Is Europe too liberal for its own good?

[Wodin]

Originally Posted by ezik Very disgusting remark. This remark basically puts you in the same camp as people that you call terrorists. If you think they should be gassed, they will think that you should be blown up. You and they are the same.

Yes, I do realise that irony doesn't come off very well on a forum.

[ezik]

Originally Posted by Wodin Yes, I do realise that irony doesn't come off very well on a forum.

I admit I missed the irony there. Sorry.

Probably it's because of watching CNN and seeing white phosphor being used against civilians in Gaza and Afghanian school girls being attacked by the taliban simply for attending a school.

I hereby take back my previous remark and offer my apologies.

At the same time, please be careful using paraphrases like gassing people.

[Adamodeus]

Originally Posted by Wodin But it is Adam. This thread is about European muslims...

Thanks, Wodin! Great message, very well thought out and well argued! This is why I like this forum so much - there are still people out there who don't argue from the "your a fekin idjit" perspective. If only everyone disagreed so articulately!

I don't have time to answer you right now - it'll have to wait for tomorrow, but well played.

[DDT]

Originally Posted by Wodin What that has anything to do with this discussion, however, I don't understand. I consider that anyone who says Muslims are a danger is bashing...just as much as anyone saying Americans are a danger. Anyone saying that muslims will take over europe, or Holland, or France, or Britain, is alarmist and is either trying to fester up islampohobia or is mistaken.

Well there are apparently a lot of "alarmists" out there because there are thousands of articles and hundreds of books written about this subject, the internet is overflowing with it, so it is unrealistic to simply dismiss this idea as "Islamophobia" and "Muslim bashing".

The interesting observation is that in Europe there is virtually no American style "religious right" to oppose growing Muslim power. Virtually the entire Continent has become atheist or de facto atheist. Thus, in Europe the religious right is the Muslims.

"Europeans are losing their own loyalties and their own self-confidence," he said. "They have no respect for their own culture." Europeans had "surrendered" on every issue with regard to Islam in a mood of "self-abasement," "political correctness" and "multi-culturalism,"

says Prof, Bernard Lewis

I do not debate over the differences or more like "nuances" between Islamic sects. There have always been those in all religions who call themselves by the name of a particular religion, but in reality have read nothing, follow nothing and know nothing of the said religion. They simply follow the remnant of some family tradition and when push comes to shove they find themselves in the cross-hairs of all parties in a fight. It is then that they align themselves with one side or another out of necessity, usually with their family tradition! But until that time comes they really aren't Muslims or Christians or whatever at all! So, in light of this your references to ""Muslims" who look at porn and have a few beers" are not references to Muslims, at all.

It is irrelevant that many Muslims at present give the impression that they are benign. For this reason I do not consider myself a "Muslim Basher" but I do consider myself a "Mohammed Basher".

This is an important distinction! All Muslim sects are required to respect Mohammed and to take his example as perfection. Mohammed to all sects of Islam is the perfect man and all are to aspire to be like him. Well, if you take a look at the man Mohammed, that is like or worse than aspiring to be like Hitler. On neither man it is not proper to give any amount of respect.
And those who do give respect to either one, must not be respected by any thinking person!

No more respect should be given to Mohammed than to Jim Jones, or David Koresh or the Heaven's Gate cult.

If you don't believe that, may I suggest you do a little reading on the life of Mohammed. It is not possible to believe that this guy was a prophet at all in any way, or shape, by anyone with an open and logical mind, particularly if one has a propensity for believing in some type of Creator.

Mohammed, once the tragedy of the Middle east, is becoming the tragedy, once again, of Europe.

Your statement, "I consider that anyone who says Muslims are a danger is bashing...just as much as anyone saying Americans are a danger", is quite telling about your abilities in discernment. Is there anyone who is "a danger" to you other than the Far Right, Conservatives or traditional Christians?

[Wodin]

Originally Posted by DDT Well there are apparently a lot of "alarmists" out there because there are thousands of articles and hundreds of books written about this subject, the internet is overflowing with it, so it is unrealistic to simply dismiss this idea as "Islamophobia" and "Muslim bashing".

True. Mosly written by islamophobes and right wing "mohammed bashers" as you put it.

