Longing for Granada (and Cordoba) to “live again”

I have recently wondered about the song "Granada." Assuming that the Cordoba Mosque is intended in some degree to symbolize an Islamic victory, the song "Granada" could be descriptive of something akin. The song's lyrics long for Granada, that the ancient Muslim city, to "live again."

The song was composed by the Mexican Agustin Lara, but the song was apparently well received in Spain. In 1965 (according to Wikipedia) "Francisco Franco, gave [Lara] a house in Granada to show his appreciation of Lara's songs with Spanish themes . . ."

I began reading the introduction to W. S. Merwin's Poem of the Cid, published in 1959. On page vii, Merwin writes, "Feudal Spain of the mid-eleventh century was politically an extremely complicated place. By then the reconquest of the country from the Moors had made considerable progress. In the north of the peninsula were the Visigothic Christian kingdoms and states, most notably Castile, Leon, Aragon, Navarre, and the county of Barcelona. In the south were the Moorish kingdoms, chief among them Seville, Grenada, Cordoba, and Valencia. . . ."

Merwin discusses this "complicated place" for a few pages and then on xv writes, "Meanwhile, across the straits in Africa a still more ambitious imperial scheme was unfolding. By the eleventh century, in many parts of Islam, the original ferocity of that faith had given place to a graceful and in some cases effete civilization. This was true of many of the Moorish kingdoms in Spain, as well as those in Africa. In 1039, a tribe on the edge of the Sudan began to convert the desert tribesmen to the way of Mohammed; they preached a reformation of Islam, a return to the unadorned, primitive faith, to a conversion by the sword, to the Holy War."

Except for the fact that Merwin was writing this for publication in 1959, it could sound as though he was writing about Islamism. While he wasn't quite doing that, modern Islamists, included Sayyid Qutb, harked back with approval to such attempts as those made by Yusuf ben Texufin to "return to the unadorned, primitive faith, to a conversion by the sword, to the Holy War."

We can easily see an Islamist precedent in this part of their Andalusian period, but what about the "Traditionalists," or "Moderates"? Do they have their precedent in Andalusian Spain? Not quite, perhaps, but there are parallels. Some of the "effete" Muslims thought they would do better siding with the Spanish than with Yusuf, just as the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Gulf States, and (primarily Shiite) forces within Iraq thought they would do better siding with the U.S. than with Saddam Hussein.

Can these states which sided with the U.S. against Saddam Hussein be considered "moderate"? Perhaps Kuwait and the Gulf States are a bit moderate, although "moderates" from such places as Egypt might not want to claim them, and Saudi Arabia is a mix. It has an "effete" leadership but a Yusuf-type underbelly. The Saudi Wahhabi's want the same thing that Yusuf did, even if the Saudi leadership does not.

On page xix Merwin tells us that "Yusuf's army took Cordoba, and Yusuf's general decapitated the Moorish governor of that city. Then he marched on against Seville. Alfonso sent a force against him, under Alvar Fanez, but this army was badly beaten and many of its knights taken prisoner. On September 7, 1091, Yusuf's Africans took Seville. King Motamid was thrown into prison, and thence sent to a dungeon in Morocco. Almeria and Mercia quickly went the way of Seville, and Alfonso seemed powerless to do anything against Usuf in the southern part of the Peninsula. By the end of 1091, the only Christian outside Christian Spain who still opposed Yusuf was the Cid."

And so Merwin returns to his theme, which after all is the poema.  Merwin was no historian, but this brief historical sketch is similar to other's I've read.

While I don't long for Granada to "live again," I do long for a decent history of Andalusia, one not written by a Muslim with Agustin Lara's hope . . . On the other hand one of those might be interesting as well.

Ridgebacks, a Schnoodle, and existential threats

The weather finally cooled off enough to make an early-morning trip to the river. I didn't feel up to it. Susan's Schnoodle, Duffy, kept me awake until about 05:00, but I didn't want to pass up a chance to get to the river; so I got my knapsack and loaded it, my two Ridgeback girls, and Duffy into the Jeep and off we went. This was Duffy's first ride in my Jeep and he wasn't sure what to make of it. When we started down the dirt road toward the river, Duffy saw Ginger in the backseat staring off into the distance, but before he could try and see what she was looking at we were there. The Jeep ride had befuddled, but once he was on the sand, his confidence returned. It was 08:15.

