Some time ago, I promised that this blog would touch upon the relationship between Isaac Asimov's Foundation series of novels and events in the real world. As it turns out, the books contain striking parallels to our current geopolitical state of affairs, but not at all in the way that might seem most obvious.
The Foundation novels take place in the distant future, when man has colonized the stars and created a giant galactic empire. This empire has reigned for thousands of years, but crippled by its vast size, is beginning to decline and decay. The Emperor and his subjects are fully oblivious to this slide, but a scientist named Hari Seldon, who has created a novel science of prediction called psychohistory, has mathematically forseen the impending collapse leading to a 30,000-year dark age of war, ignorance, and barbarism. To save mankind from these horrors, Seldon gathers the best and brightest from around the galaxy, and creates a colony on a faraway planet called the Foundation. This, as his psychohistorical calculations predict, will shorten the dark ages to a 1000-year period, at the end of which the Foundation will rise to form an enlightened and peaceful Second Empire.
But, of course, the Foundation must first survive the interim with its wars, political instability, and other myriad obstacles. Psychohistory predicts that the Foundation will do so, based upon the colony's nature as opposed to that of the empire (don't worry, this isn't a plot spoiler). But the Foundationers have no idea how they will actually make this occur.
Asimov wrote the original Foundation novels (a trilogy) after having read Edward Gibbon's The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire. Now based on this, it is entirely forgivable if you are thinking that surely the books must parallel America and its current "empire." And indeed the stability of the post-Cold War "pax Americana" -- what Francis Fukuyama referred to as the "End of History," with liberal democracy emerging as the winner -- has come under serious strain as of late, with unrest in the Middle East, China, Venezuela, and elsewhere.
But such a comparison, in my view, is not really accurate. For Asimov's fictional empire is a true colonizing power, led by corrupt, unelected officials with an all-powerful Emperor at the helm. This empire indeed epitomizes the hallmarks of ancient Rome, with its hereditary leadership, few (if any) checks and balances on power, and numerous bloody palace coups. America is nothing like this.
Rather, the Foundation novels mirror current events via the science of psychohistory. Just as Hari Seldon predicts with virtual certainty that the Foundation will ultimately win, the nature of radical Islam predicts with virtual certainty that it will ultimately lose.
Now I know a lot of people probably aren't so confident of this. But I am. And I will explain Hari Seldon-style why this is so.
Psychohistory is, of course, a made-up science. But in Asimov's fictional world, Hari Seldon uses it to mathematically analyze the entirety of possible galacticopolitical stimuli that humankind may encounter, and then, based on the known reactions of mass behavior to these stimuli, predict the outcomes to about 99% accuracy. (Once again, none of this is a plot spoiler.)
Unlike Seldon, I'm not using any formal science here, and I doubt the word "galacticopolitical" is even in the dictionary. But based on a general knowledge of certain broad characteristics of radical Islam versus those of competing cultures, I believe that the outcome of the jihadists' current conflict with the rest of the world (and yes, it certainly is against the rest of the world) can be predicted just as accurately as that of the war between the Foundation and the empire. And radical Islam will not win.
Why? In a nutshell, for two overarching reasons. First, unlike all other world powers today and in the past, radical Islam's strength is entirely artificial and dependent on the West. And secondly, the jihadists have an insurmountable weakness in their absolute refusal to question or compromise any of their core goals.
Let's touch on both points. Radical Islam is an anomaly among powerful movements in that it created virtually none of its strength on its own. All other nations that have ever achieved a modicum of power, from ancient Greece to the colonial British to modern-day America, and even evil powers such as Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, did so by developing their own governments, economies, and militaries. Whether good or evil, they all conquered and/or influenced mighty swaths of territory primarily due to the fruits of their own internal labor and developments.
The Islamists, on the other hand, have never developed a successfully functioning government, economy, or military. And in fact, the ultra-authoritarian nature of radical Islam utterly prevents them from doing so. Any society that does not allow any questioning of authority and any true freedom of any kind cannot possibly function as a modern society. And as we can see, every terrorist-sponsoring country is mired in dire poverty, a weakly functioning government, and weak militaries. Their only strengths are in ideological radicalism and terrorism, which are funded and permitted entirely by oil money and foreign aid, neither of which the Islamists produced themselves.