Originally Posted by DDT says Prof, Bernard Lewis

Professor Lewis is of course a Jewish historian and student of middle eastern history and politics and has been described by American historian Joel Beinin as "perhaps the most articulate and learned Zionist advocate in the North American Middle East academic community ...". He is on record as having denied the Armenian genocide and has earnt the approval of former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney who remarked: "...in this new century, his wisdom is sought daily by policymakers, diplomats, fellow academics, and the news media."

He has been criticised for his views by historians and scholars including Alain Finkielkraut, Yves Ternon, Richard G. Hovannisian, Albert Memmi, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Robert Melson, David B. MacDonald, Norman Finkelstein, and Stephen Zunes.

Hardly a profile that would suggest accedemic impartiality that would add to this discussion.

Originally Posted by DDT I do not debate over the differences or more like "nuances" between Islamic sects. There have always been those in all religions who call themselves by the name of a particular religion, but in reality have read nothing, follow nothing and know nothing of the said religion. They simply follow the remnant of some family tradition and when push comes to shove they find themselves in the cross-hairs of all parties in a fight. It is then that they align themselves with one side or another out of necessity, usually with their family tradition! But until that time comes they really aren't Muslims or Christians or whatever at all! So, in light of this your references to ""Muslims" who look at porn and have a few beers" are not references to Muslims, at all.

Except that the younger generations seem to be discarding the "family traditions" model and moving towards education and liberalism.

Originally Posted by DDT It is irrelevant that many Muslims at present give the impression that they are benign. For this reason I do not consider myself a "Muslim Basher" but I do consider myself a "Mohammed Basher". This is an important distinction! All Muslim sects are required to respect Mohammed and to take his example as perfection. Mohammed to all sects of Islam is the perfect man and all are to aspire to be like him. Well, if you take a look at the man Mohammed, that is like or worse than aspiring to be like Hitler. On neither man it is not proper to give any amount of respect. And those who do give respect to either one, must not be respected by any thinking person! No more respect should be given to Mohammed than to Jim Jones, or David Koresh or the Heaven's Gate cult.

That is, of course, your opinion. Speaking for myself I have little or no respect for any of the so called prophets, sons of god or other rabble rousers, beyond that which is due to them as charismatic individuals who managed to creat a personality cult which spread among millions, but that's a whole other discussion which has nothing at all to do with whether or not Europe is too liberal for its own good, as proposed by you.

Originally Posted by DDT If you don't believe that, may I suggest you do a little reading on the life of Mohammed. It is not possible to believe that this guy was a prophet at all in any way, or shape, by anyone with an open and logical mind, particularly if one has a propensity for believing in some type of Creator. Mohammed, once the tragedy of the Middle east, is becoming the tragedy, once again, of Europe.

I have, quite extensively. In the same way as I read about Marx, Hitler, Christ and Mao, and I do agree with you that he does not sound at all like a prophet. In fact, he sounds a lot like Christ. A warlord seeking to carve out a domain. But that too is besides the point of this thread which, if I may remind you, relates to whether or not Europe is too liberal for its own good.

Originally Posted by DDT Your statement, "I consider that anyone who says Muslims are a danger is bashing...just as much as anyone saying Americans are a danger", is quite telling about your abilities in discernment. Is there anyone who is "a danger" to you other than the Far Right, Conservatives or traditional Christians?

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your reference to the Far Right, Conservative (presumably the american style ones...) or traditional christians. However I will tell you that I consider all these to be intrinsically as dangerous to me and my way of life as any bomb strapped muslim fundamentalist individual. Possibly even more dangerous because while inherent racism in our liberal systems may offer me some form of protection from the bomber, and the media has seen to it that his agenda is known to all...and despised by all...traditional christians are more insidious and harder to protect against, and while they might not be seeking to take my life, they are definitely seeking to deprive me of certain liberties that I hold dear...such as the right to abortion, the right to cohabit with my partner who may or may not be from a different race or belief system, the right to be openly gay or lesbian, the right to watch porn if i so choose, the right to appear to disagree with my country's leaderships' political stance without being accused of being unpatriotic...the right to think for myself.

Come to think of it...there are very many similarities in the teachings of the traditional christians and the wahabis. Never actually realised that before now.

[Adamodeus]

OK, my answer is going to be a LONG-ASS post, so brace yourselves...

