They have the power and lots of money to do a great deal of harm even though the majority does not support it. It doesn’t take many to cause great destruction. Like China, they are playing a long game. Infiltration into universities, media, etc., has been going on for decades. Some of the fruit has come to bear as seen on many of our campuses and newsrooms. If Christians ( I am not one), were demonstrating with the same kind of rhetoric I can only imagine the reaction. Why do islamists get a pass for their cultural norms and radical behaviors!
There are versions of radical islam and islamic/arab culture and mores that do appear to some countries to be existential threats. Much of the European polarization over the last decade has been driven by the perception that largescale Arab/Muslim immigration is destroying their culture, and they're essentially too "other," and unsuitable for Europe. In this sense the can appear to be existential threats.
The US has few arab immigrants, and although they are a polarizing issue when they come up, they aren't enough of them to dominate the mindscape.
In terms of military threats, we've seen repeatedly that islamic insurgencies are excellent at filling power vacuums in poor and unstable countries. You certainly wouldn't want to try to root them out in the backwaters they inhabit.
There's still a threat of them smuggling a bomb into a US city, or blowing up more planes, etc.
But in terms of posing an actual offensive military threat vs the US? To acquire this they'd have to become highly educated, develop market economies, powerful arms industries, and be very rich.
No arab country has been able to do this outside the bounds of oil/natural gas wealth, let alone a radical islamic movement. It's probable that the very elements of islamic culture that drive it towards jihad inhibit the elements of culture that could make if a true modern threat. However, if Arab birth rates do not fall, and western birth rates do, their sheer numbers and the economic necessity to bring them into countries with intolerant cultures will increasingly make them a larger threat.
I agree that is the situation militarily and economically right now. But the radicals have a stated threat to eliminate Israel and all of the west. Any infidels which includes non radical Muslims. They have the power in
I think there are at least two seperate processes going on. If the process does not threaten the Communist Party's power and position, it is tolerated (which could be called liberalization). That would include Han Chinese interest in Buddhism, Daoism and maybe even Christianity if done under the roof of Party sanctioned churches and leadership.
But religion that is seen as threatening to the Party, like Islam in the west or Tibetan Buddhism with its own leadership traditions, is subject to extreme crackdowns. Mosques are being demolished. Ethnically Tibetan children must board in schools (even if their parents livr across the street from the school) are examples of efforts to stamp out religion deeemed threatening to the Party.
I think you've summarized it well. But succinctly noting this process as part of a broader essay doesn't leave us much room for that level of nuance. I've updated it to "partially liberalized religion." This doesn't do it justice, but that's ever the problem. I never fully do a topic justice, I merely hope to do the least amount of injustice to it that I can.
Oh, what an interesting discussion you've started! I'll definitely be following the new posts.
I really liked the metaphor about the hammer and screwdriver: "Luckily, America's problems were very amenable to being hammered" and "The Soviets had only a screwdriver, but few of their problems were screws."
These are very accurate metaphors! Especially about Russia, which still tries to solve new problems with the same screwdriver that didn't work 50 years ago, and certainly doesn't work now.
As for an external unifying problem, it doesn't seem like COVID-19 brought everyone together, even though it affected the whole planet. Instead of uniting, people rushed to hoard toilet paper.
Liu Cixin writes about a similar idea in "The Three-Body Problem": when Earth learns that aliens will arrive in 400 years, people just consume even more instead of uniting, and the problem-solving is left to a few people chosen in a questionable manner.
It seems to me that the world is so divided now that even if it became known that a meteorite was approaching, instead of coming together, millionaires would calculate which part of the planet would suffer the least damage, buy it up, and build bunkers there. The rest of the population would be brainwashed through the media into believing that the meteorite would only pass by, without hitting the Earth. Anyone trying to expose the truth would be ridiculed as conspiracy theorists or imprisoned like Julian Assange.
Perhaps you're right, but I suspect true existential threats could penetrate whatever ideological veil people pull over their eyes. Covid isn't a great example because it wasn't very lethal. Most estimates put the world-wide death toll at 3 million. That's roughly 0.28% of the population.
Depending on what historian you ask, the Black Death is estimated to have killed 30 to 50% of Europe's population. That means bodies piling up the in the streets. The end of long-distance trade. Famine for lack of farm labor. Societies were on the very of collapse. When it's that in your face, it would be hard to ignore. Corpses speak for themselves.
This is all hypothetical, but I think having undeniable proof of a thing often penetrates dogma. The corpses can't be denied. The death of your son and your extended family and friends can't be denied. On the other hand, it someone tells you a meteor is coming, how do you know they're telling the truth? With Covid, most people spent years being told of the great threat, but most never personally saw any sign that it was causing more harm than the yearly surges in the flu deaths. If a scientist told you about an incoming meteor, some will believe, but others will be skeptical.
Maybe if you can go out and buy a small telescope and see it from your backyard at night? I don't know.
But maybe I just have a negative outlook on the world, as someone who fled Russia and is trying (so far without much success) to build a new life in Argentina.
Sorry continuation.
They have the power and lots of money to do a great deal of harm even though the majority does not support it. It doesn’t take many to cause great destruction. Like China, they are playing a long game. Infiltration into universities, media, etc., has been going on for decades. Some of the fruit has come to bear as seen on many of our campuses and newsrooms. If Christians ( I am not one), were demonstrating with the same kind of rhetoric I can only imagine the reaction. Why do islamists get a pass for their cultural norms and radical behaviors!