So the only way for the Islamists to advance are to 1) fundamentally change so that they can indeed produce a modern successful society, or 2) defeat the West as they surely aim to do so. The problem for them is that if they choose Option 1, they will no longer be Islamists. And if they begin to make any real headway in Option 2, they will lose the source of their strength far before they can come close to completing the job.
Now the second reason for the Islamists' eventual defeat, their refusal to question or compromise anything, is related to Option 2 above. Because the jihadists won't budge from their all-or-nothing position, there is no room for the enemy (i.e. the rest of us) to negotiate anything with them. And this will inevitably lead to all-out war, where it is virtually certain that the West, which built itself up via its own internal strengths, will soundly win. Once again, the Islamists face an insurmountable choice - either change themselves and compromise, which they cannot do without losing their core identity, or fight the West and lose.
This also answers the question of whether the Islamists can exploit the West's one key weakness, which is the left-leaning infatuation with multiculturalism and relative values that allowed radical Islam to emerge as a threat in the first place. And the answer is yes they can, but not indefinitely. Right now, many voices in America and in Europe continue to delude themselves that they can negotiate with the jihadists, that our enemies have placable goals, and that by helping and understanding them we can calm them down. This continues because, by and large, we have been very military successful against them in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and the leftist relativist element always feels guilty about being ahead. But anytime the jihadists commit acts of terror, tougher Western voices always emerge, and at some point (and I pray this occurs sooner than later), we will take no more and finally clamp down to utterly defeat them.
So there you have it - due to their very nature, the Islamists have no way to win. Ultimately, their only option is to lose.
But wait, you might be thinking, the Islamists acted the same way and yet carved out a mighty empire in the Middle East for a thousand years; how can you say this won't happen again? Well, the comparison may seem apt initially, but in reality the Islamic empire of old was very different than the jihadists of today. Back then, bloodthirsty and uncompromising as they were, they at least built up their own militaries, and while their their governments and economies were poor, so were everyone else's. Today the jihadists have none of these strengths.
No, the jihadists will not be successful and the rest of the world will ultimately come out victorious. Unfortunately this does not mean that the battle will be a cakewalk; just as Hari Seldon can predict only mass behavior and not the actions of any one individual, the Islamist-defeat model as presented here can forecast only the eventual outcome of the war at large. Very likely, there will be a number of challenges in the interim, which we must face and overcome strong and vigilantly. It is tragic that we have had to suffer even a single terrorist attack, and undoubtedly the jihadists are planning more evil actions as we speak. But make no mistake - in the end, we will win and they will lose.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Thursday, September 8, 2005
Leftism and Hollywood's Downturn
As many of us know, Hollywood in 2005 has experienced its worst downturn in recent memory, with box office takes plunging, fewer films becoming blockbusters, and many expensively produced movies becoming major flops. Studios have largely fingered as the culprit the increasing abundance of other entertainment options, such as home theater and DVDs, video games, and the Internet.
But are these really to blame? Entertainment choices actually have been increasing for many years, starting with radios and television sets in the 1950s. Video games went mainstream in the '80s, while the Web has been around for a decade and DVDs for nearly as long. Certainly these may play a partial role in the Hollywood downturn, but I believe that the primary cause is a different beast altogether - bad movies. And are these related to the Tinseltown crowd's leftwing tendencies? You bet.
To most Hollywood actors and filmmakers, achieving artistic credibility among their peers is of paramount career importance, even more so than earning large sums of money. (Just to point out, this is no different than artists in fields from painting to poetry; hence the term "starving artist.") That's why you see directors like Woody Allen and Roman Polanski, neither of whom have scored a hit in many years, continue to attract top acting talent and generous studio funding for films that are almost assured to pull great reviews but poor box office results. As the Hollywood crowd sees it, who cares how many people actually watch the movie; it's Woody Allen and he makes great art.
Thing is, when most of your peers have political and cultural values far different than most Americans, you may be impressing your friends but you're also alienating most of your audience. This, I believe, is why moviegoers shunned well reviewed films with ultra-liberal viewpoints like Kinsey and The Interpreter, but flocked to critically savaged yet family-friendly movies like Napoleon Dynamite.
