Comments on: The oil slums http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict Thu, 02 Feb 2012 06:09:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Said Ebbini http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm/comment-page-1#comment-79159 Said Ebbini Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:57:01 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm#comment-79159 So then bugger off back to Europe if you're so dissatisfied with the civilization of the Middle East. Hell, I did! So then bugger off back to Europe if you’re so dissatisfied with the civilization of the Middle East. Hell, I did!

]]> By: Joseph http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm/comment-page-1#comment-76727 Joseph Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:42:48 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm#comment-76727 Jean-Francois -- Good point about the insidious tendency of the central government to take more and more power from the federated states (if I understand you right), but would you clarify your 2nd paragraph? I got lost. Jean-Francois — Good point about the insidious tendency of the central government to take more and more power from the federated states (if I understand you right), but would you clarify your 2nd paragraph? I got lost.

]]> By: Jean-Francois http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm/comment-page-1#comment-76533 Jean-Francois Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:14:13 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm#comment-76533 Nationalistic governance in the west is the culprit. In a system designed for a farming based economy (self-sustaining/self-reliance~responsibility), the way to sustain and adapt viably to a changing demographic is to remain in the federalistic mode of governance, with a weak central governance, at least economically. Nationalistic governance is going to be for the greater good of the group inevitably,as well as cr4eating econica disaster by doing so, because of the interdependence of all the group is ignored in a nationalistic system. Internal civil unrest is not a bad thing, in fact, the founders of the western system realized that governments would rise and fall. One only need to read the anti-federalist papers to realize today was forseen very clearly because they predicted the evolution of federalism into a european nationalism. ++++++++++++++++++ Nationalistic governance in the west is the culprit. In a system designed for a farming based economy (self-sustaining/self-reliance~responsibility), the way to sustain and adapt viably to a changing demographic is to remain in the federalistic mode of governance, with a weak central governance, at least economically.

Nationalistic governance is going to be for the greater good of the group inevitably,as well as cr4eating econica disaster by doing so, because of the interdependence of all the group is ignored in a nationalistic system.

Internal civil unrest is not a bad thing, in fact, the founders of the western system realized that governments would rise and fall. One only need to read the anti-federalist papers to realize today was forseen very clearly because they predicted the evolution of federalism into a european nationalism.

++++++++++++++++++

]]> By: Ray Bright http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm/comment-page-1#comment-76410 Ray Bright Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:19:08 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm#comment-76410 The Saudis are probably every bit as degenerated as Caligula. Just Google the web, you find a lot of interesting stories: A Saudi prince cutting off a breast of his Moroccan prostitute. When her family protested they threatened them with death and torture. ======== In any case, it seems like such a poverty of ideas to think in terms of either representative democracy, or monarchy (or some other form of autocrathy). There is an infinity of other possibilities. It is interesting that you should mention the Chinese emperors. They actually did experiment with meritocracy, for example they used exams rather than popular vote, to select prime ministers, and all other officials. They also instituted special schools to help gifted peasant children so that they too had a chance to lead the country. OF course Chinese model from 1000 years ago can be improved, but in my mind there is no doubt that it is far superior to current representative democracy. == The Saudis are probably every bit as degenerated as Caligula.
Just Google the web, you find a lot of interesting stories: A Saudi prince cutting off a breast of his Moroccan prostitute. When her family protested they threatened them with death and torture.
========
In any case, it seems like such a poverty of ideas to think in terms of either representative democracy, or monarchy (or some other form of autocrathy). There is an infinity of other possibilities.

It is interesting that you should mention the Chinese emperors. They actually did experiment with meritocracy, for example they used exams rather than popular vote, to select prime ministers, and all other officials. They also instituted special schools to help gifted peasant children so that they too had a chance to lead the country.
OF course Chinese model from 1000 years ago can be improved, but in my mind there is no doubt that it is far superior to current representative democracy.
==

]]> By: Joseph http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm/comment-page-1#comment-76400 Joseph Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:11:22 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm#comment-76400 Ray -- True that the Saudis and King Abdullah are not very good arguments for monarchies. But on the other hand, they are not Caligulas. More importantly, though, they were not chosen by their subjects in any way -- they were installed by the Brits. The Chinese kings and emperors spoke of "the Mandate of Heaven", rather than "the Divine Right" of kings, which was a novel philosophical innovation of James I of England. The Mandate of Heaven can be lost or forfeited. The Saudis and Abdullah only have the mandate of the Western powers. Ray — True that the Saudis and King Abdullah are not very good arguments for monarchies. But on the other hand, they are not Caligulas. More importantly, though, they were not chosen by their subjects in any way — they were installed by the Brits. The Chinese kings and emperors spoke of “the Mandate of Heaven”, rather than “the Divine Right” of kings, which was a novel philosophical innovation of James I of England. The Mandate of Heaven can be lost or forfeited. The Saudis and Abdullah only have the mandate of the Western powers.