Can you explain why radical Islam is not an existential threat?
There are versions of radical islam and islamic/arab culture and mores that do appear to some countries to be existential threats. Much of the European polarization over the last decade has been driven by the perception that largescale Arab/Muslim immigration is destroying their culture, and they're essentially too "other," and unsuitable for Europe. In this sense the can appear to be existential threats.
The US has few arab immigrants, and although they are a polarizing issue when they come up, they aren't enough of them to dominate the mindscape.
In terms of military threats, we've seen repeatedly that islamic insurgencies are excellent at filling power vacuums in poor and unstable countries. You certainly wouldn't want to try to root them out in the backwaters they inhabit.
There's still a threat of them smuggling a bomb into a US city, or blowing up more planes, etc.
But in terms of posing an actual offensive military threat vs the US? To acquire this they'd have to become highly educated, develop market economies, powerful arms industries, and be very rich.
No arab country has been able to do this outside the bounds of oil/natural gas wealth, let alone a radical islamic movement. It's probable that the very elements of islamic culture that drive it towards jihad inhibit the elements of culture that could make if a true modern threat. However, if Arab birth rates do not fall, and western birth rates do, their sheer numbers and the economic necessity to bring them into countries with intolerant cultures will increasingly make them a larger threat.
I agree that is the situation militarily and economically right now. But the radicals have a stated threat to eliminate Israel and all of the west. Any infidels which includes non radical Muslims. They have the power in
Interesting indeed. But a deeper look would not support the view that China has liberalized religion.
You'd know better than me. Perhaps liberalize is too strong of a word.
But since the 1980s, particularly under Hu Jintao, toleration has increased along with the number of registerd and unregistered churches.
How would you describe this process?
I think there are at least two seperate processes going on. If the process does not threaten the Communist Party's power and position, it is tolerated (which could be called liberalization). That would include Han Chinese interest in Buddhism, Daoism and maybe even Christianity if done under the roof of Party sanctioned churches and leadership.
But religion that is seen as threatening to the Party, like Islam in the west or Tibetan Buddhism with its own leadership traditions, is subject to extreme crackdowns. Mosques are being demolished. Ethnically Tibetan children must board in schools (even if their parents livr across the street from the school) are examples of efforts to stamp out religion deeemed threatening to the Party.
I think you've summarized it well. But succinctly noting this process as part of a broader essay doesn't leave us much room for that level of nuance. I've updated it to "partially liberalized religion." This doesn't do it justice, but that's ever the problem. I never fully do a topic justice, I merely hope to do the least amount of injustice to it that I can.
Fair enough. Thanks Andrew.
Oh, what an interesting discussion you've started! I'll definitely be following the new posts.
I really liked the metaphor about the hammer and screwdriver: "Luckily, America's problems were very amenable to being hammered" and "The Soviets had only a screwdriver, but few of their problems were screws."
These are very accurate metaphors! Especially about Russia, which still tries to solve new problems with the same screwdriver that didn't work 50 years ago, and certainly doesn't work now.
As for an external unifying problem, it doesn't seem like COVID-19 brought everyone together, even though it affected the whole planet. Instead of uniting, people rushed to hoard toilet paper.
Liu Cixin writes about a similar idea in "The Three-Body Problem": when Earth learns that aliens will arrive in 400 years, people just consume even more instead of uniting, and the problem-solving is left to a few people chosen in a questionable manner.
It seems to me that the world is so divided now that even if it became known that a meteorite was approaching, instead of coming together, millionaires would calculate which part of the planet would suffer the least damage, buy it up, and build bunkers there. The rest of the population would be brainwashed through the media into believing that the meteorite would only pass by, without hitting the Earth. Anyone trying to expose the truth would be ridiculed as conspiracy theorists or imprisoned like Julian Assange.
Perhaps you're right, but I suspect true existential threats could penetrate whatever ideological veil people pull over their eyes. Covid isn't a great example because it wasn't very lethal. Most estimates put the world-wide death toll at 3 million. That's roughly 0.28% of the population.
Depending on what historian you ask, the Black Death is estimated to have killed 30 to 50% of Europe's population. That means bodies piling up the in the streets. The end of long-distance trade. Famine for lack of farm labor. Societies were on the very of collapse. When it's that in your face, it would be hard to ignore. Corpses speak for themselves.
Well, if it's about corpses on the streets, then an approaching meteorite or news of an impending alien attack wouldn't work either, would they?
This is all hypothetical, but I think having undeniable proof of a thing often penetrates dogma. The corpses can't be denied. The death of your son and your extended family and friends can't be denied. On the other hand, it someone tells you a meteor is coming, how do you know they're telling the truth? With Covid, most people spent years being told of the great threat, but most never personally saw any sign that it was causing more harm than the yearly surges in the flu deaths. If a scientist told you about an incoming meteor, some will believe, but others will be skeptical.
Maybe if you can go out and buy a small telescope and see it from your backyard at night? I don't know.
But maybe I just have a negative outlook on the world, as someone who fled Russia and is trying (so far without much success) to build a new life in Argentina.