Could part of these minorities stronger identification as Muslim be the importation of Western identity politics? Especially in cases where there's been Western immigration, I'd imagine it's hard not to internalize the depiction of themselves they're subjected to daily in the Western media, and then export that self-image to their home countries.

You're talking of globalization (in the cultural sociological plane). The case is that religions are not the only elements to be globalized, nor is their "orthodoxy" either. I rather see it as billions of people "talking" to each other and, maybe for the first time in history, having the opportunity to understand each other.

Of course, who you prefer to engage with, who are you willing to listen to... that's still largely optional. But the same that Islamic orthodoxy is being globalized, so is for instance feminism and these are bound to clash.

I would not think it anyhow as "clash of civilizations" but as clash of ideas. Traditions are bound to be shaken in this context and certainly that will spark two opposite poles: radical reformists and radical reactionaries (with many in between, of course). The same happened in the West in the last centuries: the French Revolution was contested by a Holy Alliance of conservative monarchs, only to be defeated in due time because the past models cannot be perpetuated when conditions change so radically.

Ethnic conflicts may easily get into the mix. We Basques were quite "Taliban" in the 19th century, even if it was largely just because the "reformists" threatened our historical freedom. Similarly Palestinians may get attracted to Hamas, as the only one who offers them some hope. And so on.

But thinking that reactonary unninovative ideologies will in the long run succeed is, I believe, fundamentally wrong. Capitalism has drastically changed the world, it's still changing it, often without proposing a viable social model. That sparks alternative ideologies, be them revolutionary Marxist (still alive in many places) or reactionary neo-traditionalist ones. I'm not sure about the first but the latter, even if they have some circumstantial successes, are bound to fail in the long run, as they can't really offer what the new globalized socio-cutural reality demands.

could part of these minorities stronger identification as Muslim be the importation of Western identity politics? Especially in cases where there's been Western immigration, I'd imagine it's hard not to internalize the depiction of themselves they're subjected to daily in the Western media, and then export that self-image to their home countries.

only a small part. e.g., this might work to some extent in the case of native born muslims in britain, who are 'arabicizing' their islamic practice and orientation. but this is not as important in china or southeast asia. there the dynamics might in the ultimate sense be driven by western hegemony (the power of the VOC and railroad and steamships, etc.), but the reconceptualization of islamic identity was contemporaneous with the high tide of white supremacist imperialism (which wasn't really the primary factor in hui-han or santri-abangan relations anyhow).

p.s. a third case is the saudi-gulf arab influence. they're attempting to reshape indigenous islam in places like albania and bosnia in their own image.

But thinking that reactonary unninovative ideologies will in the long run succeed is, I believe, fundamentally wrong.

can you name what you're talking about? the ideologies that is?

I would not think it anyhow as "clash of civilizations" but as clash of ideas.
Huntington's thesis is that WW2 and the Cold War were the age of clashing ideologies (and just a small number of them). The modern clash of civilizations is not about ideas as much as cultural identity. I discuss the book more here.

"But thinking that reactonary unninovative ideologies will in the long run succeed is, I believe, fundamentally wrong."

can you name what you're talking about? the ideologies that is?

Fundamentalisms basically. Of course Islamic fundamentalism but also Christian fundamentalism, like that so in fashion in some parts of the USA (creationism in school and all that junk). I guess I can think of other sorts of fundamentalisms elsewhere too.

Creationism is a good example of why these kind of ideologies just add nothing but doctrinal conformism and lose all the good stuff of rationalism and critical exchange of ideas and information. In the end, a society that would embrace such ideas, can only end up as the most freaky and backward entity: you can't forbid the truth and not pay a price for it.

That's the kind of attitude that has sunk every empire, from Chistian Neoplatonic Rome to closed-doors China passing by Inquisitorial Spain. An the opposite attitude: an open-minded and innovative one is which has placed all sort of countries ahead of the rest.

The choice is obscurantism, autocracy and corruption or open debate, democracy and at least some fairness under the law. Not idealizing, of course, and in every case there is some balance, but one plate is much more favorable than the other, specially in the long run.