]]> By: Joseph http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm/comment-page-1#comment-76393 Joseph Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:43:15 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm#comment-76393 bar -- Very good points. Wish some of Mitt Romney's supporters would read your post -- you could have been describing Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. bar — Very good points. Wish some of Mitt Romney’s supporters would read your post — you could have been describing Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

]]> By: bar http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm/comment-page-1#comment-76346 bar Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:37:16 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm#comment-76346 To understand why Moslem societies fail you need look no further than the life of the founder. Every religion has it's fundamentalists who look to the founder. No religion can travel Jesus was a hippy, Buddah was an ascetic, Moses was a refugee, Confucious was concerned with family and Mahommed was the political leader of a tribe of Arabs in an anarchic society, where justice was meted out by family and civil violence was not a stranger. Mahommed's idea of wealth creation was to raid another caravan. His political system relied on assassination, and it was a gerontocracy ruled by old men who appropriated the nubile females to themselves as slaves. No religion can drift far from the ethics of it's founder. The Muslims are still looking for caravans to raid, and political enemies to assassinate. It is not a culture of wealth creation, it is a culture of wealth appropriation. OTOH the American culture is quite unique. European (and other) culture is stagnant, the ruling classes do not want technological (social) change, because change puts their political base at risk. The Americans revel in change, because that is the religion from which their society was born. The Muslim religion will always attract the people who are of limited creative ability, because it sanctifies their right to umma (enslavement) of the creative section of humanity as the correct method for advancement in the world. To understand why Moslem societies fail you need look no further than the life of the founder.

Every religion has it’s fundamentalists who look to the founder. No religion can travel

Jesus was a hippy, Buddah was an ascetic, Moses was a refugee, Confucious was concerned with family and Mahommed was the political leader of a tribe of Arabs in an anarchic society, where justice was meted out by family and civil violence was not a stranger.

Mahommed’s idea of wealth creation was to raid another caravan. His political system relied on assassination, and it was a gerontocracy ruled by old men who appropriated the nubile females to themselves as slaves.

No religion can drift far from the ethics of it’s founder. The Muslims are still looking for caravans to raid, and political enemies to assassinate. It is not a culture of wealth creation, it is a culture of wealth appropriation.

OTOH the American culture is quite unique.

European (and other) culture is stagnant, the ruling classes do not want technological (social) change, because change puts their political base at risk. The Americans revel in change, because that is the religion from which their society was born.

The Muslim religion will always attract the people who are of limited creative ability, because it sanctifies their right to umma (enslavement) of the creative section of humanity as the correct method for advancement in the world.

]]> By: Ray Bright http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm/comment-page-1#comment-76336 Ray Bright Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:10:15 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm#comment-76336 Joseph, Have a look at the kind and the royals of the Saudi Arabia. A bunch of degenerated parasites they are... I would not wish that on Jews. And what's so great about the Abdullah, the King of Jordan? Joseph,

Have a look at the kind and the royals of the Saudi Arabia. A bunch of degenerated parasites they are… I would not wish that on Jews.
And what’s so great about the Abdullah, the King of Jordan?

]]> By: Joseph http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm/comment-page-1#comment-76274 Joseph Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:43:57 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm#comment-76274 Ray -- Monarchy does not necessarily mean an hereditary title. Of old, the Germanic peoples and the Celts elected their kings (and occasionally queens, with the Celts). The Emperor of Rome was not a hereditary title. In actual practice, they were chosen by the army, which was essentially all the able bodied men of the empire. The Jews, of course, absolutely insisted that Samuel choose a king for them, essentially making him a one-man "electoral college". Long lasting hereditary monarchies have invariably vested the actual power of the state in some sort of parliment or a leader chosen by the military, as in Britain and Japan. The bottom line being that kingship that has any real power is always in one manner or another an "elected" position based on the "merit" of the chosen, in the judgment of those who choose. In general, kingship can be likened to the captaincy of a pirate ship -- the leader, once chosen, must be obeyed, until and unless he (or she) loses the confidence of the followers, at which point the leader's life is most often forfeit. Always a perilous position, and thus in many aspects preferable to our modern system(s) wherein "leaders" get to ruin the state and then retire as millionaires with no responsibility for the devastation they have caused. Ray — Monarchy does not necessarily mean an hereditary title. Of old, the Germanic peoples and the Celts elected their kings (and occasionally queens, with the Celts). The Emperor of Rome was not a hereditary title. In actual practice, they were chosen by the army, which was essentially all the able bodied men of the empire. The Jews, of course, absolutely insisted that Samuel choose a king for them, essentially making him a one-man “electoral college”. Long lasting hereditary monarchies have invariably vested the actual power of the state in some sort of parliment or a leader chosen by the military, as in Britain and Japan. The bottom line being that kingship that has any real power is always in one manner or another an “elected” position based on the “merit” of the chosen, in the judgment of those who choose. In general, kingship can be likened to the captaincy of a pirate ship — the leader, once chosen, must be obeyed, until and unless he (or she) loses the confidence of the followers, at which point the leader’s life is most often forfeit. Always a perilous position, and thus in many aspects preferable to our modern system(s) wherein “leaders” get to ruin the state and then retire as millionaires with no responsibility for the devastation they have caused.

]]> By: Alain http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm/comment-page-1#comment-76272 Alain Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:11:47 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-oil-slums.htm#comment-76272 I agree with Joseph that democracy inevitably fails. It degenerates into populism as one can witness to-day in the West. Israel is not a true democracy in spite of the claim, or should I say not a representative democracy. The system must change for Israel to survive or ever aspire to true leadership. Concerning the topic I disagree that development/progress or lack of it can be explained by the form of government. It is due to culture rather than government or climate or whatever. Certainly the type of government can support or hinder development and progress. Communism/socialism hinder whereas forms of government offering a wide range of individual freedom support development, and such is possible with a monarchy or even theocracy. I agree with Joseph that democracy inevitably fails. It degenerates into populism as one can witness to-day in the West. Israel is not a true democracy in spite of the claim, or should I say not a representative democracy. The system must change for Israel to survive or ever aspire to true leadership.

Concerning the topic I disagree that development/progress or lack of it can be explained by the form of government. It is due to culture rather than government or climate or whatever. Certainly the type of government can support or hinder development and progress. Communism/socialism hinder whereas forms of government offering a wide range of individual freedom support development, and such is possible with a monarchy or even theocracy.

]]>