[DDT]

Originally Posted by ezik I admit I missed the irony there. Sorry. Probably it's because of watching CNN and seeing white phosphor being used against civilians in Gaza and Afghanian school girls being attacked by the taliban simply for attending a school. I hereby take back my previous remark and offer my apologies.

Just when I thought you had regained your manhood and issued your statement of wrath in righteous indignation, you hearkened to the voice of Eve!
Let your anger fester into revenge, Ezik, and come with me, to the Dark Side!

Originally Posted by Adamodeus OK, my answer is going to be a LONG-ASS post, so brace yourselves...

Your last answer was well done!

Originally Posted by Wodin agree with you that he does not sound at all like a prophet. In fact, he sounds a lot like Christ. A warlord seeking to carve out a domain.

Are you for real? You think Christ was a war lord?

Originally Posted by Wodin Come to think of it...there are very many similarities in the teachings of the traditional christians and the wahabis. Never actually realised that before now.

If you want to speak about Christianity here I suggest that you do as i do and leave out what "Christians" do and concentrate of the man himself, Jesus. That way there is no confusion of doctrine or sectism.
If you do that you will find that there is little in common between Mo and Jesus.

Such as little things like, Jesus said, "Love your enemies," and "Treat others as you would like them to treat you".
And another, "If you want to stone this woman for adultery then let the first stone be thrown by the guy who has never done anything wrong himself." (I might have paraphrased that a bit)

While Mo casually built a fire on someone's chest to torture him into revealing where the valuables were hidden.

[Adamodeus]

Originally Posted by Wodin This thread is about European muslims.

No, it isn't. It is the native Europeans that the premise of the thread covers.

Originally Posted by Wodin Multiculturalism, together with working to pull muslims out of the economically deprived situation they live in, is in fact the panaea for intollerance.

I used to think like that too when I was younger. Unfortunately, now I know better. It's an attractive idea. But it's the HMB (beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid) of political ideas. You see, when HMB first came out, it looked perfect on paper. Furthermore, it even had some studies to back it up - in vitro, HMB did what it was supposed to do spectacularly. Unfortunately, in never panned out in the real world. It looked like it was going to be a revolution in biochemistry, but in fact, it turned out to be a dud. Nobody is quite sure why. Now, let's go back to the idea that poverty is the reason for radicalism. It looks perfectly logical! If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. But it is an idea created by the western political elites to lull the masses into a false sense of security. "Don't worry, guys, we've found the reason for radicalism. It's poverty! Once we alleviate poverty, we get rid of radicalism." It's a very Western tenet that, at its core, has the comforting idea that we can solve any problem if we throw enough money at it. So easy! But it simply doesn't pan out in the real world.

Here is what I mean. Let us consider the names of some of the most famous radicals of the 20th century. For the purpose of this thread, the definition of a radical is not just a murderer or some bad person, but a person who had radically different ideas about the world and was willing to take up arms and/or kill in order to further the goal of changing the world.

Errico Malatesta – a wealthy anarchist revolutionary who believed violence was a necessity;
Vladimir Lenin – son of a successful Russian official;
Mao Zedong – son of a wealthy Chinese family;
Adolf Hitler – son of a well-to-do German customs official;
Augusto Pinochet – son of a middle-class customs official; (Cool coincidence, eh?)
Pol Pot – son of wealthy Khmer-Chinese parents and educated in the West;
Kim Il Sung – born into a middle-class Korean family;
Fidel Castro – son of a successful investor and sugar magnate;
Che Guevara – born into an Argentinean upper class family;
Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) – American mathematician and a Harvard graduate;

The list goes on and on. I stress, they were not just murderers, they were people who had radically different ideas about life and justice and were willing to kill in order to improve it for many people. Now, although if we rack our brains, I’m sure we’ll be able to come up with a few notable exceptions, but they do nothing but prove the obvious pattern. This lesson is very important! While brainwashed cannon fodder (like teenage suicide bombers) usually does come from an impoverished background, radicalism is born out of and developed into a philosophy by people wealthy and educated enough. Thus, radicalism is primarily not the product of an “economically deprived situation”, but of systematic thought, a collection of ideas and beliefs that a well-off person forms in response to perceived injustice.

Originally Posted by Wodin What's wrong and counterproductive is the constant bundling together of all muslims and their depiction as extremists, extremist supporters and proponents of sharia law. Most catholics feel nothing but revultion towards pedophiles, whether priestly or not. Would I be justified if I were to constantly say that catholics are either pedophiles or pedophile protectors?