Duffy's fur made an excellent foxtail collector; so he and I walked on clear sand as much as we could.

I knew the girls would get as much exercise as they needed by chasing rabbits if they could find any or each other. As to Duffy, I kept him on leash. My goal was to get him used to being down there. I wanted him to enjoy himself; so I let him sniff whatever he liked. At one point he took a mouthful of sand -- I suppose he was interested in learning whether it was good to eat. I gather he decided it wasn't.

Duffy communicated his wishes extremely well. He would tell me when he wanted me to carry him by looking up at me and pawing at my leg. And when he wanted back down he would squirm. Our outing took a little over an hour. The girls got their exercise and Duffy got his first exposure to the river.

As for me, I found myself thinking about something someone wrote in a forum yesterday. He argued that the 9/11 attack was not an existential threat, and since it wasn't, what we did in response was an over-reaction. We were at the halfway point in our hike. I poured some water into a little dish and held it for the girls and Duffy to drink. But the interesting thing about that water stop is that we were attacked by a great number of bugs. When we had been walking along, they left us alone, maybe it was still too cool for them to be chasing after anyone, but when I kneeled down and took the water bottle and the dish out of my knapsack, they attacked. They were an annoyance to be sure, but I asked myself, "are they an existential threat," and had to answer that they were not.

I thought about boot camp. Bugs would land on us while we stood at attention, but we were forbidden to swat them. The first person who swatted on was called out in front of the platoon and informed by our Drill Instructor that as "boots," we were a lower form of life. To strike a bug would involve attacking a higher form of life which we were forbidden.

Ironically, that's what Arab Islamists think about themselves, that they are something like a higher form of life. They think of themselves as the most blessed of all people because Allah chose to send his messenger to them. Arab arrogance based on being the first Muslims tends to show up from time to time in conflict or competition with other Muslim ethnicities. My lack of sleep seemed to blend ideas together. Would my getting out the Ben's 30, Wilderness Formula Insect Repellent be an overreaction? No, no, I thought. These bugs were not an existential threat, especially after the girls finished the water and we started back.

We were only at the river for a little over an hour but what if we lived in such a place? Bugs would have us at their mercy. Would Ben's bug spray be justified under those circumstances? Hey, I rationalized; maybe Ben's doesn't kill bugs. Maybe it only makes them sick. I have never actually seen a bug die from an encounter with Ben's insect repellant.

"Oh you hypocrite," my Pacifistic alter ego said. "That is very like what they said about Agent Orange. But do you really care about those bugs? They land on your shirt or neck and then perhaps fly off, but do you wait around to see the hundreds of bugs born with birth defects? Do you care about the weeping bug mothers who rock their still-born bug babies in their arms? No, of course you don't. You are just another insensitive Jarhead looking for something to kill."

Well, I knew that wasn't true. I didn't go "looking" for those bugs. They came looking for me. If you don't want a reaction then leave the back of my neck alone. You might sneer and accuse me of making up an enemy so I can be a hero, but if you land on the back of my neck; then I'm reaching for the Ben's Insect Repellent and whatever happens after that is going to be on your head and not mine.

Bin Talal, Rauf, and the Ground Zero Mosque

Someone in response to my complaints that the Left has no arguments painted a Business Journal with ad hominem innuendo. What does the business journal article say? This is interesting because we both, this person and I, jumped to conclusions. I thought it only a matter of time before Rauf was exposed as the Sharia supporter I believed him to be, but this person I am referring to on the other hand jumped to the conclusion that anyone who attacked the Mosque backers or the Mosque must be associated with Fox News and Glenn Beck. Is that bizarre? Not to him, obviously.

While I don't watch Fox News or Glenn Beck, I don't believe that the mere invoking of their names is an argument. Is what they say true or not, that ought to be the focus, and since they are among the many things-people I pay little attention to I am not going to be able to answer that question. But I can scoff at people who invoke names as an argument.

