The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Eric Margolis ArchiveBlogview
Suez: The End of Europe's Empires
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Sixty years ago, I was home after school, sitting in our living room on New York’s Central Park West, reading a history of Rome and listening to Dvorak’s splendid cello concerto when the announcer on WQXR broke in to announced, “Israeli armored forces are thrusting deep into Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula.”

So began the 1956 Arab-Israeli Suez war, a conflict that is now all but forgotten though it was a major historic turning point for all concerned.

Algeria has risen up against French colonial rule. A ferocious guerilla war was raging. The Socialist government in Paris was too arrogant to admit that anyone could revolt against the glories of French rule. Instead, Paris blamed the revolt on machinations by Egypt’s nationalist strongman, Gamal Abdel Nasser. In fact, Egypt’s role was minor.

Great Britain believed its last remaining colonies and protectorates in the Mideast – Iraq, Kuwait, the emirates, Oman, Libya, Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia – were being threatened by a rising tide of Arab nationalism inspired by Egypt’s fiery Nasser.

The new state of Israel worried that Nasser might indeed unite the Arabs and champion the recently expelled Palestinians.

France’s Socialists led by Guy Mollet took the lead in plotting with Britain and Israel to seize the Suez Canal, which Nasser had nationalized in July 1956, overthrow Nasser and impose joint Franco-British rule on Egypt.

A secret plan called for an Israeli invasion of the Sinai Peninsula and a phony Franco-British ultimatum to Egypt that was designed to be rejected. Then the British and French would attack Egypt, march on Cairo, and depose Nasser. Israel would occupy Sinai and parts of the Suez Canal.

The British and French imperialists never asked themselves how they planned to garrison populous Egypt when they could not control much less populous Algeria. Guy Mollet and British PM Anthony Eden were both steeped in the colonial era: they could not understand that the world had changed. Nor that Britain and France were no longer major military or economic powers.

Meanwhile, France secretly supplied Israel with large quantities of modern arms and nuclear weapons technology that laid the basis of Israel’s current large nuclear arsenal, estimated at 100-200 warheads.

A vicious, British-led propaganda attack was launched against Nasser, calling him ‘Hitler on the Nile’ and a threat to mankind. We would hear similar propaganda against subsequent Mideast enemies of the western powers: Khadaffi, Saddam, Ahmadinejad, bin Laden.

In the event, the tripartite attack on Egypt proved a monumental fiasco. Paris and London didn’t know what to do after their troops seized the Canal. The bombastic Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, threatened to launch nuclear-armed missiles at London and Paris if they didn’t stop their invasion. Only Israel could claim military success against the feeble Egyptian Army – but even that was short-lived.

A national uprising in Hungary against Soviet rule had erupted on 23 Oct 1956. London and Paris chose to invade Egypt as the world was seeing horrifying pictures of Soviet tanks crushing Hungarian freedom-fighters.

ORDER IT NOW

Even worse, US President Dwight Eisenhower was outraged that his nation had not been consulted by the British and French about the planned invasion. The normally unflappable Ike warned London and Paris that he would wreck their currencies if they didn’t withdraw from Egypt at once.

The deeply humiliated British and French pulled out of Egypt with their tails between their legs as the Arabs hooted derision at their former masters. Anthony Eden and Guy Mollet were show up as the fools that they were. Their political careers ended in ignominy.

Israel, their accomplice, wasn’t as quick to retreat from Sinai, which it had long coveted. After a lot of foot-dragging, Israel reluctantly withdrew from Sinai after Eisenhower ordered it to get out…or else. This was the last time a US president was able to give orders to Israel.

After 1956, a powerful US pro-Israel lobby was created to ensure that Israel dominated Congress, the media, and US Mideast policy.

Israel turned its future strategic attention from Sinai to the Jordanian-ruled West Bank. The Suez invasion made Nasser into a hero to the entire Arab and Third World. America ranked right behind as the Arabs saw the US as a liberator from colonialism.

But America would later suffer its own Suez-style fiasco and humiliation under George W. Bush when he invaded Iraq. In the Mideast, lessons are seldom learned, or quickly forgotten.

(Republished from EricMargolis.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History • Tags: Middle East 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. A national uprising in Hungary against Soviet rule had erupted on 23 Oct 1956.

    Actually, it wasn’t a “national uprising” “against Soviet rule”. It was an anti-communist upraising against the Hungarian communist government. Hungarian anti-communists attacked and killed (including summary executions) Hungarian communists and their supporters. Even the English-language version of wikipedia describes episodes like:

    In Budapest and other areas, the Hungarian Communist committees organised defence. Communists of Budapest neighbourhood Angyalföld led more than 350 armed workers and 380 servicemen from the Láng Factory. Anti-fascist resistance veterans from World War II participated in the offensive by which the Szabad Nép newspaper’s building was recaptured. In the countryside, defence measures were taken by pro-Communist forces.

    See: veterans of anti-fascist resistance fought the rebels.

    Yes, eventually the Warsaw pact troops intervened and ended it, but the current narrative framing it as a rebellion of the Hungarians against ‘Soviet rule’ is obviously false…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    In Europe, many who were anti-fascist during the war became anti-communist after the war. The equation of anti-communism with fascism and communism with anti-fascism is one of the many tricks and lies of the Left.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /emargolis/suez-the-end-of-europes-empires/#comment-1664134
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. As ever, the old fart’s writing is riddled with factual errors. Europe’s empires did not end at Suez. Portugal’s lasted til 1974 and Russia’s after 1990.
    Eisenhower may have threatened the franc, but in reality there was little he could do about it. The French wanted to continue fighting , but Eden was ill, demoralised and worried about the “Sterling Zone” and threw in the towel.
    I could continue, but it’s a long list and I have better things to do.
    MEMO TO MR UNZ:
    Please stop paying Old Eric, so he can return to his Animal Rescue Centre in Canada.
    And we can get someone with a clearer grip on objective reality to write for us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Begemot
    Please tend to those better things.
    , @James N. Kennett
    Yes, there are many errors. The first one I noticed was the assertion that Libya and Saudi Arabia were British colonies or protectorates. More importantly, the French and British were not so foolish as to expect to occupy the whole of Egypt, only the Suez Canal.

    Their foolishness was in believing they could act without reference to the USA and USSR, who quickly put an end to their plans. A phrase used from 1945 until the 1970s was "the Big Four" (US, USSR, Britain and France), but this term was more diplomatic than realistic. Obviously two of the countries were rather bigger than the others.
  3. Begemot says:
    @Verymuchalive
    As ever, the old fart's writing is riddled with factual errors. Europe's empires did not end at Suez. Portugal's lasted til 1974 and Russia's after 1990.
    Eisenhower may have threatened the franc, but in reality there was little he could do about it. The French wanted to continue fighting , but Eden was ill, demoralised and worried about the "Sterling Zone" and threw in the towel.
    I could continue, but it's a long list and I have better things to do.
    MEMO TO MR UNZ:
    Please stop paying Old Eric, so he can return to his Animal Rescue Centre in Canada.
    And we can get someone with a clearer grip on objective reality to write for us.

    Please tend to those better things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    I solemnly do promise not to ever comment on hapless Eric's website again. For the rest of you saddoes, may you get what you deserve.
  4. @Begemot
    Please tend to those better things.

    I solemnly do promise not to ever comment on hapless Eric’s website again. For the rest of you saddoes, may you get what you deserve.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mia
    Too bad sir, i enjoy your comments. Specially regarding "authors" like these...
  5. Mia says:
    @Verymuchalive
    I solemnly do promise not to ever comment on hapless Eric's website again. For the rest of you saddoes, may you get what you deserve.