I don't get this part: you're trying to prove exactly the very thing I just said. Reread my post. I quite literally said not all Muslims are extremists, and I used my Catholic priest example to prove that not all Catholics are pedophiles. So... huh?

Originally Posted by Wodin And what is it that unites them? The only thing that unites them is the belief that Allah is god and mohammed is his last prophet.

Not, it’s not. The thing that truly unites them is the Holy Quran and the principles espoused in it. And what’s more, the Hadith. If we only had the Quran without the Hadith, we wouldn’t have the problem with radicalism that we have today. You see, the Holy Quran is considered by all Muslims to be, quite literally, the word of God, who dictated it to Mohammad using an angel. On the contrary, the Hadith are a commentary on the Quran by some people who, through their virtuous conduct and study of scripture earned the status of holy men. The Hadith, therefore, introduced the idea that if some religious leaders were religious and virtuous enough, their commentaries on the scripture were essentially the words of Mohammad himself. (Goes right back to what I said about religious leaders earlier!) Although not all Muslims consider the Hadith essential to the Islamic faith, an overwhelming number of them do (they simply consider the Hadith as clarifications to the Quran).

Originally Posted by Wodin What you miss however is that there are major differences in the political and social "indoctrination" of muslims, […] and the difference is the fact that each of these are conditioned by their political, social, economic and educational environment. Therefore generalisations on MUSLIMS […]are as useful as me saying that all american women over the age of 30 are obese.

I meant everyone, not just Muslims. But OK. Generalizations: The majority of Muslims from Uzbekistan to Eritrea think that homosexuality is unacceptable. Exceptions prove the rule. The majority of Muslims do not tolerate the questioning of their religious beliefs. (Earth-wide protests over stupid cartoons, anybody?) Exceptions prove the rule. The majority of Muslims think the West is a decadent immoral society. (So do I?) Exceptions prove the rule. The majority of Muslims think suicide bombers are a legitimate way for Palestinians to defend themselves because they don’t have tanks and airplanes. Exceptions prove the rule. In spite of numerous differences, there is a list of very unpleasant similarities. Those are the ones that worry me.

Originally Posted by Wodin Yet you state that most muslim countries are theocracies. This is not quite the case. […] The wahabis there control the politics, the culture and the society. The ruling family, corrupt and degenerate as it is, controls the politics and is tollerated by the imams. There is also no love lost between Asian muslims and African muslims.

No-no, if you reread my post I never said they were theocracies. On the contrary, I categorically stated that the power of moral superiority, not political power, lies with religious leaders. A theocracy is vulnerable. Moral leadership has the benefit of blaming the politicians for failures and claiming successes came thanks to the virtue of their teachings. I’ve never said there was a coordinated worldwide Muslim plot. Yet, the radicals are trying to bring about the clash of civilizations. In such a clash, African Muslims will be united with Asian Muslims. That is in fact the goal.

Originally Posted by Wodin Attendances at mosques are down, the number of muslim to christian converts is greater than the number of anything to muslim converts, and so on.

Now, that is plainly untrue. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.
The World Christian Database (WCD) and it's predecessor the World Christian Encyclopedia has reviewed religious populations around the world and released results of their investigations at various times, most recently from 2000 to 2005, recording the percentage growth over these periods. Following is a summary of their results:

2000-2005:
Islam 1.84%; 1.70% - Bahá'í Faith; 1.62% - Sikhism; 1.57% - Hinduism; 1.32% - Christianity

For the 2000-2005 edition, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, concluded that […] "on the whole we find that the WCD is reliable."

Originally Posted by Wodin True, except that the right to disagree is not available to people in Morocco, and many other muslim countries, not for religious, but for political reasons. Same as the right to disagree is not present in China.

You’re changing the subject! I’m not talking about the right to criticize one’s government, but the right to argue with your religious leaders. The Imams are notoriously inflexible and intolerant of dissent. And giving me an example of some moderate cleric somewhere in the UK would merely be another exception.

Originally Posted by Wodin I have been to mecca. I was neither killed, nor stones nor had a fatwa declared on me.

True, I can also wear a white robe, pick up a Quran and the sign of Allah on a gold chain and I bet I’ll be able to sneak in. What does that prove? I never said it was impossible to circumvent the law. Forgive me if I have serious doubts you freely advertized your infidel status. But it’s disingenuous to claim non-Muslims are free to visit Mecca.