Rather than normal scales, where both plates are the same, it's more like a dinosaur: if the weight falls on the tail, the beast can't move.

"I would not think it anyhow as "clash of civilizations" but as clash of ideas".

Huntington's thesis is that WW2 and the Cold War were the age of clashing ideologies (and just a small number of them). The modern clash of civilizations is not about ideas as much as cultural identity. I discuss the book more here.

The supposed clash of civilizations is just different manifestations in the globalized world of the increasing but irregular independence of "the South", the former colonies and semi-colonies, from "the North".

Nobody talks of "clash of civilizations" when dealing with the growing power of China, yet China is much more different from the West than the Muslim World and, in objective economical terms it's much of a menace to five centuries of Western global hegemony. After all, West and Middle East have the about same roots, even their historical religions (their main difference) are basically the same: modified Judaism.

What is happening in the Muslim World is a passing wave. Surely won't pass without causing much more trouble (fascism always causes troubles) but will eventually vanish and be replaced by something much more open and democratic. They have no choice: if they want to be competitive, they need education and educated people, in the long run, won't conform to such rigid ideological parameters. Literate and connected people necessarily will get dissident information and will eventually be seduced by it.

If they choose to keep the masses illiterate, they can't become a global power (or anything even close). It's not illiterate peasants who design nuclear reactors, rockets or telecommunication systems, for instance. Nor can illiterate masses be formed into able industrial workers with high productivity.

Of course, some in the West (multinationals specially - and in China too) are rather happy with keeping such a large, geostrategical and oil-rich fraction of the world submitted through ignorance - but it's not in THEIR best interest. Besides, from experience: a long-lasting fundamentalism regime creates hatred for religion, specially among the young.

It's a war of ideas and it's not, like some have put it, a war of the West vs. the Middle East basically but a war between Muslims (including non-Muslims of Islamic roots). And also that war of ideas happens elsewhere: the creationism-in-biology-classes debate that roams the USA is exactly the same war but in a different battlefield. And surely you can find other examples in other latitudes as well.

Luis, your view of history is nonsense.

This is tiresome:

"Of course, some in the West (multinationals specially - and in China too) are rather happy with keeping such a large, geostrategical and oil-rich fraction of the world submitted through ignorance"

So it is Google's fault, then? Or Apple's? What are the mechanisms by which the multinationals generate Islamism? How do they benefit from large increases in Oil prices? Is there a report somewhere, or any documentaion, that proves that modern day multinationals are responsible for creating Islamism? Did they do it with Vodoo?

And then this
"If they choose to keep the masses illiterate, they can't become a global power (or anything even close). It's not illiterate peasants who design nuclear reactors, rockets or telecommunication systems, for instance. Nor can illiterate masses be formed into able industrial workers with high productivity. "

Being illiterate means not being able to read. The Islamic countries are literate. They do spend a lot of time on the Koran, and Islamic studies, but there is no hostiliy between Islam and Science/Engineering - look at Dubai's builidngs, or Iran and it's Nuclear program. What the rise of Islam proves is that there is no correlation - one taken for granted in the West - between the rise ( or, more correctly I suppose the adoption) of science and liberalism in the Western sense.

And you are fundamentaly wrong - suffering from observer bias given the century and country you live in - on what the "long term" success of liberal/ open societies. Were you born in the centuries after the Islamic takeover of North Africa, the rise of Christianity within the Roman Empire etc. you would have a different view. "Obscurant" religious societies may be hostile to Western ideas of liberalism, but not to scientific advancement - I dont see that Islam is, for instance - and they may well be the long term victors because of internal stability. We dont know. I suspect that democracy may not be even a very stable system, since it is been fissured by group rights/ multiculturalism etc. already. This can only increase in the coming decades and centuries ( which is the timescale we should be thinking about)

Listen soony, my house is way older than the U.S. And my country much younger than China as a unified entity.

The U.S. is the ( declining) power now. China has been top dog for a lot longer. i think the rise of Europe, and Europeans. will be seen in a few centuries as a blip, and who knows who will win. China will be there in 3000AD, the US I am far less sure about.