Now certainly this is not the only cause of bad-movie syndrome; Hollywood has in recent years relied far more on formulaic sequels, remakes, and TV adaptations than on fresh and original scripts. But the confluence of leftism and artistic peer-review has no doubt played a significant role.
But are these really to blame? Entertainment choices actually have been increasing for many years, starting with radios and television sets in the 1950s. Video games went mainstream in the '80s, while the Web has been around for a decade and DVDs for nearly as long. Certainly these may play a partial role in the Hollywood downturn, but I believe that the primary cause is a different beast altogether - bad movies. And are these related to the Tinseltown crowd's leftwing tendencies? You bet.
To most Hollywood actors and filmmakers, achieving artistic credibility among their peers is of paramount career importance, even more so than earning large sums of money. (Just to point out, this is no different than artists in fields from painting to poetry; hence the term "starving artist.") That's why you see directors like Woody Allen and Roman Polanski, neither of whom have scored a hit in many years, continue to attract top acting talent and generous studio funding for films that are almost assured to pull great reviews but poor box office results. As the Hollywood crowd sees it, who cares how many people actually watch the movie; it's Woody Allen and he makes great art.
Thing is, when most of your peers have political and cultural values far different than most Americans, you may be impressing your friends but you're also alienating most of your audience. This, I believe, is why moviegoers shunned well reviewed films with ultra-liberal viewpoints like Kinsey and The Interpreter, but flocked to critically savaged yet family-friendly movies like Napoleon Dynamite.
Now certainly this is not the only cause of bad-movie syndrome; Hollywood has in recent years relied far more on formulaic sequels, remakes, and TV adaptations than on fresh and original scripts. But the confluence of leftism and artistic peer-review has no doubt played a significant role.
Wednesday, September 7, 2005
Where Is Everyone?
Did you know that just a few days ago, a Palestinian Muslim mob attacked a Christian village as retaliation for a woman having had an affair with a Christian resident of the village? You probably didn't, because as expected, the mainstream news media barely reported it. But wait, you might be thinking, what about the UN, Amnesty International, the Red Cross, and similar organizations? Surely they must be concerned for the welfare of the victims.
But nope, these leftwing groups (who most certainly would be livid had the attackers and victims been reversed) were nowhere to be found. It is clear that these organizations don't truly care about universal human welfare; they help others only when it benefits their political agendas. Fortunately, no one was hurt in the Palestinian incident and order has been restored. But there is no excuse for these groups' utter silence on the situation. All of these organizations are in serious need of reform, and we can all make a difference by continually pressing the matter until it spurs them to action.
But nope, these leftwing groups (who most certainly would be livid had the attackers and victims been reversed) were nowhere to be found. It is clear that these organizations don't truly care about universal human welfare; they help others only when it benefits their political agendas. Fortunately, no one was hurt in the Palestinian incident and order has been restored. But there is no excuse for these groups' utter silence on the situation. All of these organizations are in serious need of reform, and we can all make a difference by continually pressing the matter until it spurs them to action.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
European Immigration Solutions
There is an interesting article in the New York Times today that discusses Europe's problems with immigration, multiculturalism, and Muslims who have failed to assimilate into mainstream society. The gist of the piece is that Europe (and by this they mean Western Europe) is in a seemingly unsolvable dilemma, because it needs immigrants more than ever due to declining natural population growth, and yet many immigrants have not and don't seem to be able to integrate into the rest of society, with disastrous results. The article offers no solutions and appears pessimistic that an answer will be found anytime soon.
Now I don't know why Europeans (and the piece's author) consider this to be an unsolvable problem, because there is indeed an easy solution: encourage immigration from countries other than the Muslim world. There are millions and millions of people from China, India, Eastern Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America who would love to live in First World Europe, and who would very likely become hardworking, productive members of society. Sure, many of these countries are farther away than the Muslim world (except for Eastern Europe, which to be fair, does contribute a decent number of immigrants to the West), but that never stopped tens of millions of these people from immigrating to America, which is farther off still.
