Framlings, raman, or varelse? was Re: Making a nation democratic

[Jeff Bone]

Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote:

> For example, where/when was the dialog that said, "Ok, we remove the
> US base in Saudi, guarantee Palestinian sovereignty, promise a fair
> share in oil profits that we'd be happy with if the tables were
> turned. Now, what do _you_ give _us_?" ... and not negotiate with ObL,
> obviously, but with the people he obviously benefits.  Had we offered
> to share global profits of the steel and shipping industry with the
> Keiser, WWI might have been averted.  Had we offered to employ the
> german people, Hitler would have had no grip.  Nope, we said "it's
> _your_ problem" ... so they sorted it out their own way.

But that's just opening the door to constant extortion.

Note that we are *already* constantly extorted, and to sugar-coat the
process we've crafted a complete mythology and idealism to justify the
process;  specifically, I'm talking about all the humanitarian, economic,
and other aid and perks we provide to various nations in an attempt to buy
our way to our own self-interest.  Look how well that works:  look at all
the US dollars that went to Afghanistan alone last year.  Look at all the
aid sent yearly to Israel *and* to Egypt.  In our own country, the trend is
to consider no person as responsible for anything at all, but with the rest
of the world we view ourselves as responsible for everything.  We are the
world's mother (didums get a booboo?  here's a band-aid) and father (as in
father knows best, here's your allowance if you behave) and banker and baker
and farmer and educator and gadget maker and policeman and entertainer.  The
net result is that we are viewed by large parts of the world's population as
a global bully.

The sad thing is that, while we have the *capacity* to be a global bully, we
have been painted with that brush because of trying indeed not to look out
for our own interests in all cases but rather to help other nations look out
for (what we perceive to be) their own interests.

Just as isolationism has failed as a practical system at various points in
our nation's history, so too must we admit that our current policy of aloof
hegemony and inconsistent neglect has failed.  The fruits of this policy are
growing and extreme anti-Americanism and rejection *not just of America per
se* but of the cultural, economic, technical, and sociopolitical advances
that have indeed benefited us so much and which we would like to see
everywhere.

> As with training any animal, you find what is important to them, work
> from there.

And with training belligerent animals, any trainer will tell you that
avoidance of pain is one of the best motivators.  We've handled the world
with kid gloves too long, tried to take the ideological high road and treat
every nation as if it were motivated by the same principles and interests as
are we.  Many of the nations where this has failed are --- sad recognition
--- simply too alien for this to work.  Just as you cannot reason with an
alligator, so perhaps it is time to admit that we cannot "reasonably"
interact with certain cultures.

In such case, the ONLY choice is disproportionate and aggressive response on
every possible front:  economic, diplomatic, and if need be military.  And
not hygenic and ineffective smart-bombing campaigns;  if the conflict is
dire enough, we must recognize that only fear of abhorrent reprisal is
enough to properly motivate.

If they really want a global bully, we are prepared to be one.  "Live and
let live" flew the chicken coup last month.

> The opposite, the propaganda that says "we is better than them", the
> blind assumptions that they are whatever, all this can never replace
> actual communications,

The question to be asked is clear:  are "they" (whoever they are, whatever
the context) framlings, raman, or varelse?  (If you don't know what I'm
talking about, Google it.)  We have treated the First World as framlings and
the Third World as raman for the last several decades, and we're now seeing
the results of that policy.  I fear that "they" are answering this question
in a way that we aren't quite prepared to accept, with consequences that we
don't have the spleen for.  You can't communicate with varelse, and if
varelse decides to run a zero-sum game on you, the only choice is to either
concede defeat or try your utmost to win, using abhorrently disproportional
responses if necessary.

Yes, war cuts all lines of communication.  We have been at war with radical
Islam --- which is increasingly synonymous with popular Islam in much of the
world --- for years, and haven't been willing to admit it to ourselves.  (At
least, they have been at war with us.)  The lines of communication are
already cut --- if indeed they ever truly existed --- and it wasn't us that
did it.

Note that the question of which party is "better" or "worse" than the other
is, IMO, meaningless.

jb