As to the billionaire Saudi Al-Waleed bin Talal, I'm sure he spreads his money around quite a lot, but I am only concerned about his political orientation. Saudi Muslims are Wahhabi, and that fundamentalist Sunni sect is the predecessor of the Muslim Brotherhood out of which Sayyid Qutb came. I haven't studied bin Talal personally, but I would ask him, if I could, whether he is a religious Muslim, for if he is, then he is sure to be Wahhabi. A Wahhabi billionaire might invest in many things to make his money grow, but if he supports a religious cause then it is going to be consistent with the Wahhabi religious orientation. Osama bin Laden came out of that milieu as did all those who took place in the bombing of the Twin Towers. Osama's beliefs are consistent with both the Wahhabi sect and Islamism. Their disagreements are more about who should be running things than substance. It was no very great leap for the Wahhabi Osama to broaden out to the Islamist leader of Al Qaeda. Of course the Wahhabi's denounce Osama bin Laden, but that was only to be expected.

If I tell someone I'm Presbyterian, then it wouldn't be out of line for someone to ask me about Presbyterian doctrine. Questions about my religious beliefs logically follow from who I say I am. As far as I know the Wahhabi sect is the only form of Islam being adhered to by Saudis; so is Al-Waleed bin Talal a Wahhabi or not? That is a fair question. That he is associated with the Muslim Brothers which grew out of the Wahhabi sect isn't surprising. Wahhabis and the Muslim Brothers have a traditional relationship. To question his relationship with the Muslim Brothers is another logical question we can ask.

Let's look at one of Rauf's statements, that the American form of government is Sharia compliant. One writer, Nonie Darwish of FrontPageMag took the trouble of creating a list of Sharia requirements. Rauf never said precisely what he meant but he did say that he thought our form of government "Sharia Compliant" so it isn't out of line to look at some Sharia requirements to see whether we agree:

"Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf claims that the U.S. constitution is Sharia compliant. Now let us examine below a few laws of Sharia to see how truthful Imam Rauf is:

1- Jihad, defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion,” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.

2- A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.

3- A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.

4- A percentage of Zakat (charity money) must go towards jihad.

5- It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.

6- A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.

7- The Muslim public must remove the Caliph if he rejects Islam.

8- A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.

9- A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an apostate 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Vigilante street justice and honor killing is acceptable.

10- A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim, but will get it for killing a Muslim.

11- Sharia never abolished slavery, sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.

12- Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging even for crimes of sin such as adultery.

13- Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims under the law. They must comply to Islamic law if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.

14- It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. But Muslims can curse non-Muslims.

15- A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

16- Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.

17- No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or bathhouse attendants. Women in low level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.

18- A non-Muslim cannot rule — even over a non-Muslim minority."

Darwish's list isn't complete. Sharia is far more extensive than this list, but this list is accurate. The items on it are part of Sharia law; so it would be fair to confront Rauf with this list and ask him what he meant when he said our foe of government was Sharia compliant -- specifically how his words could be made to relate to Darshish's list.

Ground Zero Mosque’s Saudi Patron

One of the open questions about Rauf and the Ground Zero Mosque has to do with where he is getting the financing. While Rauf wouldn't tell us, in this modern age of information we could be assured that someone would dig it out, and someone has: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/545180/201008261900/Mosques-Saudi-Patron.aspx This article appears in the Investors Business Daily.

The Saudi individual identified as a Mosque backer has strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. What is the relationship of The Muslim Brothers to Islamism? Sayyid Qutb, the chief ideologue of Islamism was a Muslim Brother. Arabic Islamism originated in the Muslim Brotherhood, and its influence spread throughout the Muslim world and beyond. Now its influence is being increased in New York. I can't say it will be a new thing in New York because the Al Farooq mosque in Brooklyn has been a hot-bed of Islamist training.

The Muslim Brothers are not a "Moderate" Islamic organization. And the Wahhabi Saudis pushing their agenda aren't Moderate either.

Perhaps some Leftist or Liberal (I have the same problem distinguishing between them that I do distinguishing between Moderate and Radical Muslims) can read this same article and tell me how harmless it sounds -- perhaps it is nothing more than the First Amendment at work. Or maybe the Investors Business Daily is a seething cauldron of Right-Wing propaganda. It looked like just another business journal to me, but I'll leave it to the Left to sniff out enemies of the Left-Wing-Moderate-Radical-Islam -- just as some of the rest of us are good at sniffing out enemies of Liberal Democracy.