Europe's immigration problems do not stem from letting in too many immigrants; they stem from letting in too many radical Muslim immigrants. If the immigrants come from elsewhere, the problem is solved before it even begins.
Of course, this is not the only potential solution; immigration would not be needed at all if Europeans decided to have more babies and create more productive economies. But given the Continent's quasi-socialist welfare states that depress economic growth and make it expensive to raise kids, this scenario is unlikely to occur anytime soon. And as such, non-Muslim immigration appears to be the best answer.
Now I don't know why Europeans (and the piece's author) consider this to be an unsolvable problem, because there is indeed an easy solution: encourage immigration from countries other than the Muslim world. There are millions and millions of people from China, India, Eastern Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America who would love to live in First World Europe, and who would very likely become hardworking, productive members of society. Sure, many of these countries are farther away than the Muslim world (except for Eastern Europe, which to be fair, does contribute a decent number of immigrants to the West), but that never stopped tens of millions of these people from immigrating to America, which is farther off still.
Europe's immigration problems do not stem from letting in too many immigrants; they stem from letting in too many radical Muslim immigrants. If the immigrants come from elsewhere, the problem is solved before it even begins.
Of course, this is not the only potential solution; immigration would not be needed at all if Europeans decided to have more babies and create more productive economies. But given the Continent's quasi-socialist welfare states that depress economic growth and make it expensive to raise kids, this scenario is unlikely to occur anytime soon. And as such, non-Muslim immigration appears to be the best answer.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Middle East History
As a follow-up to the previous post, I want to address another issue - where did the Palestinian Arabs indeed come from? If they weren't inhabitants of ancient Israel, how did they get where they are now?
First, about Arabs in general. Many people have the misperception that the entire Middle East and North Africa is made up of "Arab countries" - nations where virtually the entire population are ethnic Arabs who speak the Arabic language. In reality, this is not so. Just for starters, Israel, Iran, Afghanistan, and Turkey are not and have never been Arab countries. Israelis are predominantly Jews who speak Hebrew, Iran consists mainly of ethnic Persians who speak Farsi, Turks are their own ethnic group who speak Turkish, and Afghanistan consists of numerous non-Arab tribes (the largest being the Pashtuns) who have their own languages and cultures.
Furthermore, even within countries that are actually considered to be Arab nations, the label is often quite superficial. The majority populations of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya are Berbers who were conquered by Arabs in the Middle Ages and forced to accept Arab language, culture, and religion. (More on that subject here.) Throughout most of its history (until the 1975-1990 civil war that saw millions of Christians flee to other countries), Lebanon was a Christian-majority state descended from the ancient Phoenicians. Iraq, meanwhile, contains a substantial minority of non-Arab Kurds, while Egypt is home to a sizeable number of Christian Copts (the descendents of the original ancient Egyptians).
Arabs, in fact, are not indigenous to any of the above countries; they initially came from the Arabian Peninsula, and from there only. That's why they're called Arabs to begin with - because they're from Arabia. The only true native Arab countries are those within the peninsula: Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait.
As for the rest of the "Arab" countries, they were forcibly conquered in the name of Islam during the Middle Ages. Think the European powers were the only colonizers back in the day? These two maps show the reality:
Arab Conquest of North Africa
Arab Conquest of Middle East
So that's how so much of the Middle East became "Arab" - through colonization little different than that of the European and other empires. A conquest, I might add, that took place about two thousand years after the first Jewish kingdom in Israel.
First, about Arabs in general. Many people have the misperception that the entire Middle East and North Africa is made up of "Arab countries" - nations where virtually the entire population are ethnic Arabs who speak the Arabic language. In reality, this is not so. Just for starters, Israel, Iran, Afghanistan, and Turkey are not and have never been Arab countries. Israelis are predominantly Jews who speak Hebrew, Iran consists mainly of ethnic Persians who speak Farsi, Turks are their own ethnic group who speak Turkish, and Afghanistan consists of numerous non-Arab tribes (the largest being the Pashtuns) who have their own languages and cultures.