There are two (or more) separate things going on here. In the "long run", whatever is more in sync with reality (whatever that may be..and its probably a moving target) will do better. In the short term (and we are dead in the long run), many of us may see our lives and our children's lives adversely affected by fascists brandishing Islamist, Christianist or Hindu nationalist ideologies (to name a random few). I do think there is a point (and not too faraway a point) at which the apparent ideological advantages of Islamism (solidarity, mass mobilization, strength of commitment to the cause) are outweighed by the deadweight of medieval laws and outdated organizational ideas ("caliphate", "qazi courts") that come along with the advantages. Leaving aside any moral issues, there is NO example where Islamists were able to organize a modern state and make it work in the sense of producing tons of goods, efficiently mobilizing resources, etc. etc. Dubai is not an islamist state, its disneyland with the death penalty, sustained by the same organizational and cultural tools that power western capitalism in general. Iran is a good example of how a semi-successful Islamist state also has to be semi-modern...the parts that work are Universities, elections, courts, internets, armies, organizations...and there is little that is medieval or specifically "islamic" about any of them.

Fundamentalisms basically. Of course Islamic fundamentalism but also Christian fundamentalism, like that so in fashion in some parts of the USA (creationism in school and all that junk). I guess I can think of other sorts of fundamentalisms elsewhere too.

but fundamentalism is new and somewhat innovative. that's why i asked. they conceive of themselves as timeless, but they're really not. this goes for both christian and muslim fundamentalists. i don't think in our analysis of these movements we should, or need to, accept their own propoganda about how ancient they are.

also, do note that illiteracy doesn't predict islamic fundamenalism within a society. look at at indonesia. the trends are pretty complicated and nested within each other.

class background of salafi terrorists:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/sageman.php

luis,

Ethnic conflicts may easily get into the mix. We Basques were quite "Taliban" in the 19th century, even if it was largely just because the "reformists" threatened our historical freedom. Similarly Palestinians may get attracted to Hamas, as the only one who offers them some hope. And so on.

this sort of nuance is nice. i think you need to consider that you need to do the same sort of analysis with religious fundamentalism; your narrative is way too whiggish IMO. there is more to the world than the light & the dark.

What are the mechanisms by which the multinationals generate Islamism?

Supporting countries like Saudi Arabia (or Pakistani military) (widely acknowledged to be the main support of Fundamentalism at least before 9/11 attacks. Supporting militias like the Taleban. It seems that everybody forgets that Bin Ladin himself was known as "the CIA man in Afghanistan" until well after the Soviet retreat.

How do they benefit from large increases in Oil prices?

Certainly oil multinationals benefit very directly from it, right? (And we cannot forget that the Bushes are directly involved in such industry).

Nevertheless, rising oil prices are not just a product of fundamentalism but rather a product of increased "southern" independence, economic developement and therefore demand of resouces. China and India are about to topple the West in demand for raw resources, you know.

Is there a report somewhere, or any documentaion, that proves that modern day multinationals are responsible for creating Islamism?

Just read James Petras (for instance) and find out by yourself.

Being illiterate means not being able to read. The Islamic countries are literate.

Some are, some are not. Morocco, Pakistan or Niger are in the lowest triers of global literacy, indeed. When you consider literacy not just as the mere ability to read even poorly but with more serious standards, you can see that the education levels of the Muslim World are generally low.

Of course, fascisms usually have a nationalist component and Iranian fascism is not going to be different. Hence education is important for them, as long as they can keep it under strict ideological surveillance, what is not always possible, specially in our time.

I was born under a fascist fundamentalist regime: a country ruled by a ridiculous dictator, the Army, the Catholic Church and a bunch of oligarchs. This regime developed the country in some aspects, trying to keep it backward in others. In the mid-run the result was merely untenable and the autocracy succumbed to its own and international contradictions. Its ideological legacy? Widespread hatred for the church and the military. I have no reason to believe that Iran will be different - in the mid-run, of course.

... suffering from observer bias given the century and country you live in ...

