Re: MD terrorist blackmail

From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:09:02 GMT

  • Next message: MarshaV: "Re: MD Amazed - by Time"

    Dear Platt,

    Another try, as my post wasn't passed on to the list the first 2 times I
    sent it. 15kB (your e-mail of 17 Dec 2004 09:05:06 -0500 included) was
    apparently too much.

    I'll be on holiday for two weeks (starting on the Merry Christmas you wished
    me), so best wishes for you too, for the coming dark and -hopefully- cosy
    days,

    Wim

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Wim Nusselder" <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl>
    To: "MD" <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 8:23 AM
    Subject: Re: MD terrorist blackmail

    Dear Platt,

    You wrote 17 Dec 2004 09:05:06 -0500 that the carrot-part of my suggestions
    to reduce terrorism reminds you of the Lila-passage 'Intellectual patterns
    cannot directly control biological patterns.'
    You should know from our earlier exchanges that I do not consider crime in
    general and terrorism in particular a biological pattern of value. It is not
    genetically hardwired. I do agree that higher level patterns of value cannot
    directly control patterns of value of a much lower level and very
    low-quality, criminal patterns of value cannot be controlled by workshops,
    study groups, councils etc.. It does require the sticks Pirsig mentions to
    do so ('a policeman or a soldier and his gun'), but Pirsig forgot the
    carrots that work at (between) the same levels. Social security systems
    (starting historically from the solidarity within extented families and
    developing through solidarity within for instance religious communities to
    national level systems and international disaster relief) have also always
    been present as instruments of conversation between (potential) criminals
    and (healthy) societies trying to contain them.
    Pirsig doesn't mention whether his frustrated professor tried that.

    You continued with:
    'I disagree with your premise that "resentment breeds terrorism." The
    Islamic terrorism we're combating today is bred from religious fanaticism.
    Bin Laden doesn't suffer from lack of wealth.'

    My newspaper of last Saturday contained a large article in which a teacher
    at a so called 'black school' (i.e. one with a majority of non-Western
    allochtonous pupils) describes the way his pupils think. Most of them dream
    of getting rich and driving fast cars (of which they know how the name
    sounds, but not even how to spell it, e.g. 'virari' for 'Ferrari'). Only a
    few are susceptible to fundamentalism. Only very, very few to terrorist
    radical fundamentalism. The general feeling of 99% of the non-Western
    allochtonous pupils, however, is that the Netherlands doesn't want them.
    They live in areas where native Dutch are moving out of and think that this
    is because THEY are living there (where it is caused mainly by the low
    quality and prices of housing there; whoever can afford it moves out). They
    go to 'black shools' and think that native Dutch don't go there because THEY
    are on it (where it is simply caused mainly by these schools being in 'black
    neighbourhoods'). He thinks 'resentment' is too hard a word for the
    resulting feeling about the Netherlands (which objectively and subjectively
    is 'their country'; most of them are born here). So the subtitle of the
    article is 'a lot of pupils bear this semi-resentment'.
    Most of his pupils are -as he writes- too stupid to become fundamentalist.
    It is the smarter, higher educated ones who suddenly, in the higher classes
    of secundary school, grow beards and refuse to look their female teachers in
    the eyes. They understand that those dreams of getting rich are unrealisable
    for them, however hard they study. The split between life at home (women are
    subordinate, parental authority is undisputable, as are religious and other
    traditional rules) and public Dutch life (women are considered equal,
    freedom of speech about -even criticism of- authorities and rules is
    encouraged) is getting too confusing. Where a percentage of the less smart
    and less educated pupils reverts to 'ordinary' criminality (stealing, drug
    use etc.) to reach for their illusory dreams, a percentage of the smart and
    educated ones start searching for their identity and naturally (feeling
    rejected by the Dutch) choose for the non-Dutch part of it. It is these few
    individuals that are susceptible to recruitment by radical imams.
    By the way: this picture is not only true for allochtonous pupils from
    Islamic backgrounds, but also for those from the Netherlands Antilles.
    Actually these are more of a problem in terms of 'ordinary' criminality than
    those from Turkey or even those from Morocco (who are most problematic of
    the Islamic allochtonous ones).
    Enlarge this picture to a global scale and you get a few Bin Ladens, bred by
    the (not necessarily justified) semi-resentment of the masses under the yoke
    of authoritarian governments supported by the West. The Bin Ladens
    themselves don't suffer from lack of wealth (like Mohammed B., the murderer
    of Theo van Gogh, DID have a fair chance to get a paid job, unlike his lower
    educated fellow Dutch Moroccon youths). Their resentment may be partly fed
    by frustration about the position of the elites of their home countries who
    are sitting on the wealth from selling oil to the West, whose position is
    out of reach for even a rich Saudi Arabian if you're not of the right clan.

    You overestimated my faith in the common sense (not charitable instincts) of
    the Dutch: 99% would undestand that voluntary contribution to social
    security systems is in their own long-term intrest. Only 90% would act
    accordingly. And they are very rough estimations of course. They are
    certainly majorities, but the figures could be much lower. I invented them
    for illustrative purposes.

    You continued with:
    'I believe democracy and free markets are a real alternative. That's the
    great experiment now being tried in the Middle East. We shall find out in
    the course of history if I'm right. Those who believe democracy cannot be
    forced on a country only need look at Japan after WWII to see they are
    wrong.'

    The key to reducing terrorism is indeed offering alternatives to potential
    terrorists, BEFORE they feel even semi-resentment, not beating the
    terrorists themselves or blocking their potential sources of the most
    dangerous weapons. Occupation may seem necessary if you are too late with
    offering alternatives AND if the occupied country is indeed the direct
    source of terrorism, which wasn't the case with Iraq. If you DO choose for
    beating rogue states (potentially) supportive of terrorism and for blocking
    sources of WMDs, you can't afford to leave alone countries like Syria, Iran,
    North Korea, Pakistan etc.. Either you are consistent or you breed even more
    resentment (especially if a wider group, in this case Arabs and Moslems,
    identify with their cause). Beating and occupying them all would require a
    much stronger global government than you find acceptable.
    It would be strange if someone like you, so much opposed to a strong
    government within the USA (feeling it hampers freedom and democracy there),
    would promote foreign occupation as THE means to create democracy and free
    markets. Japan is the exception rather than the rule. We could find a lot of
    circumstances making it different from Iraq (no broader cause comparable to
    the Arabian/Islamic one for opponents of occupation to identify with, the
    Japanese emperor as focus of Japanese identification spared from blame for
    the war and left in its role etc.). Anyway the Iraqis show all signs of
    reacting quite differently from the Japanese.

    Your faith in the yearning for freedom all over the globe seems a rather
    weak reply (if it can be understood to be one at all) to my claim that the
    USA took upon itself the obligation to spend 0,7% of its GNP on development
    aid as defined by the OECD and doesn't meet it. It isn't much of an
    explanation of the hope you see in Afghanistan either.

    I do trust that you are serious in your disagreement with the values I hold
    (like 'solidarity'). The argument that you are simply holding different
    values, together with half of the Americans, is less of a seriouis
    discussion than I hoped for, however.

    With friendly greetings,

    Wim

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:10:24 GMT