Furthermore, even within countries that are actually considered to be Arab nations, the label is often quite superficial. The majority populations of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya are Berbers who were conquered by Arabs in the Middle Ages and forced to accept Arab language, culture, and religion. (More on that subject here.) Throughout most of its history (until the 1975-1990 civil war that saw millions of Christians flee to other countries), Lebanon was a Christian-majority state descended from the ancient Phoenicians. Iraq, meanwhile, contains a substantial minority of non-Arab Kurds, while Egypt is home to a sizeable number of Christian Copts (the descendents of the original ancient Egyptians).
Arabs, in fact, are not indigenous to any of the above countries; they initially came from the Arabian Peninsula, and from there only. That's why they're called Arabs to begin with - because they're from Arabia. The only true native Arab countries are those within the peninsula: Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait.
As for the rest of the "Arab" countries, they were forcibly conquered in the name of Islam during the Middle Ages. Think the European powers were the only colonizers back in the day? These two maps show the reality:
Arab Conquest of North Africa
Arab Conquest of Middle East
So that's how so much of the Middle East became "Arab" - through colonization little different than that of the European and other empires. A conquest, I might add, that took place about two thousand years after the first Jewish kingdom in Israel.
Archaeology the Palestinians Don't Want You to See
A big item in the news this past week was the discovery in Israel of what appears to be the Biblical palace of King David. An archaeologist digging in East Jerusalem uncovered the 3000-year old building, along with pottery shards and the government seal of an official mentioned in the book of Jeremiah.
But from the moment the discovery was announced, Palestinian Authority representatives immediately denounced the find as bogus and are desperately trying to downplay its importance. What's the big deal, you might wonder?
The answer is that it scares the PA to death. For years, the official PA party line has been that the Jews have no historical connection to the land of Israel and that they, the Palestinians, are the true indigenous population. According to their beliefs, the Jewish temples never existed and modern day Jews are European colonialists who came to oppress the native Palestinian Arabs and steal their land.
But each archaeological discovery in Israel just keeps on testifying to the historical Jewish presence (and lack of an Arab presence) in the land, and there's nothing the PA can do about this except to deny reality.
But from the moment the discovery was announced, Palestinian Authority representatives immediately denounced the find as bogus and are desperately trying to downplay its importance. What's the big deal, you might wonder?
The answer is that it scares the PA to death. For years, the official PA party line has been that the Jews have no historical connection to the land of Israel and that they, the Palestinians, are the true indigenous population. According to their beliefs, the Jewish temples never existed and modern day Jews are European colonialists who came to oppress the native Palestinian Arabs and steal their land.
But each archaeological discovery in Israel just keeps on testifying to the historical Jewish presence (and lack of an Arab presence) in the land, and there's nothing the PA can do about this except to deny reality.
Tuesday, August 2, 2005
Gaza Disengagement = A Terrible Idea
The battle over disengagement from the Gaza Strip has been raging for months in Israel, and with the planned evacuation set to take place in just a couple weeks, TheSolidSurfer.com wishes to state unequivocally that this is a terrible idea for Israel.
There is no logical reason or justification for expelling your own people and giving land away to an enemy who openly declares its desire to destroy your country. Ariel Sharon is making a grave mistake, although the more Israelis that turn against it (and many are doing so every day), the greater the hope that the government will change course at the last minute.
The pro-disengagement rationale is that Israel can't afford to continue devoting massive amounts of resources and soldiers (whose lives are at risk) to defend 8000 Gazan Jews against the hostile Palestinians who surround them. And so, the rationale goes, Israel would be better off by separating entirely and removing its people. Furthermore, the Palestinians keep saying that their terrorism is a result of the "occupation" and so this is the first step toward ending it. Sounds all nice and dandy, right?
Wrong - this explanation is pure sugar coating and denial. In reality, the "occupation" that the Palestinians rail against is not just Gaza and the West Bank; it's all of Israel. Palestinian terror attacks against Israel took place far before Israel ever had a presence in the territories. From 1948 to 1967, Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank part of Jordan, and yet the PLO formed in 1964 with the stated goal of liberating the "occupied land of Palestine." Hmmm, wonder what that could be referring to? (Hint - it wasn't the West Bank or Gaza.)