I don't live in the USA, if that's what you mean. My country (my people, not the state that has been imposed on us) is probably much older than China. One of our blood was a celebrated Caliph, another accomplished the first circunavigation of the World with a rotten ship against all odds, another was leading the first American colonial rebellion when Jamestown had not yet been founded, our ancestors fought Caesar and defeated Charlemagne, our iron fed the English industrial revolution and our sailors docked in Canada before any empire had laid claim over it.

Easy riddle, right? :)

but fundamentalism is new and somewhat innovative. that's why i asked. they conceive of themselves as timeless, but they're really not. this goes for both christian and muslim fundamentalists. i don't think in our analysis of these movements we should, or need to, accept their own propoganda about how ancient they are.

Totally agree. But that doesn't mean they are not reactionary. It's the same as classical fascism (specially Francoism, that was the most religious of all): they try (and sometimes manage) to fuse two contradictory elements: traditionalist ideology with the necessary modernity. This involves all sorts of internal contradictions that will eventually resolve in accordance with the needs of Capitalism (national capital possibly but Capitalism anyhow).

Wahabbism anyhow is a century-old movement, and the islamist laws and values all sort of fundamentalists are trying to impose are certainly nothing new. As Omar points very well, what is new, modern, is not "Islamic". Many of these laws are counter-productive, specially all those sexist/familiarist measures that can only produce a very problematic population boom (low quality desperate ill-employed worker masses).

also, do note that illiteracy doesn't predict islamic fundamenalism within a society. look at at indonesia. the trends are pretty complicated and nested within each other.

Certainly. I just meant to point out that low quality religious education can only create a low quality unstable socio-economical reality.

Fundamentalism can be a form of nationalism, at least it is in the case of Iran (but not in Saudia or Morocco). The trend is complex certainly but very comparable to 20th century Western fascisms and fascist-like regimes. The main difference may be that since the Soviet (communist) "threat" seems to have vanished, such fascisms are less interesting for the neocolonialist powers to promote, specially if they display nationalist pretenses.

i think you need to consider that you need to do the same sort of analysis with religious fundamentalism; your narrative is way too whiggish IMO. there is more to the world than the light & the dark.

I'm sorry if my discourse looks too B&W to you. I do not mean to be so simplistic. I guess that the space that this kind of discussion allows for is only so big and, after all, when one wants to make a point, he/she needs to simplify somewhat, in order to be able to emphasize what is central to that discourse.

I just meant that the so-called "clash of civilizations" is like the "end of history": a simplistic shallow bestselling piece of junk. That there are other maybe less obvious issues behind and that, when one looks at it with some historical perspective, things are not so different from other more familiar ("western") realities. Just that they have their own "local time" (and circumstances too).

also, do note that illiteracy doesn't predict islamic fundamenalism within a society. look at at indonesia. the trends are pretty complicated and nested within each other.

Yes, I wonder if the very opposite may not be true: increasing literacy as a driver of Islamic fundamentalism.

I would guess that the sort of syncretic interpretations of Islam common in places like Indonesia cannot easily stand in a society where each believer is capable of interpreting the Qur'an for themselves and where such interpretations are divorced from local political structures. Additionally, those structures are probably being made increasingly irrelevant with the advance of globalism.

from an indian point of view:

a fraction of the muslim elites or ashrafs who had migrated to liberal points of view are going back to the "arab" roots although most of them have no arab roots.
there is increased voice from those sections of the muslim community who were from "lower" hindu castes to be heard, clashes between the upper caste and lower caste muslims have been reported in few places, political parties are asking for reservation quotas for such muslims. here the uniformisation compact is breaking.

I wonder if the very opposite may not be true: increasing literacy as a driver of Islamic fundamentalism.

Partly you must be right: education and cultural globalization are not unrelated to the growth of Islamic Fundamentalism. I'm a little sad that I've been misread in that, what I meant is that increased fundamentalism and specially when this is applied in the law and socio-political control, when the state is fundamentalist, may cause lesser education.

Fundamentalist states are not just Iran, most Muslim countries, speacially Arab Muslim ones are. Egypt or Morocco are nearly as fundamentalist as Iran, no matter they are allied with the USA. Saudi Arabia is much more fundamentalist than Iran. Etc. The practical rule of thumb is: is civil law really civil (secular) or is it some version of sharia? Is the state separate from religion as in Turkey or are both deeply intermingled?

