Category Archives: Conflict of Civilizations

On The Russian Investigation

I am concerned and even saddened to see the way many long-term leftists, often with quite reputable histories, joining the chorus of those treating claims of Russian interference in our recent election as “fake news,” or only as a conspiracy of foreign policy Hawks to reignite the Cold War, or but an attempt by the Democratic Establishment to explain its electoral defeat and justify its continuing policies and hold on power. For example, the left-wing Real News Network speaks of Trump’s “One Good Policy” in criticizing ongoing efforts to investigate both the Trump campaign and now the Trump Administration. Such analyses often go so far as to justify their position by documenting US interference in the elections of other countries.

But regardless of past — and probably continuing — US interference in other countries (which should be addressed on its own terms) — the public is right to insist upon a full investigation and action to impede as much as possible any future Russian interference for many reasons, not the least of which is the preservation of what’s left of US democracy.

But more to the immediate point, such investigation is crucial to the mobilization of sufficient Republican opposition to the Trump Administration, which alone in the short run can incapacitate it from its destructive political path (and I’m quite confident that there’s a vast Mafiaesque corrupt underbelly that Trump will do almost anything to protect).

Unfortunately, there is no way in the US constitutional system to remove an Administration, as there is in parliamentary systems, so the best that we can do is incapacitate them, push Trump to further outrageous actions, and mobilize an opposition that hopefully!!!! can be electorally successful in 2017, 18, & 2020 — in spite of the immense power of the yet to be fully unleashed financial power, an empowered right-wing media and the growing right-wing influence on the courts. And that will of necessity require us to a limited extent to make common cause with people whose politics on a wide-range of other issues may be anathema to ours. We must appreciate the very palpable fact that our democratic institutions hang by a thread, and all who care about those institutions should NOT contribute to undermining the most effective and potentially successful opposition to the Trump Administration that a mobilized populace can bring about.


Addressing the Crisis of Our Civilization: Existentialism of Sartre and Camus

None can doubt that our civilization is in crisis — daily challenged by economic and social dislocations, technological transformations, political upheavals, ideological contestations, violent confrontations, environmental dislocations, and the ever present danger of nuclear annihilation. What are we to make of all this? And what are we to do about it?
Few have wrestled more personally, profoundly, and creatively with these challenges than the two Noble Prize winners that we will use as our guides in this course. Albert Camus received his Award for “the clear-sighted earnestness (with which he) illuminates the problems of the human conscience in our times.” His one-time friend, then dedicated antagonist, Jean-Paul Sartre, the first person to have rejected that Prize, was the most prominent French Philosopher of the 20th Century. We will explore in some detail their lives, personal and political conflicts, celebrated novels and essays, philosophical theories, and positive proposals for addressing the crises of our civilization.

This course will be offered by me as part of the Hutton House Lecture Series at LIU/Post in 9 sessions, on Wednesdays, from 1-3pm, from September 6 through November 1, 2017.

An Emerging Fascist Putin-Trump Axis?

As events are unfolding, both domestically and internationally, and new revelations and cover ups surround questions of past and present connections between Trump allies and important Russian officials, I am increasingly coming to the belief that we are in the midst of a major neo-Fascist alliance to reshape the Western world.

Trump’s domestic agenda is one that prioritizes corporate interests, while spouting populist rhetoric, demonizes marginalizable groups in the name of America First — the proto-Nazi slogan on Charles Lindberg and friends in the 30s — shows no respect for the law, courts, or traditional democratic norms, and is committed to the militarization of the police and the suppression of dissent. Meanwhile, he praises Putin and other strongmen, hires past promoters of dictators, and undermines American democratic allies and alliances. And this is not to say anything about his possible direct relation with Russian interference in our, and in our allies, elections. At the same time, it is clear that Putin has actively supported Far Right candidates throughout Europe, including the French anti-Semitic National Front and the anti-Muslim party in the Netherlands — all of whom seek to undermine the European Union.

That is why I believe that we can not act as if we are dealing with politics as usual in the U.S. The Trump Administration is not simply a more radical version of traditional Right Wing politics. It is an existential threat to the very survival of representative government in the U.S., and in a significant sense, to the very survival of relatively decent societies in Europe.