Giving Gaza to the Palestinians, then, would be perceived as completely capitulating to their terrorist attacks, just as PLO and Hamas leaders have of course repeatedly expressed in celebration. This is not exchanging land for peace; it's exchanging land for more terrorist attacks and war, which is nothing but outrageous. Most of Sharon's top advisors were naturally against this, and so he fired them and replaced them with new ones. It'd be one thing if giving away Gaza would truly lead to peace, but in this case it's virtually 100% certain that it won't.
This further exposes the ineptness of the pro-disengagement thinking as well, because Israel will still have to devote the same amount of soldiers and resources to defending Jews; only this time, the soldiers will have to be stationed deeper inside Israel. Right now, they're protecting Gush Katif, but after a disengagement, they'd be protecting Ashkelon and Sderot.
So, as you can see, the logic behind the disengagement really makes no sense at all. And that's without even getting into the tragedy that Israel's government plans to uproot 8000 peaceful citizens from their homes simply because they live amongst a hostile Palestinian population. That's not the Jews' fault - it's the Palestinians', completely. If the Palestinians want a state of their own, they should be prepared to accept a Jewish minority population. If Israel can do it (one fifth of Israel's citizens are Arabs), then it's totally outrageous and anti-Semitic for Palestinians to claim that they'll only accept a state free of Jews. Until the Palestinians can do this, they're not ready for a state, period.
The rationale behind disengagement is pure lunacy, and Israel needs to turn the situation around quickly. For more resources on the subject, Israel Insider is an excellent place to start.
There is no logical reason or justification for expelling your own people and giving land away to an enemy who openly declares its desire to destroy your country. Ariel Sharon is making a grave mistake, although the more Israelis that turn against it (and many are doing so every day), the greater the hope that the government will change course at the last minute.
The pro-disengagement rationale is that Israel can't afford to continue devoting massive amounts of resources and soldiers (whose lives are at risk) to defend 8000 Gazan Jews against the hostile Palestinians who surround them. And so, the rationale goes, Israel would be better off by separating entirely and removing its people. Furthermore, the Palestinians keep saying that their terrorism is a result of the "occupation" and so this is the first step toward ending it. Sounds all nice and dandy, right?
Wrong - this explanation is pure sugar coating and denial. In reality, the "occupation" that the Palestinians rail against is not just Gaza and the West Bank; it's all of Israel. Palestinian terror attacks against Israel took place far before Israel ever had a presence in the territories. From 1948 to 1967, Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank part of Jordan, and yet the PLO formed in 1964 with the stated goal of liberating the "occupied land of Palestine." Hmmm, wonder what that could be referring to? (Hint - it wasn't the West Bank or Gaza.)
Giving Gaza to the Palestinians, then, would be perceived as completely capitulating to their terrorist attacks, just as PLO and Hamas leaders have of course repeatedly expressed in celebration. This is not exchanging land for peace; it's exchanging land for more terrorist attacks and war, which is nothing but outrageous. Most of Sharon's top advisors were naturally against this, and so he fired them and replaced them with new ones. It'd be one thing if giving away Gaza would truly lead to peace, but in this case it's virtually 100% certain that it won't.
This further exposes the ineptness of the pro-disengagement thinking as well, because Israel will still have to devote the same amount of soldiers and resources to defending Jews; only this time, the soldiers will have to be stationed deeper inside Israel. Right now, they're protecting Gush Katif, but after a disengagement, they'd be protecting Ashkelon and Sderot.
So, as you can see, the logic behind the disengagement really makes no sense at all. And that's without even getting into the tragedy that Israel's government plans to uproot 8000 peaceful citizens from their homes simply because they live amongst a hostile Palestinian population. That's not the Jews' fault - it's the Palestinians', completely. If the Palestinians want a state of their own, they should be prepared to accept a Jewish minority population. If Israel can do it (one fifth of Israel's citizens are Arabs), then it's totally outrageous and anti-Semitic for Palestinians to claim that they'll only accept a state free of Jews. Until the Palestinians can do this, they're not ready for a state, period.
The rationale behind disengagement is pure lunacy, and Israel needs to turn the situation around quickly. For more resources on the subject, Israel Insider is an excellent place to start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)