    Too bad sir, i enjoy your comments. Specially regarding “authors” like these…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    As I now have a fan club ( of one ), I'd better come back, if only to point out Eric's ( continuing ) historical errors and misunderstandings. But I shouldn't be Eric's unpaid fact-checker. If he were a journalist worth his salt, he should employ his own prior to publication, like Pat Buchanan. Or he should act as his own fact-checker, like Steve Sailer ( very thorough, gets the odd one or two wrong, but even the best do. And Mr Sailer is one of the best. )
    As regards " garrisoning populous Egypt ", this was not the aim of the Franco-British intervention. The aim was what we now call " regime change". Occupation of the Canal Zone by Britain and France, combined with Israeli occupation of Sinai would have been a massive loss of face for a military strong man like Nasser, if the occupation lasted for any length of time. The masses' attitude would very quickly turn and Nasser might find himself in exile in Moscow.
    Just as important, money from the Canal was Egypt's biggest single source of revenue, or would have been under peace-time conditions. Replacement of Nasser by someone more compliant would be a prelude to a deal.
  6. Talha says:

    Thanks Mr. Margolis, for the blast from the past. As some commentators pointed out, European colonial efforts were not dead by this time; Belgium in the Congo, for instance. I’d like to say this event may have been the last public and outward attempt at an aggressive war into a major third world country with the goal of changing up the national leadership – the removal of Mossadegh a few years prior had been far more subtle. But, of course, there was really only a risible attempt at justification for the invasion of Iraq.

    Now, what kind of amazes me is this:

    The British and French imperialists never asked themselves how they planned to garrison populous Egypt when they could not control much less populous Algeria.

    Seriously, what were they thinking – occupying Egypt? Maybe they thought, well Napoleon could do it – and forgot that he left after just a couple of years. Of course the same thing happened recently in Iraq so it really shows that some people get caught up in their on hubris.

    Peace.

    Read More
  7. @Mia
    Too bad sir, i enjoy your comments. Specially regarding "authors" like these...

    As I now have a fan club ( of one ), I’d better come back, if only to point out Eric’s ( continuing ) historical errors and misunderstandings. But I shouldn’t be Eric’s unpaid fact-checker. If he were a journalist worth his salt, he should employ his own prior to publication, like Pat Buchanan. Or he should act as his own fact-checker, like Steve Sailer ( very thorough, gets the odd one or two wrong, but even the best do. And Mr Sailer is one of the best. )
    As regards ” garrisoning populous Egypt “, this was not the aim of the Franco-British intervention. The aim was what we now call ” regime change”. Occupation of the Canal Zone by Britain and France, combined with Israeli occupation of Sinai would have been a massive loss of face for a military strong man like Nasser, if the occupation lasted for any length of time. The masses’ attitude would very quickly turn and Nasser might find himself in exile in Moscow.
    Just as important, money from the Canal was Egypt’s biggest single source of revenue, or would have been under peace-time conditions. Replacement of Nasser by someone more compliant would be a prelude to a deal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    The aim was what we now call ” regime change”.
     
    Well, I suspect the aim was to defeat Nasserism, secular pan-Arab movement of independence - rather than a "strong man like Nasser", as you put it...
  8. @Verymuchalive
    As ever, the old fart's writing is riddled with factual errors. Europe's empires did not end at Suez. Portugal's lasted til 1974 and Russia's after 1990.
    Eisenhower may have threatened the franc, but in reality there was little he could do about it. The French wanted to continue fighting , but Eden was ill, demoralised and worried about the "Sterling Zone" and threw in the towel.
    I could continue, but it's a long list and I have better things to do.
    MEMO TO MR UNZ:
    Please stop paying Old Eric, so he can return to his Animal Rescue Centre in Canada.
    And we can get someone with a clearer grip on objective reality to write for us.

    Yes, there are many errors. The first one I noticed was the assertion that Libya and Saudi Arabia were British colonies or protectorates. More importantly, the French and British were not so foolish as to expect to occupy the whole of Egypt, only the Suez Canal.

    Their foolishness was in believing they could act without reference to the USA and USSR, who quickly put an end to their plans. A phrase used from 1945 until the 1970s was “the Big Four” (US, USSR, Britain and France), but this term was more diplomatic than realistic. Obviously two of the countries were rather bigger than the others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    " Their foolishness was in believing they could act without reference to the USA and USSR, who quickly put an end to their plans. "
    Firstly, the USSR had nothing to do with the Franco-British withdrawal from Suez.
    Secondly, the French wanted to continue with the operation. France was a much more self-sufficient economy, it was now making excellent economic growth and it had its own considerable oil industry in the Sahara. It was not susceptible to American economic blackmail.
    Britain had none of these advantages and fretted about the maintenance of its "sterling" economic zone. In the end, Britain caved in.
    The error, if such it were, was the French belief that Britain was sufficiently strong enough to withstand American opposition. No French government since has done so.
  9. @Verymuchalive
    As I now have a fan club ( of one ), I'd better come back, if only to point out Eric's ( continuing ) historical errors and misunderstandings. But I shouldn't be Eric's unpaid fact-checker. If he were a journalist worth his salt, he should employ his own prior to publication, like Pat Buchanan. Or he should act as his own fact-checker, like Steve Sailer ( very thorough, gets the odd one or two wrong, but even the best do. And Mr Sailer is one of the best. )
    As regards " garrisoning populous Egypt ", this was not the aim of the Franco-British intervention. The aim was what we now call " regime change". Occupation of the Canal Zone by Britain and France, combined with Israeli occupation of Sinai would have been a massive loss of face for a military strong man like Nasser, if the occupation lasted for any length of time. The masses' attitude would very quickly turn and Nasser might find himself in exile in Moscow.
    Just as important, money from the Canal was Egypt's biggest single source of revenue, or would have been under peace-time conditions. Replacement of Nasser by someone more compliant would be a prelude to a deal.

    The aim was what we now call ” regime change”.

    Well, I suspect the aim was to defeat Nasserism, secular pan-Arab movement of independence – rather than a “strong man like Nasser”, as you put it…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Even in the 1950s and 60s, secular pan-Arab groups were highly divided and divisive, as a quick look at the life of Michel Aflaq will reveal. The British and French wanted Nasser replaced and more compliant figures in his place.
    Many other secular Arab figures had no time for Nasserite pan-Arabism, eg Aflaq, Assad ( pere et fils ) and Saddam Hussein inter alia.
  10. @James N. Kennett
    Yes, there are many errors. The first one I noticed was the assertion that Libya and Saudi Arabia were British colonies or protectorates. More importantly, the French and British were not so foolish as to expect to occupy the whole of Egypt, only the Suez Canal.

    Their foolishness was in believing they could act without reference to the USA and USSR, who quickly put an end to their plans. A phrase used from 1945 until the 1970s was "the Big Four" (US, USSR, Britain and France), but this term was more diplomatic than realistic. Obviously two of the countries were rather bigger than the others.

    ” Their foolishness was in believing they could act without reference to the USA and USSR, who quickly put an end to their plans. ”
    Firstly, the USSR had nothing to do with the Franco-British withdrawal from Suez.
    Secondly, the French wanted to continue with the operation. France was a much more self-sufficient economy, it was now making excellent economic growth and it had its own considerable oil industry in the Sahara. It was not susceptible to American economic blackmail.
    Britain had none of these advantages and fretted about the maintenance of its “sterling” economic zone. In the end, Britain caved in.
    The error, if such it were, was the French belief that Britain was sufficiently strong enough to withstand American opposition. No French government since has done so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
    You may be right about France.

    However, the USSR played a role, by saying to the Americans "What are your allies doing invading our ally? Why shouldn't we come to Egypt's aid?". The USA did not want the dispute to escalate into a world war. A heavily indebted Britain depended on American financial support, and ultimately had to do whatever the Americans wanted.

    The French realised they could no longer act alone as a global power, and Guy Mollet had already proposed union with Britain. Britain not only refused, but accepted its role as the junior partner of the USA; within 12 months of Suez, France had concluded the Treaty of Rome with five other continental countries, and created the EEC.
  11. @Mao Cheng Ji

    The aim was what we now call ” regime change”.
     