You'll have to acknowledge that in most cases Islamism has been around since decolonization (or even before). Just that it wasn't a prestigious political current that had a name then.

I wonder if the increased organization of Islamist politics is not just a reaction to the percieved "danger" of losing such values actually. For a time the opposite trend was actually more popular: many currents were ideologicaly westernizing (secularist, specially pan-Arabism) but as they failed both to achieve successes or to attract the support of Western powers, that often prefered more backwards traditionalist regimes and even attacked them directly (Egypt, Palestine, Iraq) or indirectly (Indonesia, Afghanistan, Syria, South Yemen), and eventually lost also the support of the ill-fated USSR, they have been replaced (at least by the moment) by another type of "nationalism", the one that for a time was supported by the West and its local allies (specially Saudia): Islamism - that has the apparent advantage of "owing nothing to anyone" but "ourselves" (Muslims).

Fundamentalism can be a form of nationalism, at least it is in the case of Iran (but not in Saudia or Morocco). The trend is complex certainly but very comparable to 20th century Western fascisms and fascist-like regimes. The main difference may be that since the Soviet (communist) "threat" seems to have vanished, such fascisms are less interesting for the neocolonialist powers to promote, specially if they display nationalist pretenses.

the analogy between iran and fascist states is a good one. there was a strain of the revolution termed 'red shiism' which was left-wing, but it was pretty much squelched during the 1980s; the social support of the islamic revolution in iran is petite bourgeois. iran is not a totalitarian state, it is an authoritarian one.



I would guess that the sort of syncretic interpretations of Islam common in places like Indonesia cannot easily stand in a society where each believer is capable of interpreting the Qur'an for themselves and where such interpretations are divorced from local political structures. Additionally, those structures are probably being made increasingly irrelevant with the advance of globalism.

there are two types of "syncretism," so to speak, high & low. the "high" form manifests in aristocratic mysticism and universalism. think the aspirant mughal emperor dara shikoh, whose islam leaned strongly toward the thesis that all religious were simply manifestations of the same truth as in hinduism. then there is the "low" form of syncretism, which has little to do with philosophy, intellectual reflection or interpretation; it's just basic folk religion where there isn't much orthodoxy as much as a mish-mash of indigenous religious traditions.

in indonesia it is less that each individual is interpreting the koran then that local traditional religious values are less relevant in the anomie of jakarta. remember that the koran is in arabic, and translations are always subject to bias interjected by the translator. the rise of the proportion who are santri has to do with modernization & urbanization, though the merchant class has traditionally been the redoubt of international islam in indonesia (international being middle eastern in orientation).


Fundamentalist states are not just Iran, most Muslim countries, speacially Arab Muslim ones are. Egypt or Morocco are nearly as fundamentalist as Iran, no matter they are allied with the USA. Saudi Arabia is much more fundamentalist than Iran. Etc. The practical rule of thumb is: is civil law really civil (secular) or is it some version of sharia? Is the state separate from religion as in Turkey or are both deeply intermingled?

you need to distinguish the state and society. iranian society is arguably more secular than morrocan society, but the state is not (the king of morocco is a relatively liberal monarch in his social views who has had to drag the population along when it comes to issues such as equity in divorce laws).

Supporting countries like Saudi Arabia (or Pakistani military) (widely acknowledged to be the main support of Fundamentalism at least before 9/11 attacks. Supporting militias like the Taleban.

The Taleban was a bunch of ridiculously rag-tag locals banding together to fill a power vacuum. Practically no one even recognized their rule (IIRC no one except Pakistan and Saudi Arabia), much less supported it.

How do they benefit from large increases in Oil prices?

Certainly oil multinationals benefit very directly from it, right?

No. Sheesh. That makes no sense whatsoever. Why does Middle Eastern nastiness increase oil prices? Because it makes Middle Eastern oil more costly: you have to pay for security and bribes for all the corrupt levels of dictatorial government you have to get through to get to it. What's driving up the cost of oil is the increased cost of getting it to the market and that doesn't help oil companies at all, in fact it hurts them because of the price elasticity. Paying $10 to get a barrel and selling it for $30 is worse than paying $30 to get a barrel and selling to for $40.