And those of us, whether on the Left, Center, or even Right, who believe in the rule of law, and the at least relative respect for human wellbeing, and the rights and dignity of all people, must join together to do everything we can to delegitimize and incapacitate the Trump Administration from carrying out its neo-Fascist agenda at home and abroad.
A necessary practical step in carrying out this program requires undermining the nearly lockstep support that Trump has so far received from the Republican Party. And the most effective practical strategy for accomplishing that is a full court press on the need for a complete, impartial investigation into the Trump campaign’s connection with Russian interference in our election, and pushing that investigation into exploring any and all continuing coordination between the Trump Administration and the Russian Government.

And that is why the effort of many often well-meaning Leftists — who may seek peace, want detente with Russia, and may fear that these concerns with Russian hacking are solely promoted by Cold Warriors in order to recreate a Cold War, or who may still even have a sympathetic identification with Russia as the continuation of the Soviet Communist ideological commitment to promoting the classless society — their efforts to cast doubt on, or even undermine, investigation into Russian interference in our election is, I fear, no doubt unintentionally and quite unfortunately, playing into the hands of this emerging domestic and international Fascist Axis. We must not normalize the Trump Administration. We must do everything to keep the Russian connection front and center in our demand for a complete impartial investigation, as we confront the Trump Administration on every level, defending threatened groups and basic human rights and services, while promoting programs of social justice, human decency, and ecologically sound and equitable economic development.

On The threat posed by radical Islam

On The threat posed by radical Islam to the civilized world

Recent events have made starkly clear that radical Islam has become a serious threat to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. After 9/11 and the killings at Charlie Hebdo, among many other such acts, no one can doubt the threat posed by radical Islam to the West. But the killing of three Muslims in North Carolina — purportedly over a parking space dispute — is only the most obvious recent sign of the way increasing numbers of non-Muslims in the West — egged on by some demagogic media figures — are coming to perceive all Muslims as a threat, and may experience social support in discriminating against them, or even engaging in anti-Muslim violence. This is occurring in a world context in which non-Muslins have seen the emergence of an apparently growing radical Islamism that is more than willing to kill unlimited numbers of innocent civilians in the pursuit of its fundamentalist religious agenda. That is an inescapable reality. This movement is real, morally indefensible, and truly frightening. No wonder many have called for intensive scrutiny of all Muslims, and some have even sought to justify completely unjustified attacks at Islamic institutions. This reality has created a very dangerous and potentially unnerving reality confronting innocent, law-abiding Muslims, of which there are many, possibly a large majority, who are placed in the extremely uncomfortable, and possibly even dangerous, situation of having to continually worry that they may be discriminated against, or even targeted for attack, by members of a frightened non-Muslim world.

Thus, this reality of systematic Islamic terrorists presents vital challenges that cannot be avoided, by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It must be addressed, directly and without equivocation. Non-Muslims must honestly confront the factual reality of an international culture of Islam that has not yet experienced an “enlightenment,” and all too often remains rooted for the most part in a pre-scientific mindset of religious fundamentalism. It is not enough for well-meaning, and even humanist Westerners, for example, to defend the freedom of religious beliefs and hence the rights and liberties of all Muslims — however important and legitimate that is — and to criticize those who raise serious criticism of the religious beliefs and practices of an Islam that claims to be following the direct divine — and hence, non-questionable — directives of Allah. Such Western humanists and defenders of religious toleration must face seriously the current historical reality of, and propose practical strategies to address the challenge posed by, the current status of the religion and practice of the religion of Islam across the world. We must take seriously an Islamic religious reality that has created, and sustained, an international culture of Islam that can generate massive local protests that have taken place across the Islamic World, from Algeria to Indonesia, and practically all places in between, against the very depiction of the prophet Mohammed. More dangerous than even the horrendous violent extremism of groups such as Al Quada and the so-called Islamic State, is the support that such terrorism has received from the Islamic masses. Such mass protests and overt expressions of support, even involving many middle class individuals and professionals, have been approved, encouraged, and celebrated by many Islamic religious leaders. Some have explicitly justified the murders at Charlie Hebdo and called for the beheading of any others that commit similar “crimes”. These attitudes are in fact the soil that nurtures radical “Islamism”, that fundamentalist expression of Islamic values that justifies terrorism in the name of religious purity. It is not sufficient for individual Muslims to separate themselves from such views. It is essential for the organized Islamic community, with its religious officials in the forefront, to systematically challenge such beliefs and practices. And they must do that publicly, and regularly to their own congregations. But it seems that that is quite difficult for them to do, given the Koranic claim of direct divine revelation for Islamic beliefs.