The Sudden Jihad Syndrome at work in Canada

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/canada-jihad-terror-suspects-worshiped-at-same-mosque-in-montreal.html

In our never-ending search for Moderate Islam, we visit a Canadian Mosque. Just yesterday (August 27th) two moderate members of this moderate Mosque in Brossard, south of Montreal were arrested in an "alleged plot to bomb Canadian targets."

Canadians can't make sense of this, for these two worked at a Montreal hospital and even played on the same Muslim ball hockey team.

"A former McGill classmate, who didn't want to be identified, tells QMI Agency that Sher was a calm man who showed no signs of radicalization at school.

"It's a huge surprise,' he said. "I never would have expected this. I can't believe that a calm guy like that could plan such violent acts."

"He must be a decent fellow"

Indeed yes, they both must be -- two more "Moderate Muslims" attending a "Moderate Mosque" who fell victim to the Sudden Jihad Syndrome.  It’s a great mystery.  Who can explain it?

Klavan, Islamaphobia, and the motivation of the Left

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0827ak.html

The above is an article by Andrew Klavan entitled "Name-Calling" and subtitled "'Islamophobia': the latest charge to try to stifle legitimate debate."

Klavan makes a couple of points I haven't heard presented quite like Klavan does. I'll leave them in context:

"Recently, in defending an imam’s proposal to build a triumphalist “Muslim Cultural Center” near Manhattan’s Ground Zero—where, we may remember, so many innocents were slaughtered in the name of Allah—the Left has outdone itself. Rather than engage in serious debate with the vast majority of New Yorkers and Americans who oppose the project, the mosque’s defenders have simply dubbed the opposing viewpoint “Islamophobia.” As ever when this naming device is used, the left-wing media seem to rally as one. Within the space of a single week, Time put the word on its cover, Maureen Dowd accused the entire nation of it in her column, and CBS News trotted out the charge in reporting on mosque opposition.

"For anyone born with the gift of laughter, the term is absurd to the point of hilarity. A phobia, after all, is an irrational fear. Given that Islam is cancerous with violence in virtually every corner of the globe, given the oppressive and exclusionary nature of many Islamic governments, given the insidious Islamist inroads against long-held freedoms in western Europe, and given those aspects of sharia that seem, to an outsider at least, to prohibit democracy, free speech, and the fair treatment of the female half of our species, those who love peace and liberty would, in fact, be irrational not to harbor at least a measure of concern."

And in response to the Left's constant hammering of everyone else over the Islamic right to build a Mosque at Ground Zero because of the hallowed "Freedom of Religion" guaranteed by the First Amendment, Klavan writes, "With a hostility toward Christianity second only to Dracula’s, the Left has no credibility on the subject of freedom of religion."

"Which is to say that perhaps opponents of the mosque should question the motives of those who question their motives. In any case, they should greet the designation of Islamophobia with the derision that it deserves."

Here is something from Wikipedia on "Phobias" "A phobia . . . is an irrational, intense and persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, animals, or people. The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive and unreasonable desire to avoid the feared stimulus. When the fear is beyond one's control, and if the fear is interfering with daily life, then a diagnosis under one of the anxiety disorders can be made.

"This is caused by what are called, neutral, unconditioned, and conditioned stimuli, which trigger either conditioned or unconditioned responses . . ."

"Phobias are a common form of anxiety disorders. An American study by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) found that between 8.7% and 18.1% of Americans suffer from phobias. Broken down by age and gender, the study found that phobias were the most common mental illness among women in all age groups and the second most common illness among men older than 25. . ."

"Phobias are generally caused by an event recorded by the amygdala and hippocampus and labeled as deadly or dangerous; thus whenever a specific situation is approached again the body reacts as if the event were happening repeatedly afterward. Treatment comes in some way or another as a replacing of the memory and reaction to the previous event perceived as deadly with something more realistic and based more rationally. In reality most phobias are irrational, in the sense that they are thought to be dangerous, but in reality are not threatening to survival in any way."