    Well, I suspect the aim was to defeat Nasserism, secular pan-Arab movement of independence - rather than a "strong man like Nasser", as you put it...

    Even in the 1950s and 60s, secular pan-Arab groups were highly divided and divisive, as a quick look at the life of Michel Aflaq will reveal. The British and French wanted Nasser replaced and more compliant figures in his place.
    Many other secular Arab figures had no time for Nasserite pan-Arabism, eg Aflaq, Assad ( pere et fils ) and Saddam Hussein inter alia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, it seems to me Ba'athism is a form of Nasserism, and it's what the western (including israeli) strategists are terrified of... Thus the Iraq war, the anti-Assad vendetta, and the overthrow and murder of Quadaffi, who was also a secular uniting force, in north Africa. It seems to me this is pretty much the main angle: the west exacerbates sectarian tensions, trying to promote a split along the sectarian (and ethnic, where it makes sense, as with the Kurds) lines...
  12. @Verymuchalive
    " Their foolishness was in believing they could act without reference to the USA and USSR, who quickly put an end to their plans. "
    Firstly, the USSR had nothing to do with the Franco-British withdrawal from Suez.
    Secondly, the French wanted to continue with the operation. France was a much more self-sufficient economy, it was now making excellent economic growth and it had its own considerable oil industry in the Sahara. It was not susceptible to American economic blackmail.
    Britain had none of these advantages and fretted about the maintenance of its "sterling" economic zone. In the end, Britain caved in.
    The error, if such it were, was the French belief that Britain was sufficiently strong enough to withstand American opposition. No French government since has done so.

    You may be right about France.

    However, the USSR played a role, by saying to the Americans “What are your allies doing invading our ally? Why shouldn’t we come to Egypt’s aid?”. The USA did not want the dispute to escalate into a world war. A heavily indebted Britain depended on American financial support, and ultimately had to do whatever the Americans wanted.

    The French realised they could no longer act alone as a global power, and Guy Mollet had already proposed union with Britain. Britain not only refused, but accepted its role as the junior partner of the USA; within 12 months of Suez, France had concluded the Treaty of Rome with five other continental countries, and created the EEC.

    Read More
  13. @Verymuchalive
    Even in the 1950s and 60s, secular pan-Arab groups were highly divided and divisive, as a quick look at the life of Michel Aflaq will reveal. The British and French wanted Nasser replaced and more compliant figures in his place.
    Many other secular Arab figures had no time for Nasserite pan-Arabism, eg Aflaq, Assad ( pere et fils ) and Saddam Hussein inter alia.

    Well, it seems to me Ba’athism is a form of Nasserism, and it’s what the western (including israeli) strategists are terrified of… Thus the Iraq war, the anti-Assad vendetta, and the overthrow and murder of Quadaffi, who was also a secular uniting force, in north Africa. It seems to me this is pretty much the main angle: the west exacerbates sectarian tensions, trying to promote a split along the sectarian (and ethnic, where it makes sense, as with the Kurds) lines…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Aflaq and co founded the Ba'ath Party in 1940. Nasser was a johnny-come-lately who appeared in the mid-1950s. By that time there were already many secular Arab and pan-Arab parties, divided amongst themselves. Getting rid of Nasserism then would still have left lots of secular pan-Arab groups.
  14. To my follow readers–you been had by Eric. Jewish controlled USA was always been behind the middle east wars using England and France as paid stooges. And what is never talked about,it has always been America’s goal to create Israel and expel the real Semites out from Palestine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @moi
    We're not allowed to talk about that in polite society :-)
  15. Suez wasn’t the end of Europe’s empires. Even today, about 30 million non-Russians still live under Russian colonial rule in the Caucasus and Siberia, and Putin’s actions in Ukraine suggest that he would like to increase that number. In addition, by intervening in the Syrian civil war, Putin has made himself the de facto colonial protector of the Assad regime. An end to Europe’s empires will inevitably require the decolonization of a large part of the Russian Federation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    You seem to be confused about the meaning of "colonial rule". A full-fledged citizen of his state does not, by definition, live under colonial rule. Therefore, while, say, Puerto Rico is indeed a colony, nether of the regions of the Russian Federation, or Syria, is.
    , @Avery
    {and Putin’s actions in Ukraine suggest that he would like to increase that number. }

    You repeating the Neocon lies about Russia's intentions vis-a-vis Ukraine, suggests you are an anti-Russian, neo-Nazi propagandist.

    {In addition, by intervening in the Syrian civil war, Putin has made himself the de facto colonial protector of the Assad regime. }

    Clearly, your anit-Russian, neo-Nazi addled mind is unable to distinguish between a military alliance between sovereign states and colonial rule. The so-called 'Syrian civil war' is no such thing: it is a war against foreign equipped, foreign financed, foreign supported terrorist invasion army.

    Care to explain what are NATO member AFs doing flying all over Syrian space without permission from the legitimate Syrian government?
    Care to explain US AF attacking and deliberately killing ~100 Syrian troops on Syrian soil?
    Care to explain what are NATO-member Turkish ground troops doing on Syrian soil?

  16. @Michael Kenny
    Suez wasn't the end of Europe's empires. Even today, about 30 million non-Russians still live under Russian colonial rule in the Caucasus and Siberia, and Putin's actions in Ukraine suggest that he would like to increase that number. In addition, by intervening in the Syrian civil war, Putin has made himself the de facto colonial protector of the Assad regime. An end to Europe's empires will inevitably require the decolonization of a large part of the Russian Federation.

    You seem to be confused about the meaning of “colonial rule”. A full-fledged citizen of his state does not, by definition, live under colonial rule. Therefore, while, say, Puerto Rico is indeed a colony, nether of the regions of the Russian Federation, or Syria, is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Well put, Mao jr.
    American has much more to fear from the secession of California and the Southwest than Russia has to fear the separatism of ethnic minorities. For a start, California and the Southwest has been inundated with Mexican and other immigrants only in the last 50 years. Many are illegal immigrants, can't speak English and make no bones about their attachment to Mexico. They speak openly about Reconquista.
    Russia's boundaries are more or less what they were in 1717, during Peter the Great's reign ( Crimea excepted ). The ethnic minorities are nearly all long established and Russia has had a long time in which to develop stable relations with them. Most are of Orthodox Christian background. Even those of Muslim background seem better disposed to the Russian State than their fellows in Western Europe. Nearly all minorities have autonomy.
  17. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, it seems to me Ba'athism is a form of Nasserism, and it's what the western (including israeli) strategists are terrified of... Thus the Iraq war, the anti-Assad vendetta, and the overthrow and murder of Quadaffi, who was also a secular uniting force, in north Africa. It seems to me this is pretty much the main angle: the west exacerbates sectarian tensions, trying to promote a split along the sectarian (and ethnic, where it makes sense, as with the Kurds) lines...

    Aflaq and co founded the Ba’ath Party in 1940. Nasser was a johnny-come-lately who appeared in the mid-1950s. By that time there were already many secular Arab and pan-Arab parties, divided amongst themselves. Getting rid of Nasserism then would still have left lots of secular pan-Arab groups.

    Read More
  18. @Mao Cheng Ji
    You seem to be confused about the meaning of "colonial rule". A full-fledged citizen of his state does not, by definition, live under colonial rule. Therefore, while, say, Puerto Rico is indeed a colony, nether of the regions of the Russian Federation, or Syria, is.