From Mecca - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Entry forbidden for Non-Muslims

Non-Muslims are not permitted to enter Mecca by Saudi law.

Many religious scholars say this discrimination exists because Mecca was once a city where Muslims - including the prophet Mohammed - were persecuted and driven out. When Mohammed and his followers reclaimed the city, it was declared a sanctuary... a place where every Muslim should feel safe.

"Non-Muslim Bypass:" Non-Muslims are not permitted to enter Mecca.
Those who use fake certificates of Muslim identity (to enter) may be arrested and prosecuted by Saudi authorities.[45]
The Saudi government uses the following verse as a Qur’an confirmation for this law:

"O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unpure; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will God enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for God is All-knowing, All-wise." -- Qur’an, 9:28

The existence of cities closed to non-Muslims and the mystery of the Hajj aroused intense curiosity in people from around the world. Some have disguised themselves as Muslims and entered the city of Mecca and then the Grand Mosque to experience the Hajj for themselves. The most famous account of a foreigner's journey to Mecca is A Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina, written by Sir Richard Francis Burton. Burton traveled as a Qadiriyyah Sufi from Afghanistan;

Originally Posted by Wodin A quick Google turned up a Weslean church, a christian church on the corner of Wells Str and Wabash Street, and a Baptist Church. Having said that, it is quite true that other religions are persecuted in Mecca and Medina, but again, that's a function of the religious paranoia of the wahabis.

For the same reason stated in my previous answer, I simply do not believe there are Christian churches in Mecca – that would literally be illegal, as in unlawful. As you can see, it is based on the words of the Quran, not some odd Wahabbi ideas.
» Christians in Saudi Arabia: no churches allowed - Blogger News Network

Originally Posted by Wodin Iranian Gays have about the same degree of rights as russian gays do. Not much, and instead of just getting beaten up they get executed... There are a number of gay bars that I know of in Alexandrea, Tripoli, Cairo, Casablanca.

That’s not a very good example. Russia, the bastion of homophobia that it is, decriminalized homosexuality. There are openly gay performers in Russia and Boris Moiseyev recently received a “People’s artist of Russia” from Putin – Russia’s highest recognition for singers and dancers. You can be very openly gay in Russia. It won’t earn you extra point with Russian men and yeah, you might even get beat up, especially outside of Moscow. Yet, I'd rather be beat up 10 times than executed once. But Russia is a hundred times more relaxed towards gays than Iran. Homosexuality is illegal in Iran and that says it all. You’re trying to hold on to exceptions again. I’ll help you – the most tolerant place in the Muslim world is Dubai. But again, it’s a glaring exception. It’s a city where gay men can actually walk hand in hand. But make no mistake – homosexuality is illegal in Dubai. Just because the authorities close their eyes for the most part, doesn’t mean it’s socially acceptable to be openly gay in Dubai. It’s like in Thailand: you can buy marijuana very easily and lots of people smoke it, from students to ordinary citizens, but possession is still a very serious criminal offence. And should you get caught, you will be in a world of trouble. Just because the authorities have better things to do, doesn’t mean acceptance.

Originally Posted by Wodin Anyone saying that muslims will take over europe, or Holland, or France, or Britain, is alarmist and is either trying to fester up islampohobia or is mistaken.

You can’t just ignore the birthrate data for the sake of kindness or political correctness. In most of Europe, Muslim births outnumber the natives 3 to 1. Nobody is saying all those Muslims are evil, but why talking about Muslim majorities in Europe is islamophobic is beyond me. Influx of immigration plus high birthrates plus low native birthrates… it’s really not that far-fetched. Just do the math. The potential for it does exist. And should a Christian country become a country with a Muslim majority, its culture will inevitably change. Take the Christian Byzantine Empire – modern day Turkey.

Although you are right, we are moving away from the original topic of discussion.

[Adamodeus]

P.S. One thing I forgot to mention about poverty. Saudi Arabia, with all the crazy Wahabbis, is arguably the most radicalized country on earth, and that really does mean the people, not the government. Yet, it's arguably the richest country in the Middle East. If prosperity equals death of radicalism, how do we explain away the population of Saudi Arabia? I mean, Osama was a very wealthy Saudi citizen, right?

