Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (91052)	4/7/2003 10:21:30 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) of 281500

> I still see Jihad versus McWorld to be largely luddites versus progress. This argument is often presented in the middle east where these two forces are in close proximity. The former Shah of Iran for example referred to his enemies as the Reds and the Black. The Reds being the communists and the Blacks the mullahs which he called the dark forces of anti-progress. From a technological perspective you are right. McWorld is more materially advanced. From a social perspective, it is not so simple. Mass consumerism is devoid of most values. It's followers live lonely lives (excluding suicide bombers, suicide is very rare in the JWorld but is progressively common where McWorld rules supreme). Jihad for all its shortcomings, does offer a strong sense of morality and cohesion to its followers. As the article pointed out, there are social advantages to McWorld. Among them are a minimum guarantee of freedom and a drive for a stable war free world. But the social good stops right there. Beyond that freedom becomes a hindrance. What I've tried to do in previous discussions (before I posted the McWorld vs. Jihad article) is that there are many cross currents. And the success of Jihad mentality is to a great extent because of the failure of other approaches. If they had managed to show a way out, then the so called Jihad World would have been inhibited by only few rural extremists. But it is not limited to them; it cuts across social classes in a big way. The people who laid the precursor to the current JWorld were not just ignorant luddites. They were sociologists like Dr. Shariati. Literary scholars like Jalal Al Ahmad. Aerospace professors like Dr. Chamran. MBAs like Bani Sadr. Engineers like Bazargan. Human rights activists and so on. Almost every one of them was educated in the best European and American universities. Many of them spent many years in the West. This is hardly a bunch of luddites. There were (and still are) of course those among them who really were anti-progress. There is certainly a faction who is immensely anti-anything-western. But the luddites are not the majority. Everybody wants to have better life. Every human being wants freedom. And there, like here, the only reason people willingly give up their freedom is because they feel some leader is going to deliver them from a greater danger. If you go back to the very start of this discussion, you see that I started out by saying "Jihad" is a defense mechanism that says "I am going to eat poison to make myself too distasteful for you. Once I am sure you cannot eat me, I will eat vitamins to make myself feel better". Unless we can appreciate this movement for what it is and how it came to be, we cannot deal with it effectively. I stand by that analysis. Sun Tzu

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next