    Well put, Mao jr.
    American has much more to fear from the secession of California and the Southwest than Russia has to fear the separatism of ethnic minorities. For a start, California and the Southwest has been inundated with Mexican and other immigrants only in the last 50 years. Many are illegal immigrants, can’t speak English and make no bones about their attachment to Mexico. They speak openly about Reconquista.
    Russia’s boundaries are more or less what they were in 1717, during Peter the Great’s reign ( Crimea excepted ). The ethnic minorities are nearly all long established and Russia has had a long time in which to develop stable relations with them. Most are of Orthodox Christian background. Even those of Muslim background seem better disposed to the Russian State than their fellows in Western Europe. Nearly all minorities have autonomy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, frankly I don't even see much use for the ethnic angle. 'State' is a territorial political entity, not ethnicity-based. Really, ethnicity is too ambiguous and fluid a characteristic to provide basis for anything. There are places where pretty much every village could be classified as a separate 'ethnicity'. Italy, for example, has a dozen of regional languages and probably hundreds of dialects.
  19. Avery says:
    @Michael Kenny
    Suez wasn't the end of Europe's empires. Even today, about 30 million non-Russians still live under Russian colonial rule in the Caucasus and Siberia, and Putin's actions in Ukraine suggest that he would like to increase that number. In addition, by intervening in the Syrian civil war, Putin has made himself the de facto colonial protector of the Assad regime. An end to Europe's empires will inevitably require the decolonization of a large part of the Russian Federation.

    {and Putin’s actions in Ukraine suggest that he would like to increase that number. }

    You repeating the Neocon lies about Russia’s intentions vis-a-vis Ukraine, suggests you are an anti-Russian, neo-Nazi propagandist.

    {In addition, by intervening in the Syrian civil war, Putin has made himself the de facto colonial protector of the Assad regime. }

    Clearly, your anit-Russian, neo-Nazi addled mind is unable to distinguish between a military alliance between sovereign states and colonial rule. The so-called ‘Syrian civil war’ is no such thing: it is a war against foreign equipped, foreign financed, foreign supported terrorist invasion army.

    Care to explain what are NATO member AFs doing flying all over Syrian space without permission from the legitimate Syrian government?
    Care to explain US AF attacking and deliberately killing ~100 Syrian troops on Syrian soil?
    Care to explain what are NATO-member Turkish ground troops doing on Syrian soil?

    Read More
  20. moi says:
    @george Archers
    To my follow readers--you been had by Eric. Jewish controlled USA was always been behind the middle east wars using England and France as paid stooges. And what is never talked about,it has always been America's goal to create Israel and expel the real Semites out from Palestine.

    We’re not allowed to talk about that in polite society :-)

    Read More
  21. Even before “Suez” happened US policies vs. colonial empires had been fairly clear especially in the case of the so-called “police action”, a real war waged by the Dutch in Indonesia. There may have been several reasons why our government opposed the continuation of colonialism unless, like in Indochina, the revolution was led by communists. One well-established reason, especially promoted by President Eisenhower, was the concern that war elsewhere would sap the ability of Western Europe to withstand Stalin’s Soviet Union.

    Read More
  22. @Verymuchalive
    Well put, Mao jr.
    American has much more to fear from the secession of California and the Southwest than Russia has to fear the separatism of ethnic minorities. For a start, California and the Southwest has been inundated with Mexican and other immigrants only in the last 50 years. Many are illegal immigrants, can't speak English and make no bones about their attachment to Mexico. They speak openly about Reconquista.
    Russia's boundaries are more or less what they were in 1717, during Peter the Great's reign ( Crimea excepted ). The ethnic minorities are nearly all long established and Russia has had a long time in which to develop stable relations with them. Most are of Orthodox Christian background. Even those of Muslim background seem better disposed to the Russian State than their fellows in Western Europe. Nearly all minorities have autonomy.

    Well, frankly I don’t even see much use for the ethnic angle. ‘State’ is a territorial political entity, not ethnicity-based. Really, ethnicity is too ambiguous and fluid a characteristic to provide basis for anything. There are places where pretty much every village could be classified as a separate ‘ethnicity’. Italy, for example, has a dozen of regional languages and probably hundreds of dialects.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Most Americans are still white Europeans. Mexican immigrants are nearly all mestizos. They are ethnically ie genetically very different. Ask any writer who deals with HBD, Sailer, Karlin, Raizab Khan etc. They will tell you so.
    You are being dishonest.
  23. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, frankly I don't even see much use for the ethnic angle. 'State' is a territorial political entity, not ethnicity-based. Really, ethnicity is too ambiguous and fluid a characteristic to provide basis for anything. There are places where pretty much every village could be classified as a separate 'ethnicity'. Italy, for example, has a dozen of regional languages and probably hundreds of dialects.

    Most Americans are still white Europeans. Mexican immigrants are nearly all mestizos. They are ethnically ie genetically very different. Ask any writer who deals with HBD, Sailer, Karlin, Raizab Khan etc. They will tell you so.
    You are being dishonest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebbia nera
    Thing is, 'white european' is anything but an ethnicity, as is 'latin american'... what Americans call 'white european' is in fact a melting pot of poles, bavarians, prussians, piemontese, venetians, frenchmen, American french, catalans, swedes, finns, danes, norse, irishmen, englishmen, scotts, welsh, bretons, occitans, hungarians, austrians, romanians, czechs, slovacks, greeks, russians, ruthenians, carpathians, lithuanians, lettons, estonians, bohemians, swiss, walloons, flemish, hollanders, zeelanders... and it's a very rough cut. To group them all into a single ethnicity is stupid and will only produce skewed results.
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    genetically very different
     
    I don't know what that means. They are all humans, and every two humans are genetically different, unless they are identical twins. What gives?
  24. @Verymuchalive
    Most Americans are still white Europeans. Mexican immigrants are nearly all mestizos. They are ethnically ie genetically very different. Ask any writer who deals with HBD, Sailer, Karlin, Raizab Khan etc. They will tell you so.
    You are being dishonest.

    Thing is, ‘white european’ is anything but an ethnicity, as is ‘latin american’… what Americans call ‘white european’ is in fact a melting pot of poles, bavarians, prussians, piemontese, venetians, frenchmen, American french, catalans, swedes, finns, danes, norse, irishmen, englishmen, scotts, welsh, bretons, occitans, hungarians, austrians, romanians, czechs, slovacks, greeks, russians, ruthenians, carpathians, lithuanians, lettons, estonians, bohemians, swiss, walloons, flemish, hollanders, zeelanders… and it’s a very rough cut. To group them all into a single ethnicity is stupid and will only produce skewed results.

    Read More
  25. If Nasser had succeeded in establishing a stable “Arab Union” perhaps the current Caliphate would have never happened.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey DH,

    Much closer to home actually, if we hadn't destabilized Iraq and Syria and helped the Qataris and Saudis ship weapons in, the 'caliphate' wouldn't have happened.

    Pan Arabism is a bloody joke that was doomed to fail - there is no way the kingdoms of Morocco, Oman, the various Gulf monarchies would have gone along with it.

    Even men like the late sage Shaykh Shaarawi (ra) were far more concerned about the dangers of Pan Arabism to the culture and ethos of the Muslims of Egypt than they were worried about Israel:
    "In what was possibly his most controversial move, he gave thanks to God after Egypt suffered a calamitous defeat in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Asked why, he said that if Nasser had won the war, Egypt would have become a communist country."
    http://almashriq.hiof.no/egypt/200/290/297/shaarawi/

    Peace.
  26. Talha says:
    @Dieter Heymann
    If Nasser had succeeded in establishing a stable "Arab Union" perhaps the current Caliphate would have never happened.

    Hey DH,

    Much closer to home actually, if we hadn’t destabilized Iraq and Syria and helped the Qataris and Saudis ship weapons in, the ‘caliphate’ wouldn’t have happened.

    Pan Arabism is a bloody joke that was doomed to fail – there is no way the kingdoms of Morocco, Oman, the various Gulf monarchies would have gone along with it.

    Even men like the late sage Shaykh Shaarawi (ra) were far more concerned about the dangers of Pan Arabism to the culture and ethos of the Muslims of Egypt than they were worried about Israel:
    “In what was possibly his most controversial move, he gave thanks to God after Egypt suffered a calamitous defeat in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Asked why, he said that if Nasser had won the war, Egypt would have become a communist country.”

    http://almashriq.hiof.no/egypt/200/290/297/shaarawi/

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Pan Arabism is a bloody joke that was doomed to fail – there is no way the kingdoms of Morocco, Oman, the various Gulf monarchies would have gone along with it.
     