[Penguin_The_Great]

Adamodeus, Saudi Arabia might be the richest country in the Middle East (arguably). However, imagine a country that makes, say, a million dollars a year and has a population of a 1,000 people. Let's say 980,000 dollars go to 2 people. That only leaves 20 thousand for the other 998 people. Of course, that's an elementary concept of wealth distribution. I think that even though on paper this hypothetical country looks good, 998 people there are very unhappy and probably radicalized.
The same with Saudi Arabia. Yes, it's a wealthy country. However, as far as I know, most of the oil wealth there flows directly in the hands of the royal family. In other words, about 5,000 people can afford extremely lavish life style.
How does religion tie in to that? The rest of the population there is not doing that well at all. Yet, they can see how glamorosly their rulers are doing. The solution to this problem is an ancient one - religion. Wahabism, that preaches absolute loyalty to the rules, is used to keep people in line. Of course such a system is a breeding grounds for terrorists. It makes PERFECT sense.

Also, look at the list of radicals that you brought up. All of them (except for Ted Kaczynski) lived and worked in the countries that were plagued by severe economic and social problems, where huge segments of the population were impoverished. Those poor and desperate people were the ones who created revolutions, not individual leaders. There are passionate prophetic people in every country. However, if people's life is good, they will not follow those leaders and revolutions won't happen.
Of course the leaders would be from upper-middle class, duh! They are the ones educated enough to create an ideology and effectively organize the masses.

Would Ted Kaczynski have been successful if he were to try and create revolutionary movement in the US? Most likely not because life is not that bad for an average American.
I believe the possibility of radicalism and dramatic social changes are directly tied in with the economy. Take two of some of the most dramatic revolutions in the history of the world - Russian and French. Both were caused by economic problems.

I don't know if there's enough wealth in Europe to allow comfortable lifestyle for all the newcomers, Muslim or not. But if there's, I'm pretty confident that there won't be any radical changes in ideology there.

[Adamodeus]

Originally Posted by Penguin_The_Great Adamodeus, Saudi Arabia might be the richest country in the Middle East (arguably). [...] Yes, it's a wealthy country. However, as far as I know, most of the oil wealth there flows directly in the hands of the royal family. In other words, about 5,000 people can afford extremely lavish life style. [...] How does religion tie in to that? The rest of the population there is not doing that well at all.

Unfortunately, you are completely off on this one. All Middle Eastern states, especially Saudi Arabia as the largest oil producer in the world are welfare states. Thanks to their huge oil revenue, they can afford the sort of social programs that even Europe only dreams about. Many Gulf states have "future generation funds", their citizens frequently get thousands of dollars from the government as part of public oil revenue sharing programs. All the "dirty" menial low-paying jobs are performed by foreigners, mainly from South and Southeast Asia, North Africa and other countries of the Middle East.

Here are a few facts about Saudi Arabia, assembled from three different sources:

Oil accounts for more than 90 percent of exports and nearly 75 percent of government revenues, facilitating the creation of a welfare state. Saudi Arabia is often called, along with Russia, an energy superpower. Saudi Arabia is one of the few fastest growing countries in the world with a high per capita income of $21,300 (2008 est.) (Compare with Russia's $15,800 (2008 est.)) In 1995 Saudi Arabia saw the completion of a quarter of a century of planning and action to develop the whole country. What has been achieved in the Kingdom is a unique blend of material and social development. Education has been a prime concern of Saudi Arabia in the social field. All five plans have taken into account the wishes, ambitions and abilities of the Saudi people and therefore free education has been made available to all. The provision of health and social services has also been a major field of activity in Saudi Arabia and a system of free medical and social care is now in place which embraces all. There is generous provision for the care of the elderly and disabled, along with programmes guaranteeing housing for those on the lower income groups. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia enjoys one of the lowest rates of inflation in the world: the average annual rate of inflation for the last 10 years has been around 1%. About 23% of the population is made up of foreign nationals living in Saudi Arabia.

Originally Posted by Penguin_The_Great Also, look at the list of radicals that you brought up. All of them (except for Ted Kaczynski) lived and worked in the countries that were plagued by severe economic and social problems, where huge segments of the population were impoverished. Those poor and desperate people were the ones who created revolutions, not individual leaders.