COMMENT: Given the above definition of "phobia" we should seek to replace our "irrational" fear of Radical Islam with a picture of Radical Islam that is benign, but alas, such a picture does not exist. It is relentlessly opposed to Liberal Democracy and bent upon replacing it by fair means or foul with Islam. How much does one need to read about Rauf, the force behind the Cordoban Mosque, to be suspicious of him? He is described as a "moderate" because he says that the American Constitution is "Sharia compliant." That doesn't sound moderate to me. It sounds as though he wants to make America more and more "Sharia compliant."

And what of the Arabic title of his book about America: " A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11." Doesn't that title indicate that the American Constitution isn't the primary concern in his desire to establish a Mosque on the site of the former Trade Center? How paranoid must an objective observe be to imagine that Rauf is proud to be standing in the "World Trade Center Rubble," and not because he is seeking to bridge a gap between "Moderate Islam" and "American Liberal Democracy." American Liberal Democracy has proved itself well capable of tolerating all other points of view willing to tolerate the others view held in America. The one thing Ameican has never tolerated until now is "intolerance." But now, the Left, has decided, for reasons never made clear, to embrace this intolerant position that slides between Radical and Moderate Islam as the Islamic spirit moves it.

Klavan wonders, "Does the Left really cherish the rights of Islam, or is theirs but a short-sighted alliance with the enemy of their enemies?"

I have wondered the same thing. I have been criticized for my numerous opinions by the Left, but I have never heard an argument or explanation, at least not a credible one, for why they so vociferously support Radical Islam. Since the Left won't or can't explain itself on this matter, it is left for the "opponents of the mosque" [and opponents of Radical Islam in general] to "question their motives."

This issue continues to puzzle me. Anyone who has read the writings of Sayyid Qutb or any of his derivative acolytes must know that if Radical Islam succeeds as it hopes to, the Left will be the first to have their heads chopped off. Those of us on the Right who are also Christian or Jewish will be given the opportunity to become Dhimmi, but not those of the Left who have no religion. They are hopeless and deserve to be executed at once. Would you like a hood, Mr. Blogblather?

There are several groups that seek to expose the association of the Left with Radical Islam. Jihad Watch is one that comes to mind. http://www.jihadwatch.org/ Another is Front Page Mag : http://frontpagemag.com/ It is depressing to read these Blogs. Issue after issue deals with the same sort of thing, and the evidence is overwhelming that there is collusion between the Left and Radical Islam and that Radical Islam is bent on world conquest. The Leftist response is invariably puerile: You are all Islamophobic!

David Horowitz wrote a book entitled, Unholy Alliance, Radical Islam and the American Left. I have on more than one occasion asked someone on the Left what they thought of Horowitz's evidence. "Horowitz?" They would respond and sneer in ASCII. Horowitz is a . . . . I must admit that they have an interesting collection of attributes to apply to Islamophobic people like Horowitz. These attributes will be applied to Klavan on the basis of my title. But they never answer my question. Calling Horowitz, Klavan and me "Islamophobic" is all they can do.

No self-respecting Leftist is actually going to read my blog note, but if one, in a moment of weakness were to read it, I would ask him if he understood the meaning of "phobia." During the hot months I walk my dogs (two Rhodesian Ridgebacks) at night. I'm reminded of the Army motto: "we own the night." When my Ridgeback girls and I walk at night it is as though we own it. We might as well own it because no one else is out there. Do all those who stay indoors have a "phobia" about "the night"? Is their fear of going out for a walk at night "irrational"? I don't think so. The night would be the time that muggers might be lurking about. The papers have frequent accounts of people being robbed, beaten, raped and murdered, primarily at night.

Now if we move back to the subject of Islamophobia, we might very well find an equal number of newspaper accounts describing the excesses of Radical Islam: people being murdered, beheaded, scalded with acid, raped, and bombed -- at night and in the day-time. So if the fear of walking at night is not a phobia, the fear of Radical Islam isn't either. Both fears are rational.

On Understanding Nietzsche and Fukuyama (Part 2)

 

Fukuyama describes how the West's aristocratic warrior's ambitions have (for the most part) been successfully transformed by Liberal Democracy into peaceful equivalents of war:

"The desire to be recognized as superior to other people we will . . . label . . . megalothymia. Megalothymia can be manifest in the tyrant who invades and enslaves a neighboring people so that they will recognize his authority, as well as in the concert pianist who wants to be recognized as the foremost interpreter of Beethoven. Its opposite is isothymia, the desire to be recognized as the equal of other people . . ."