    Well, but perhaps it's those little kingdoms that were (and still are) doomed to fail? The same way they failed and withered in Europe (see Garibaldi in Italy, for example). Natural evolutionary process, but it was interrupted and delayed (still is) by deliberate western meddling and military interventions. That's exactly what I'm saying.
  27. @Verymuchalive
    Most Americans are still white Europeans. Mexican immigrants are nearly all mestizos. They are ethnically ie genetically very different. Ask any writer who deals with HBD, Sailer, Karlin, Raizab Khan etc. They will tell you so.
    You are being dishonest.

    genetically very different

    I don’t know what that means. They are all humans, and every two humans are genetically different, unless they are identical twins. What gives?

    Read More
  28. @Talha
    Hey DH,

    Much closer to home actually, if we hadn't destabilized Iraq and Syria and helped the Qataris and Saudis ship weapons in, the 'caliphate' wouldn't have happened.

    Pan Arabism is a bloody joke that was doomed to fail - there is no way the kingdoms of Morocco, Oman, the various Gulf monarchies would have gone along with it.

    Even men like the late sage Shaykh Shaarawi (ra) were far more concerned about the dangers of Pan Arabism to the culture and ethos of the Muslims of Egypt than they were worried about Israel:
    "In what was possibly his most controversial move, he gave thanks to God after Egypt suffered a calamitous defeat in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Asked why, he said that if Nasser had won the war, Egypt would have become a communist country."
    http://almashriq.hiof.no/egypt/200/290/297/shaarawi/

    Peace.

    Pan Arabism is a bloody joke that was doomed to fail – there is no way the kingdoms of Morocco, Oman, the various Gulf monarchies would have gone along with it.

    Well, but perhaps it’s those little kingdoms that were (and still are) doomed to fail? The same way they failed and withered in Europe (see Garibaldi in Italy, for example). Natural evolutionary process, but it was interrupted and delayed (still is) by deliberate western meddling and military interventions. That’s exactly what I’m saying.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey MCJ,

    I know where you are coming from, and I used to think the same when I was younger, but I've come to different conclusions based on the following two points:

    1) The nation-state liberal democratic model is a European invention; a product of her unique history and experience and people. It may be a horrible fit for the people of the ME. A lot less thought is given to the forms of government rather than the results. If you have a monarch that is generally good to his people, keeps the peace and does not oppress them or burden them with heavy taxes, you have a workable model. Often the monarchs enjoy popularity far more than the presidents and prime ministers of corrupt democracies:
    "Senior Lena Maxey, who worked in Jordan through a HNGR internship, said, “The public opinion is that King Abdullah II is a great leader. People love him and his wife, and everyone speaks extremely highly of him and is grateful to have him as a leader. They even go out of their way to tell you this.”
    Likewise, senior Kent Lindbergh who studied abroad in Jordan through BestSemester’s Middle Eastern Studies Program said, “Over the years, King Abdullah II has shown respect for the traditional and tribal aspects of the Jordanian people while also raising the standard of living remarkably and connecting with the younger generation in Jordan.”
    http://www.wheatonrecord.com/news/king-abdullah-iis-approval-high-in-jordan-students-say/

    If you think Trump was elected because he exuded a aura of manliness, well...
    http://www.businessinsider.com/king-abduallh-of-jordan-is-a-total-badass-2015-2

    "The editions of TelQuel and Nichane, French and Arabic-language weeklies best known for being fiercely secular, were seized and destroyed by the authorities on the ground of 'disturbing public order' because they had carried a public-opinion poll on the king. The results were not the problem. It was found that 91% of Moroccans felt Muhammad had done well in his first decade in power. Rather, as a government spokesman put it, 'the monarchy cannot be the subject of debate, even through an opinion survey.'...It is not clear how much the average Moroccan, raised in a tradition of deference to the monarchy, cares about the lack of political liberalisation. Indeed, the Tel Quel poll suggests he remains in awe of the monarch. Nearly half of those polled reckoned Morocco was a democracy. Of the third who said it was authoritarian, quite a lot thought this a good thing."
    http://www.economist.com/node/14327617

    I want people to ponder on the cultural assumptions and implications of introducing a system into some of these societies where the political voice/vote of an 18 year old woman counts the same as a 60 year old tribal chieftain.

    2) There is no evidence that the current nation-state model is the end all of political evolution. In fact, things seem to be quite in flux as historians and strategists like Martin Van Creveld and William Lind have repeatedly stated:
    https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-State-Martin-Creveld/dp/052165629X

    For example, is Somalia a failed nation state? Most certainly! But is it a viable inter-linked tribal society with a lot to lose if a single tribe or group gains hegemony? Yes:
    https://mises.org/library/stateless-somalia-and-loving-it

    We won't know until the dust settles in the survival of the fittest who or what exactly the fittest were.

    Peace.

  29. Talha says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Pan Arabism is a bloody joke that was doomed to fail – there is no way the kingdoms of Morocco, Oman, the various Gulf monarchies would have gone along with it.
     
    Well, but perhaps it's those little kingdoms that were (and still are) doomed to fail? The same way they failed and withered in Europe (see Garibaldi in Italy, for example). Natural evolutionary process, but it was interrupted and delayed (still is) by deliberate western meddling and military interventions. That's exactly what I'm saying.

    Hey MCJ,

    I know where you are coming from, and I used to think the same when I was younger, but I’ve come to different conclusions based on the following two points:

    1) The nation-state liberal democratic model is a European invention; a product of her unique history and experience and people. It may be a horrible fit for the people of the ME. A lot less thought is given to the forms of government rather than the results. If you have a monarch that is generally good to his people, keeps the peace and does not oppress them or burden them with heavy taxes, you have a workable model. Often the monarchs enjoy popularity far more than the presidents and prime ministers of corrupt democracies:
    “Senior Lena Maxey, who worked in Jordan through a HNGR internship, said, “The public opinion is that King Abdullah II is a great leader. People love him and his wife, and everyone speaks extremely highly of him and is grateful to have him as a leader. They even go out of their way to tell you this.”
    Likewise, senior Kent Lindbergh who studied abroad in Jordan through BestSemester’s Middle Eastern Studies Program said, “Over the years, King Abdullah II has shown respect for the traditional and tribal aspects of the Jordanian people while also raising the standard of living remarkably and connecting with the younger generation in Jordan.”

    http://www.wheatonrecord.com/news/king-abdullah-iis-approval-high-in-jordan-students-say/

    If you think Trump was elected because he exuded a aura of manliness, well…

    http://www.businessinsider.com/king-abduallh-of-jordan-is-a-total-badass-2015-2

    “The editions of TelQuel and Nichane, French and Arabic-language weeklies best known for being fiercely secular, were seized and destroyed by the authorities on the ground of ‘disturbing public order’ because they had carried a public-opinion poll on the king. The results were not the problem. It was found that 91% of Moroccans felt Muhammad had done well in his first decade in power. Rather, as a government spokesman put it, ‘the monarchy cannot be the subject of debate, even through an opinion survey.’…It is not clear how much the average Moroccan, raised in a tradition of deference to the monarchy, cares about the lack of political liberalisation. Indeed, the Tel Quel poll suggests he remains in awe of the monarch. Nearly half of those polled reckoned Morocco was a democracy. Of the third who said it was authoritarian, quite a lot thought this a good thing.”

    http://www.economist.com/node/14327617

    I want people to ponder on the cultural assumptions and implications of introducing a system into some of these societies where the political voice/vote of an 18 year old woman counts the same as a 60 year old tribal chieftain.