Not so. Without a charismatic leader with radical ideas about changing the world, all we have is social discontent that amounts to sporadic spontaneous protests demanding for increased wages. Individuals create revolutions, not disorganized masses.

Originally Posted by Penguin_The_Great Would Ted Kaczynski have been successful if he were to try and create revolutionary movement in the US? Most likely not because life is not that bad for an average American.

Most likely not, but it has nothing to do with wealth. American society is the least homogeneous in the world. Every ethnicity and creed is well-represented in that society. It is therefore next to impossible to give such a society a single purpose (except, perhaps, in times of war). It is much too individualistic and it is characterized by a tradition of questioning any and all authority. Such tradition has never existed in most traditional societies. Therefore, charismatic/religious authority played a huge role in many societies. The failure of western social engineering is the Utopian belief that you can implant this tradition into any society and it will quickly give root, irrespective of cultural and religious traditions and intricacies.

But the US has had its fair share of radicals: the Ku Klux Klan, the Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam, dozens of anti-government paramilitary organizations and societies (remember Timothy McVeigh?)... They are there, all right, they are just too "specialized" to have broad support is a society so diverse.

Originally Posted by Penguin_The_Great I believe the possibility of radicalism and dramatic social changes are directly tied in with the economy. Take two of some of the most dramatic revolutions in the history of the world - Russian and French. Both were caused by economic problems.

I disagree. The causes of both revolutions were not economic: it was social injustice. Let's take a look at such countries as the Japanese Empire, the Kingdom of Siam, the Kingdom of Burma, the Khmer Empire. Even greater economic disparity between the rich and the poor, but never any revolutions. Because the general population believed in the inherent justice of a system controlled my reincarnation. Buddhist countries are not immune, but certainly not prone to revolutions. Neither are Muslim societies, because unlike in Christian societies, where radicalism targeted privileged segments of the country's own population, Islamic radicalism is directed outwards, it targets foreigners and infidels and aims to establish a unified Islamic state stretching from North Africa to the Pacific Ocean.[/QUOTE]

[Penguin_The_Great]

You know, I will honestly confess - I don't know the whole lot about Saudi Arabia. I tried to do a quick research on its economic conditions, and all I seem to run into is references to unequal wealth distribution.

I don't quite understand why you bring up per capita income. I'm sure you understand that this number is meaningless in economic disparity evaluation.

I'm not qualified to make any comments on social services in Saudi Arabia - it's very hard to evaluate their scope and effectiveness without actually going there. I have certainly seen numerous websites where people complain about poverty and unemployment there.

Anyway, I found this articles that seemed interesting in the context of our discussion:
Saudis' Quicksand of Poverty - Los Angeles Times

[Penguin_The_Great]

As for the rest of what you wrote - oh, the endless debate between Marx and Weber. What is primary - matter or spirit? Does the ideology/mentality determine economy or vice versa? I'm strongly leaning towards Marx, but I understand that the opposing position has just as many rights to exist.

I also can't agree with you in your evaluation of American society. I see it as extremely conformist, something along the lines of Marcuse's "One-Dimensional Man". But it has nothing to do with Europe and its liberalism, of course.

[MickeyTong]

"Whenever a system of ideas is constructed with an abstraction at the centre - assigning a role or duties to you for its sake - this system is an ideology. An ideology is a system of false consciousness in which you no longer function as the subject in your relation to the world." Revolutionary Self-Theory

cornersoul.com/spectacular times

[darthvader]

Still haven't read the opening post's links.

However, no one can blame the particular "sociopolitical movement" for thriving and doing what it should do: spreading and taking over. Its only natural. Its just whether Western European civilisation (initially its southern and western countries) will continue to seek self-extinction by choice.

The key issue, apart from generalised cultural weakness (bluntly summarised here: Europe is Finished....), is “generally” the anaemic indigenous European birthrate (this population near halving each generation in some countries).

As Adamodeus alludes to, this subsequent overall population decline is largely offset by necessary immigration, however dominant from one source (close proximity North Africa, Middle East and South Asia). This source, from which most adhere to the "sociopolitical movement" (it is perfect after all, albeit possessing different brands), assumes a strong pro-birth policy.

Another problem for Europe is its shift away from true multiculturism (of which was problematic in itself), to effectively, biculturalism. Bicultural societies are the most unstable societies on Earth.

Of course this post discusses broad generalisations.