotism today is post-Hegelian.
And the word liberal means something completely different to what it used to mean. Doesn't stop people from using the older version anyway.

I think you have a screwy definion of patriotism.
Hardly. The way I use the word is far closer etymologically to its original meaning. Besides, conflating it with nationalism and etatism leaves me without a word to get through what I mean.

And the word liberal means something completely different to what it used to mean. Doesn't stop people from using the older version anyway.

Eh, people argue over the use of the word liberal as it has so many nuances and meanings. Take how Fukuyama is able to fawn over liberalism when he is neither a classical liberal nor a modern/social/welfare liberal. Let's agree to disagree then. I don't think we wan't to argue over the meaning of patriotism as much as the word liberal is argued about.


Hardly. The way I use the word is far closer etymologically to its original meaning. Besides, conflating it with nationalism and etatism leaves me without a word to get through what I mean.

And the way I use the word is far closer to the way the word is used in a popular sense. And if it leaves you without a word to get through what you mean then that is hardly my fault. ;)

Eh, people argue over the use of the word liberal as it has so many nuances and meanings. Take how Fukuyama is able to fawn over liberalism when he is neither a classical liberal nor a modern/social/welfare liberal. Let's agree to disagree then. I don't think we wan't to argue over the meaning of patriotism as much as the word liberal is argued about.
Fair enough.

And the way I use the word is far closer to the way the word is used in a popular sense. And if it leaves you without a word to get through what you mean then that is hardly my fault. ;)
Meh, I'll try dig up a word more suited to my intentions, since this one's been butchered.