    2) There is no evidence that the current nation-state model is the end all of political evolution. In fact, things seem to be quite in flux as historians and strategists like Martin Van Creveld and William Lind have repeatedly stated:

    https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-State-Martin-Creveld/dp/052165629X

    For example, is Somalia a failed nation state? Most certainly! But is it a viable inter-linked tribal society with a lot to lose if a single tribe or group gains hegemony? Yes:

    https://mises.org/library/stateless-somalia-and-loving-it

    We won’t know until the dust settles in the survival of the fittest who or what exactly the fittest were.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    The nation-state liberal democratic model is a European invention
     
    Sure. I got no preference for the governing model; monarchy is fine with me. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the unity, consolidation within the culturally homogeneous region we call 'the Arab world', that's already represented by the very weak Arab League. The details are not important: a permanent coalition, a confederation, a people's socialist republic, a jamahiriya, it doesn't matter. It just seems like a natural thing for this region to be united and act together on the world stage. But hey, if opinions differ, that's fine too.
    , @Anon
    Come to that, I'm not sure how good a fit the liberal-democratic system is even for Europe. Sure, all of Europe looks alike now, but the quiet Stepford political order seems a bit suspicious, and I can't help but wonder if it's merely the stabilizing hand of the US (and, formerly, fear of the USSR) which keeps things so neat. Outside the Anglosphere and maybe Scandinavia liberalism/democracy was almost always a resounding failure before the last war.

    The situation in Morocco and Jordan you mentioned sounds like the situation in Spain a few decades ago (HM Juan Carlos- by the way, shouldn't he be John Charles in English?- being far more liberal, though). And West European dictators (Napoleon, Salazar, Mussolini, Franco) have generally been pretty popular.

    Liberalism in the sense of popular rights has always been present in English society, more so than on the Continent, with maybe the exception of Spain (where a bitter campaign has been waged by the central authority against the local fueros since the days of the Catholic Monarchs), and parliamentarianism (there must be a better word for it) is an organic development of English society, as is the two-party system. So it makes sense that liberal-democracy should work better in the Anglosphere than elsewhere. Why it works in Scandinavia I don't know. I sometimes think Scandinavians are more docile than other people, but then I remember the Vikings, and doubt creeps in.

    The multi-party systems of Europe can become a recipe for chaos; for a case in point see the Spanish Second Republic (from which we also learn that it is a bad idea to exempt parliamentarians from prosecution). In fact, I think the whole project of marrying English liberties and parliamentarianism with French revolutionary/enlightened liberalism and democracy is a dangerous idea, but the jury is still out on it.

    Sorry this is largely off-topic. Point being Muslims should look very closely at any Western political ideology they're thinking of adopting- there may be less to it than meets the eye.

    RSDB
  30. @Talha
    Hey MCJ,

    I know where you are coming from, and I used to think the same when I was younger, but I've come to different conclusions based on the following two points:

    1) The nation-state liberal democratic model is a European invention; a product of her unique history and experience and people. It may be a horrible fit for the people of the ME. A lot less thought is given to the forms of government rather than the results. If you have a monarch that is generally good to his people, keeps the peace and does not oppress them or burden them with heavy taxes, you have a workable model. Often the monarchs enjoy popularity far more than the presidents and prime ministers of corrupt democracies:
    "Senior Lena Maxey, who worked in Jordan through a HNGR internship, said, “The public opinion is that King Abdullah II is a great leader. People love him and his wife, and everyone speaks extremely highly of him and is grateful to have him as a leader. They even go out of their way to tell you this.”
    Likewise, senior Kent Lindbergh who studied abroad in Jordan through BestSemester’s Middle Eastern Studies Program said, “Over the years, King Abdullah II has shown respect for the traditional and tribal aspects of the Jordanian people while also raising the standard of living remarkably and connecting with the younger generation in Jordan.”
    http://www.wheatonrecord.com/news/king-abdullah-iis-approval-high-in-jordan-students-say/

    If you think Trump was elected because he exuded a aura of manliness, well...
    http://www.businessinsider.com/king-abduallh-of-jordan-is-a-total-badass-2015-2

    "The editions of TelQuel and Nichane, French and Arabic-language weeklies best known for being fiercely secular, were seized and destroyed by the authorities on the ground of 'disturbing public order' because they had carried a public-opinion poll on the king. The results were not the problem. It was found that 91% of Moroccans felt Muhammad had done well in his first decade in power. Rather, as a government spokesman put it, 'the monarchy cannot be the subject of debate, even through an opinion survey.'...It is not clear how much the average Moroccan, raised in a tradition of deference to the monarchy, cares about the lack of political liberalisation. Indeed, the Tel Quel poll suggests he remains in awe of the monarch. Nearly half of those polled reckoned Morocco was a democracy. Of the third who said it was authoritarian, quite a lot thought this a good thing."
    http://www.economist.com/node/14327617

    I want people to ponder on the cultural assumptions and implications of introducing a system into some of these societies where the political voice/vote of an 18 year old woman counts the same as a 60 year old tribal chieftain.

    2) There is no evidence that the current nation-state model is the end all of political evolution. In fact, things seem to be quite in flux as historians and strategists like Martin Van Creveld and William Lind have repeatedly stated:
    https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-State-Martin-Creveld/dp/052165629X

    For example, is Somalia a failed nation state? Most certainly! But is it a viable inter-linked tribal society with a lot to lose if a single tribe or group gains hegemony? Yes:
    https://mises.org/library/stateless-somalia-and-loving-it

    We won't know until the dust settles in the survival of the fittest who or what exactly the fittest were.

    Peace.

    The nation-state liberal democratic model is a European invention

    Sure. I got no preference for the governing model; monarchy is fine with me. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the unity, consolidation within the culturally homogeneous region we call ‘the Arab world’, that’s already represented by the very weak Arab League. The details are not important: a permanent coalition, a confederation, a people’s socialist republic, a jamahiriya, it doesn’t matter. It just seems like a natural thing for this region to be united and act together on the world stage. But hey, if opinions differ, that’s fine too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey MCJ,

    It just seems like a natural thing for this region to be united and act together on the world stage.
     
    I agree here. And often, the masses would love unity and not to have bothersome borders (have you seen the borders in the ME, many are straight lines - seriously, straight lines - what the hell?) and do feel a sense of brotherhood (religious, ethnic and lingual) but the elite have much to lose with their private fiefdoms and areas of influence. And they run the show - I'm just being realistic here.

    But I would honestly love to see an attempt at a EU-style coalition in that area - it would get rid of troublesome border disputes and help reduce the need for military expenditures.

    Peace.

  31. Talha says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    The nation-state liberal democratic model is a European invention
     
    Sure. I got no preference for the governing model; monarchy is fine with me. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the unity, consolidation within the culturally homogeneous region we call 'the Arab world', that's already represented by the very weak Arab League. The details are not important: a permanent coalition, a confederation, a people's socialist republic, a jamahiriya, it doesn't matter. It just seems like a natural thing for this region to be united and act together on the world stage. But hey, if opinions differ, that's fine too.

    Hey MCJ,

    It just seems like a natural thing for this region to be united and act together on the world stage.

    I agree here. And often, the masses would love unity and not to have bothersome borders (have you seen the borders in the ME, many are straight lines – seriously, straight lines – what the hell?) and do feel a sense of brotherhood (religious, ethnic and lingual) but the elite have much to lose with their private fiefdoms and areas of influence. And they run the show – I’m just being realistic here.

    But I would honestly love to see an attempt at a EU-style coalition in that area – it would get rid of troublesome border disputes and help reduce the need for military expenditures.

    Peace.