For there are basic aspects of Islam that make it particularly susceptible to such radical fundamentalist beliefs and practices. At least that is my impression — and I will suggest what I believe some of those are — but I would love to be talked out of my views, and convinced of the contrary. It seems to me that there are problems specific to Islam, as opposed to all the other major world religions, that make its adaptation to the modern world particularly problematic, and tend to feed fundamentalist beliefs and practices among its adherents. But I am no expert on Islam. I only wish to share my concerns, with the intention of stimulating thought and inviting criticism and the presentation of alternative perspectives.

First, there is the issue of the Koran, and the revelations of Allah through his Prophet, Mohammed. As I understand it, it is the contention of Islam that Mohammed is the vehicle through which the unadulterated words of Allah are presented to the world. That means that these words are not debatable, or modifiable. They are the direct revelations of god’s truths. This is different, for example, from the Christian or Jewish Bibles, in which most of the divine revelations are presented by others, and are thus more open to interpretation and challenge. The statements in the Koran, on the other hand, can easily be taken as unquestionable, unmodifiable directives as to what one must do, and how one must live. This makes it increasingly difficult to flexibly adapt the religion to the exigencies of a modern era that is far different from that in which Mohammed lived.

Second, the Koran envisions a unitary politico-religious community, that does not provide for distinct political entities, such as states. Thus it has an inherent tendency not to recognize political boundaries, rather to be inherently international and expansionist. From the recent lead article in The Atlantic Magazine article comes the claim “that Islamic law permits only temporary peace treaties, lasting no longer than a decade. Similarly, accepting any border is anathema, as stated by the Prophet and echoed in the Islamic State’s propaganda videos. If the caliph consents to a longer-term peace or permanent border, he will be in error. Temporary peace treaties are renewable, but may not be applied to all enemies at once: the caliph must wage jihad at least once a year. He may not rest, or he will fall into a state of sin.” And that, of course, also militates against recognition and acceptance of any separation of church from state.

The truly Islamic character of the self-proclaimed Islamic State was well expressed in that article. “The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, ‘the Prophetic methodology,’ which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it.”

For example, continuing from The Atlantic, “…the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, … [observed that] the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam [is] … preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. ‘People want to absolve Islam,’ he said. ‘… [But] Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are not something that freakish [jihadists] are cherry-picking from the medieval tradition,’ Haykel said. Islamic State fighters ‘are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day.'”

“The Koran specifies crucifixion as one of the only punishments permitted for enemies of Islam. The tax on Christians finds clear endorsement in the Surah Al-Tawba, the Koran’s ninth chapter, which instructs Muslims to fight Christians and Jews ‘until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.’ The Prophet, whom all Muslims consider exemplary, imposed these rules and owned slaves.

Leaders of the Islamic State have taken emulation of Muhammad as strict duty, and have revived traditions that have been dormant for hundreds of years. ‘What’s striking about them is not just the literalism, but also the seriousness with which they read these texts,’ Haykel said. “’There is an assiduous, obsessive seriousness that Muslims don’t normally have.'”

“Muslims can say that slavery is not legitimate now, and that crucifixion is wrong at this historical juncture. Many say precisely this. But they cannot condemn slavery or crucifixion outright without contradicting the Koran and the example of the Prophet. “’The only principled ground that the Islamic State’s opponents could take is to say that certain core texts and traditional teachings of Islam are no longer valid,’ Bernard Haykel says. ‘That really would be an act of apostasy.'”

However inevitable and necessary, therefore, for the non-Islamic world to energetically oppose such views — and in so doing, to carefully and effectively reaffirm their commitment in word and deed to freedom of thought, discussion, and association, freedom of the press, and respect for the dignity of all people — that will hardly convince Islamic true believers. Only sustained, public and effective action by the organized leadership of Islam, and that internationally, across the Islamic World, can begin to turn the tide. But that is something many seem quite unwilling, and perhaps, unable to do. It would, no doubt, open them to serious internal criticism, and possibly to real physical danger. And, with the Islamic world not having undergone an Enlightenment that recognizes and accepts the truths of natural science and the legitimacy of an independent secular political order, that would probably be seen as an illegitimate Western profanation of the True religion of Islam. Hence, truly, an apostasy, worthy of death. And yet, unless and until that is done, it is inevitable and understandable that all Muslims will be under some suspicion, and their personal freedom and respect will be on the defensive. And that threat to non-violent and law obedient Muslims, is also a very serious, and probably growing, threat to Western values of human rights and dignity, and to the institutional protections which are vital to the continued existence of free, democratic self-governance.