"The social embodiment of megalothymia, and the social class against which modern liberalism declared war, was the traditional aristocracy. The aristocratic warrior did not create wealth, he stole it from other warriors . . . His behavior was fenced in by dictates of pride and codes of honor which did not permit him to do things beneath his dignity. . . War . . . remained central to the aristocratic way of life, and war, as we well know is 'economically suboptimal.' Much better, then, to convince the aristocratic warrior of the vanity of his ambitions, and to transform him into a peaceful businessman, whose self-enriching activities would serve to enrich those around him as well."

"An American politician could harbor ambitions to be a Caesar or a Napoleon, but the system would allow him or her to be no more than a Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan -- hemmed in by powerful institutional constraints and political forces on all sides and forced to realize their ambition by being the people's 'servant' rather than their master."

And this is the Liberal Democracy that Fukuyama views as the end of history. It has taken the desire to distinguish oneself on the field of battle and transmuted it into the desire to distinguish oneself in activities that preserve and enhance Liberal Democracy. Once all nations have become Liberal Democracies than there will be no more war and history will be at an end, but not everyone viewed this future with equanimity.

"The greatest and most articulate champion of thymos in modern times, and the prophet of its revival, was Friedrich Nietzsche . . . Nietzsche was once described by a contemporary as an 'aristocratic radical,' a characterization he did not dispute. Much of his work can be seen, in a certain sense, as a reaction to what he saw as the rise of an entire civilization of 'men without chests,' a society of bourgeois who aspired to nothing more than their own comfortable self-preservation. For Nietzsche, the very essence of man was neither his desire nor his reason, but his thymos: man was above all a valuing creature, the beast with red cheeks' . . . Nietzsche's well-known doctrine of the 'will to power' can be understood as the effort to reassert the primacy of thymos as against desire and reason, and to undo the damage that modern liberalism had done to man's pride and self-assertiveness. "

What happens with this Liberal Democratic "man with no chest" has to defend himself against people without his fine sense of such things as "the first amendment"? There is no easy answer to that. The "man with no chest" sees his system as superior and worthy of emulation, but he has given up his will to fight for it. Fortunately for this system, not every member is born "with no chest." Fukuyama writes, "Nature, on the other hand, will conspire to preserve a substantial degree of megalothymia even in our egalitarian, democratic world. For Nietzsche was absolutely correct in his belief that some degree of megalothymia is a necessary precondition for life itself. A civilization devoid of anyone who wanted to be recognized as better than others, and which did not affirm in some way the essential health and goodness of such a desire, would have little art or literature, music or intellectual life. It would be incompetently governed, for few people of quality would choose a life of public service. It would not have much in the way of economic dynamism; its crafts and industries would be pedestrian and unchanging, and its technology second-rate. And perhaps most critically, it would be unable to defend itself from civilizations that were infused with a greater spirit of megalothymia, whose citizens were ready to forsake comfort and safety and who were not afraid to risk their lives for the sake of dominion. Megalothymia is, as it always was, a morally ambiguous phenomenon: both the good things and the bad things of life flow from it, simultaneously and necessarily. If liberal democracy is ever subverted by megalothymia, it will be because liberal democracy needs megalothymia and will never survive on the basis of universal and equal recognition alone."

So while Fukuyama is considered the modern father of the idea that Liberal Democracy is "the end of history" we see him here wrestling with the idea that megalothymia is needed in some form for its survival. As long as Liberal Democracy is satisfying this need by providing opportunities for those who want to be superior, then the need will remain benign. But what happens if someone's need is greater than anything provided by Liberal Democracy?