    Read More
  32. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Hey MCJ,

    I know where you are coming from, and I used to think the same when I was younger, but I've come to different conclusions based on the following two points:

    1) The nation-state liberal democratic model is a European invention; a product of her unique history and experience and people. It may be a horrible fit for the people of the ME. A lot less thought is given to the forms of government rather than the results. If you have a monarch that is generally good to his people, keeps the peace and does not oppress them or burden them with heavy taxes, you have a workable model. Often the monarchs enjoy popularity far more than the presidents and prime ministers of corrupt democracies:
    "Senior Lena Maxey, who worked in Jordan through a HNGR internship, said, “The public opinion is that King Abdullah II is a great leader. People love him and his wife, and everyone speaks extremely highly of him and is grateful to have him as a leader. They even go out of their way to tell you this.”
    Likewise, senior Kent Lindbergh who studied abroad in Jordan through BestSemester’s Middle Eastern Studies Program said, “Over the years, King Abdullah II has shown respect for the traditional and tribal aspects of the Jordanian people while also raising the standard of living remarkably and connecting with the younger generation in Jordan.”
    http://www.wheatonrecord.com/news/king-abdullah-iis-approval-high-in-jordan-students-say/

    If you think Trump was elected because he exuded a aura of manliness, well...
    http://www.businessinsider.com/king-abduallh-of-jordan-is-a-total-badass-2015-2

    "The editions of TelQuel and Nichane, French and Arabic-language weeklies best known for being fiercely secular, were seized and destroyed by the authorities on the ground of 'disturbing public order' because they had carried a public-opinion poll on the king. The results were not the problem. It was found that 91% of Moroccans felt Muhammad had done well in his first decade in power. Rather, as a government spokesman put it, 'the monarchy cannot be the subject of debate, even through an opinion survey.'...It is not clear how much the average Moroccan, raised in a tradition of deference to the monarchy, cares about the lack of political liberalisation. Indeed, the Tel Quel poll suggests he remains in awe of the monarch. Nearly half of those polled reckoned Morocco was a democracy. Of the third who said it was authoritarian, quite a lot thought this a good thing."
    http://www.economist.com/node/14327617

    I want people to ponder on the cultural assumptions and implications of introducing a system into some of these societies where the political voice/vote of an 18 year old woman counts the same as a 60 year old tribal chieftain.

    2) There is no evidence that the current nation-state model is the end all of political evolution. In fact, things seem to be quite in flux as historians and strategists like Martin Van Creveld and William Lind have repeatedly stated:
    https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-State-Martin-Creveld/dp/052165629X

    For example, is Somalia a failed nation state? Most certainly! But is it a viable inter-linked tribal society with a lot to lose if a single tribe or group gains hegemony? Yes:
    https://mises.org/library/stateless-somalia-and-loving-it

    We won't know until the dust settles in the survival of the fittest who or what exactly the fittest were.

    Peace.

    Come to that, I’m not sure how good a fit the liberal-democratic system is even for Europe. Sure, all of Europe looks alike now, but the quiet Stepford political order seems a bit suspicious, and I can’t help but wonder if it’s merely the stabilizing hand of the US (and, formerly, fear of the USSR) which keeps things so neat. Outside the Anglosphere and maybe Scandinavia liberalism/democracy was almost always a resounding failure before the last war.

    The situation in Morocco and Jordan you mentioned sounds like the situation in Spain a few decades ago (HM Juan Carlos- by the way, shouldn’t he be John Charles in English?- being far more liberal, though). And West European dictators (Napoleon, Salazar, Mussolini, Franco) have generally been pretty popular.

    Liberalism in the sense of popular rights has always been present in English society, more so than on the Continent, with maybe the exception of Spain (where a bitter campaign has been waged by the central authority against the local fueros since the days of the Catholic Monarchs), and parliamentarianism (there must be a better word for it) is an organic development of English society, as is the two-party system. So it makes sense that liberal-democracy should work better in the Anglosphere than elsewhere. Why it works in Scandinavia I don’t know. I sometimes think Scandinavians are more docile than other people, but then I remember the Vikings, and doubt creeps in.

    The multi-party systems of Europe can become a recipe for chaos; for a case in point see the Spanish Second Republic (from which we also learn that it is a bad idea to exempt parliamentarians from prosecution). In fact, I think the whole project of marrying English liberties and parliamentarianism with French revolutionary/enlightened liberalism and democracy is a dangerous idea, but the jury is still out on it.

    Sorry this is largely off-topic. Point being Muslims should look very closely at any Western political ideology they’re thinking of adopting- there may be less to it than meets the eye.

    RSDB

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    the quiet Stepford political order
     
    LOL! That was awesome!

    Yes totally agree with you about how recently military juntas and dictators were running parts of Europe - didn't the French almost have a coup from their Algerian counterparts?


    I sometimes think Scandinavians are more docile than other people
     
    They weren't, they had an empire and then they decided to invade Russia - after that disaster (I mean utter disaster - the king fled with remnants of his army to friendly Ottoman territory - I kid you not), you hear no more from them again...ever.

    And it's not just Muslims; even others like Thailand, Philippines, Peru, etc. need to figure out what parts of European government works best for them and reject the stuff that doesn't - despite Anglo or others' protestations. As you said - the jury is still out.

    Peace.

  33. Talha says:
    @Anon
    Come to that, I'm not sure how good a fit the liberal-democratic system is even for Europe. Sure, all of Europe looks alike now, but the quiet Stepford political order seems a bit suspicious, and I can't help but wonder if it's merely the stabilizing hand of the US (and, formerly, fear of the USSR) which keeps things so neat. Outside the Anglosphere and maybe Scandinavia liberalism/democracy was almost always a resounding failure before the last war.

    The situation in Morocco and Jordan you mentioned sounds like the situation in Spain a few decades ago (HM Juan Carlos- by the way, shouldn't he be John Charles in English?- being far more liberal, though). And West European dictators (Napoleon, Salazar, Mussolini, Franco) have generally been pretty popular.

    Liberalism in the sense of popular rights has always been present in English society, more so than on the Continent, with maybe the exception of Spain (where a bitter campaign has been waged by the central authority against the local fueros since the days of the Catholic Monarchs), and parliamentarianism (there must be a better word for it) is an organic development of English society, as is the two-party system. So it makes sense that liberal-democracy should work better in the Anglosphere than elsewhere. Why it works in Scandinavia I don't know. I sometimes think Scandinavians are more docile than other people, but then I remember the Vikings, and doubt creeps in.

    The multi-party systems of Europe can become a recipe for chaos; for a case in point see the Spanish Second Republic (from which we also learn that it is a bad idea to exempt parliamentarians from prosecution). In fact, I think the whole project of marrying English liberties and parliamentarianism with French revolutionary/enlightened liberalism and democracy is a dangerous idea, but the jury is still out on it.

    Sorry this is largely off-topic. Point being Muslims should look very closely at any Western political ideology they're thinking of adopting- there may be less to it than meets the eye.

    RSDB

    the quiet Stepford political order

    LOL! That was awesome!

    Yes totally agree with you about how recently military juntas and dictators were running parts of Europe – didn’t the French almost have a coup from their Algerian counterparts?

    I sometimes think Scandinavians are more docile than other people

    They weren’t, they had an empire and then they decided to invade Russia – after that disaster (I mean utter disaster – the king fled with remnants of his army to friendly Ottoman territory – I kid you not), you hear no more from them again…ever.

    And it’s not just Muslims; even others like Thailand, Philippines, Peru, etc. need to figure out what parts of European government works best for them and reject the stuff that doesn’t – despite Anglo or others’ protestations. As you said – the jury is still out.

    Peace.

    Read More
  34. Hibernian says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    A national uprising in Hungary against Soviet rule had erupted on 23 Oct 1956.
     
    Actually, it wasn't a "national uprising" "against Soviet rule". It was an anti-communist upraising against the Hungarian communist government. Hungarian anti-communists attacked and killed (including summary executions) Hungarian communists and their supporters. Even the English-language version of wikipedia describes episodes like:

    In Budapest and other areas, the Hungarian Communist committees organised defence. Communists of Budapest neighbourhood Angyalföld led more than 350 armed workers and 380 servicemen from the Láng Factory. Anti-fascist resistance veterans from World War II participated in the offensive by which the Szabad Nép newspaper's building was recaptured. In the countryside, defence measures were taken by pro-Communist forces.
     
    See: veterans of anti-fascist resistance fought the rebels.

    Yes, eventually the Warsaw pact troops intervened and ended it, but the current narrative framing it as a rebellion of the Hungarians against 'Soviet rule' is obviously false...

    In Europe, many who were anti-fascist during the war became anti-communist after the war. The equation of anti-communism with fascism and communism with anti-fascism is one of the many tricks and lies of the Left.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    In Europe, many who were anti-fascist during the war became anti-communist after the war.
     
    I don't think so. Communists were extremely strong after the war in Italy, France, and Greece, and it took a long time (decades) for the western powers to suppress them, by various means (using NATO, the CIA, and even veterans of Gestapo in same cases). Including installing an actual fascist junta in Greece, in the 60s-70s.

    The equation of anti-communism with fascism and communism with anti-fascism is one of the many tricks and lies of the Left.
     
    I wouldn't do the equation exactly, but a significant correlation is definitely there...
  35. @Hibernian
    In Europe, many who were anti-fascist during the war became anti-communist after the war. The equation of anti-communism with fascism and communism with anti-fascism is one of the many tricks and lies of the Left.

    In Europe, many who were anti-fascist during the war became anti-communist after the war.

    I don’t think so. Communists were extremely strong after the war in Italy, France, and Greece, and it took a long time (decades) for the western powers to suppress them, by various means (using NATO, the CIA, and even veterans of Gestapo in same cases). Including installing an actual fascist junta in Greece, in the 60s-70s.

    The equation of anti-communism with fascism and communism with anti-fascism is one of the many tricks and lies of the Left.

    I wouldn’t do the equation exactly, but a significant correlation is definitely there…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    H. can take care of himself, but I'd venture a point or two that might not be made otherwise.

    Antifascism itself is a leftist term which did not gain currency outside the Left until the war, for the reason that neither the Nazis nor any other major right-wing, or generally termed right-wing, government in Europe except the Fascists themselves could reasonably be termed Fascist. Of course this all went out with the war and suddenly Germany, Japan, and Italy were the Fascist trio of nations. So antifascism has two meaings: first, (the leftist meaning) communist or vaguely affiliated (e.g. anarchist, until they were gotten rid of) activism, and second, anti-Axis action.

    In Italy, anti-fascism as far as I know was generally communist because M. had established a modus vivendi with everyone else. But it wasn't the communists who deposed him, though they did hang him (iirc).

    Anti-axis action in Hungary was not remotely confined to the communists.

    All over the world, Communists (well, Stalinists anyway) performed no anti-Axis activity from the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact to the invasion of the USSR.

  36. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    In Europe, many who were anti-fascist during the war became anti-communist after the war.
     
    I don't think so. Communists were extremely strong after the war in Italy, France, and Greece, and it took a long time (decades) for the western powers to suppress them, by various means (using NATO, the CIA, and even veterans of Gestapo in same cases). Including installing an actual fascist junta in Greece, in the 60s-70s.

    The equation of anti-communism with fascism and communism with anti-fascism is one of the many tricks and lies of the Left.
     
    I wouldn't do the equation exactly, but a significant correlation is definitely there...

    H. can take care of himself, but I’d venture a point or two that might not be made otherwise.

    Antifascism itself is a leftist term which did not gain currency outside the Left until the war, for the reason that neither the Nazis nor any other major right-wing, or generally termed right-wing, government in Europe except the Fascists themselves could reasonably be termed Fascist. Of course this all went out with the war and suddenly Germany, Japan, and Italy were the Fascist trio of nations. So antifascism has two meaings: first, (the leftist meaning) communist or vaguely affiliated (e.g. anarchist, until they were gotten rid of) activism, and second, anti-Axis action.

    In Italy, anti-fascism as far as I know was generally communist because M. had established a modus vivendi with everyone else. But it wasn’t the communists who deposed him, though they did hang him (iirc).

    Anti-axis action in Hungary was not remotely confined to the communists.

    All over the world, Communists (well, Stalinists anyway) performed no anti-Axis activity from the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact to the invasion of the USSR.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, I don't think imperial Japan could be called 'fascist'.

    Fascism is a European phenomenon, and (I believe) it's closely linked to the main marxist idea of 'class struggle'. Fascism, which is also sometimes called 'corporatism', is (at least from the marxist angle) the idea of achieving a mutually beneficial agreement between the classes, within one nation. As Mr Trump might've put it: making a deal. The deal is simple: capitalists do their thing, but they don't get too greedy and take reasonably good care of the nation's working class. The working class, in return, don't make troubles for the nation's capitalists (no strikes, no crime, no sabotage). The state is the all-powerful arbiter. Statist-capitalist paradise.

    Mid 20th c. it took one form in Italy (where it originates from), and a different, much more virulent form in Germany and Hungary.

    Currently we have the Scandinavian model and Switzerland, which could be (I believe) considered the evolved (and highly successful) species of the Italian idea of fascism.

    In any case, you can see from the definition that fascism is exactly the reaction to communism, an attempt to undermine and defeat it, and therefore I'd say it's a meaningful (as opposed to just hatred and foaming at the mouth) socioeconomic form of anti-communism.
  37. @Anon
    H. can take care of himself, but I'd venture a point or two that might not be made otherwise.

    Antifascism itself is a leftist term which did not gain currency outside the Left until the war, for the reason that neither the Nazis nor any other major right-wing, or generally termed right-wing, government in Europe except the Fascists themselves could reasonably be termed Fascist. Of course this all went out with the war and suddenly Germany, Japan, and Italy were the Fascist trio of nations. So antifascism has two meaings: first, (the leftist meaning) communist or vaguely affiliated (e.g. anarchist, until they were gotten rid of) activism, and second, anti-Axis action.

    In Italy, anti-fascism as far as I know was generally communist because M. had established a modus vivendi with everyone else. But it wasn't the communists who deposed him, though they did hang him (iirc).

    Anti-axis action in Hungary was not remotely confined to the communists.

    All over the world, Communists (well, Stalinists anyway) performed no anti-Axis activity from the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact to the invasion of the USSR.

    Well, I don’t think imperial Japan could be called ‘fascist’.

    Fascism is a European phenomenon, and (I believe) it’s closely linked to the main marxist idea of ‘class struggle’. Fascism, which is also sometimes called ‘corporatism’, is (at least from the marxist angle) the idea of achieving a mutually beneficial agreement between the classes, within one nation. As Mr Trump might’ve put it: making a deal. The deal is simple: capitalists do their thing, but they don’t get too greedy and take reasonably good care of the nation’s working class. The working class, in return, don’t make troubles for the nation’s capitalists (no strikes, no crime, no sabotage). The state is the all-powerful arbiter. Statist-capitalist paradise.

    Mid 20th c. it took one form in Italy (where it originates from), and a different, much more virulent form in Germany and Hungary.

    Currently we have the Scandinavian model and Switzerland, which could be (I believe) considered the evolved (and highly successful) species of the Italian idea of fascism.

    In any case, you can see from the definition that fascism is exactly the reaction to communism, an attempt to undermine and defeat it, and therefore I’d say it’s a meaningful (as opposed to just hatred and foaming at the mouth) socioeconomic form of anti-communism.

    Read More
  38. OutWest says:

    Putting aside the optional benevolent or oppressive natures, don’t communism and fascism differ essentially in government ownership of productive means versus government control of productive means, respectively? Both are clearly socialistic.

    Strictly speaking the United States is in many fields, i.e. medicine, under a fascist government.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eric Margolis Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Bin Laden is dead, but his strategy still bleeds the United States.
Egyptians revolted against American rule as well as Mubarak’s.
“America’s strategic and economic interests in the Mideast and Muslim world are being threatened by the agony in Palestine, which inevitably invites terrorist attacks against US citizens and property.”
A menace grows from Bush’s Korean blind spot.
Far from being a model for a “liberated” Iraq, Afghanistan shows how the U.S. can get bogged down Soviet-style.