We who are comfortable living in our Liberal Democracies hope there will never be such people as the "Aristocratic Warrior" again. We like things the way they are. But Nietzsche didn't: "He hated societies that were diverse and tolerant, preferring instead those that were intolerant, instinctive, and without remorse -- the Indian Chandala caste that tried to breed distinct races of men, or the 'blond beasts of prey' which unhesitatingly lay (their) terrible claws upon a populace.' Nietzsche's relationship to German fascism has been debated at great length, and while he can be defended from the narrow charges of being the forefather of National Socialism's simpleminded doctrines, the relationship between his thought and Nazism is not accidental. Just as in the case of his follower, Martin Heidegger, Nietzsche's relativism shot out of all the philosophical props holding up Western liberal democracy, and replaced it with a doctrine of strength and domination. Nietzsche believed the era of European nihilism, which he was helping to inaugurate, would lead to 'immense wars' of the spirit, objectless wars whose only purpose was to affirm war itself."

The "last man" for Nietzsche "resembles the slave in Hegel's bloody battle that began history. But the last man's situation is made worse as a result of the entire historical process that has ensued since that time, the complex cumulative evolution of human society toward democracy. For according to Nietzsche, a living thing cannot be healthy, strong, or productive except by living within a certain horizon, that is, a set of values and beliefs that are accepted absolutely and uncritically. 'No artist will paint his picture, no general win his victory, no nation gain its freedom,' without such a horizon, without loving the work that they do 'infinitely more than it deserves to be loved.' . . . That is why modern man is the last man: he has been jaded by the experience of history, and disabused of the possibility of direct experience of values.

"Modern education, in other words, stimulates a certain tendency toward relativism, that is, the doctrine that all horizons and values systems are relative to their time and place, and that none are true but reflect the prejudices or interests of those who advance them. The doctrine that says that there is no privileged perspective dovetails very nicely with democratic man's desire to believe that his way of life is just as good as any other. Relativism in this context does not lead to the liberation of the great or strong, but of the mediocre, who were now told they had nothing of which to be ashamed. The slave at the beginning of history declined to risk his life in the bloody battle because he was instinctively fearful. The last man at the end of history knows better than to risk his life for a cause, because he recognizes that history was full of pointless battles in which men fought over whether they should be Christian or Muslim, Protestant or Catholic, German or French. The loyalties that drove men to desperate acts of courage and sacrifice were proven by subsequent history to be silly prejudices. Men with modern educations are content to sit at home, congratulating themselves on their broadmindedness and lack of fanaticism. As Nietzsche's Zarathustra says of them, 'For thus you speak: 'Real are we entirely, and without belief or superstition.' Thus you stick out your chests -- but alas, they are hollow!'

COMMENT: I enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 17 during a war. Sixty years later I have not changed my mind as to that being the right thing to do. I don't believe wars are pointless. In this year, 2010, I don't believe a war between Islamism and Liberal Democracy pointless. I am no relativist. On the other hand I have never had much megalothymia pertaining to war. I was a sergeant in the Marine Corps and that's all I ever aspired to be. My chest was large enough to be willing to defend my country, but not so large that I wanted to start a war for personal aggrandizement. I liked living in a Liberal Democracy, but I was no "last man." The idea of running off to Canada to avoid being in a war was appalling. If a Liberal Democracy had value as a place to live, then it was worth fighting for.

I say I never aspired to being more than a Sergeant, but that isn't all I felt. I had a certain mistrust of officers. I wasn't sure we needed them. Sergeants, at least Marine Corps Sergeants, were perfectly capable of fighting a war. That may not have been true, but that is what I thought when I was in the Corps, and that is sort of what I think today. We don't need military ambition, at least not the sort of ambition that some of the Greek aristocratic warriors displayed. I am of the American "Jacksonian" tradition. We believe in defeating the enemies and then taking off our uniforms and going home. If you aren't willing to do that "then you ain't much of a man," or as Nietzsche would say, "you haven't much of a chest."

I do feel ambivalent about our current situation. Our Liberal Democracy has fostered a complacency, one in which the men with no chests listen to their "great leaders" who encourage them in their relativistic beliefs. They are encouraged to think one belief is as good as the next, that there is no point in fighting against Islamism because Islamism is just as good as anything we believe in. We as a prosperous Liberal Democracy can afford quite a lot of these "Hollow men," but should their relativistic philosophy ever prevail, should there ever be a time when an adequate number of men with chests could not be found to defend Liberal Democracy, then the Liberal Democratic world would end -- as T.S. Eliot wrote in 1925 in his poem "The Hollow Men":

"this is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.