(And we cannot forget that the Bushes are directly involved in such industry).

Anyone involved in Western oil companies has a motivation to keep these countries secure and as non-corrupt as possible. You get no higher price for Middle Eastern oil than you get for Russian oil, so the increased cost of getting ME oil hurts Western multinationals involved in it, not the other way around. For the West and *especially* multinationals involved in Middle Eastern oil, it simply doesn't make economic sense to make Middle Eastern oil less competetive, because making Middle Eastern oil less competetive hurts everyone else involved in oil production except those who hold non-Middle-Eastern assets.

So, for the central figure of your conspiracy, you should try Hugo Chavez or Vladimir Putin, not George Bush.

Jaakkeli,

Right. It's interesting to see what's happening right now in South America, with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, who is somewhat friendly with China, supporting leftist rebels in neighboring Columbia.

Meanwhile the Columbian premier, Alvaro Uribe, is being armed by the US for its "war on drugs", against these same leftist narco-terrorists.

Can someone say proxy war!

Of course it's pure comedy that a guy like Chavez would think that his country is so wealthy that he can fund a leftist takeover of all of South America, when in fact their GNP is less than that of a tiny county like Ireland.

you need to distinguish the state and society. iranian society is arguably more secular than morrocan society, but the state is not (the king of morocco is a relatively liberal monarch in his social views who has had to drag the population along when it comes to issues such as equity in divorce laws)

You have a very benevolent view of the Moroccan regime, really. It's a (religiously guided) police state with a pretense of parlamentarism. There seems to have been some increase in tolerance and some reforms under the new king but still people is getting in prision or even murdered for expressing dissident views, like Berber or Sahrawi nationalism/regionalism, criticism of Islam or the monarchy, etc.

Morocco is basicall its king, the secret police and a lucrative cannabis-production business.

Not sure if this happens with the new king but with "good ol'" Hassan II, the whole railway traffic was stopped often to give preference to the royal train.

I have been in Morocco several times and I know people fear talking freely, specially when discussing religion or politics. Some dare when with trusted people (including turists sometimes) but the fear is very marked, really.

We don't want to acknowledge that the autocracies that West has supported for decades are precisely the most fundamentalist regimes. In Egypt, for instance, your ID card must state which of the three authorized religions you supposedly belong to. What happens if you are atheist or, say, Hinduist? You cannot - not officially. And different civil law applies depending of your official faith. Of course, freedom of speech or democracy are not really values that the Egyptian state upholds at all, but even in somewhat democratic Malaysia you also have that kind of sharia and religious "caste" issues all the time.

Comparatively even Saddam Hussein's Iraq stood as relatively progressive leader (not democratic but certainly laicist, at least until the first Gulf War). But it was kind of too nationalist... pan-Arabist... a threat for the status quo.

"Certainly oil multinationals benefit very directly from it, right?"

No. Sheesh. That makes no sense whatsoever. Why does Middle Eastern nastiness increase oil prices? Because it makes Middle Eastern oil more costly: you have to pay for security and bribes for all the corrupt levels of dictatorial government you have to get through to get to it. What's driving up the cost of oil is the increased cost of getting it to the market and that doesn't help oil companies at all, in fact it hurts them because of the price elasticity. Paying $10 to get a barrel and selling it for $30 is worse than paying $30 to get a barrel and selling to for $40.

You have avoided the main part of my comment when I said that increased demand (specially from fast developing countries like China and India) was the main drive. What you say may be a factor but it's certainly a minor one. Other issues are that the offer is not increasing at all, with one of the problems being the lack of reffineries. It's complex but I seriously doubt that the Iraq war alone has done what the Kuwait war didn't. Nope.

Anyone involved in Western oil companies has a motivation to keep these countries secure and as non-corrupt as possible.

I guess you mean as corrupt as possible, right? If they are non-corrupt and focused in their national interest they might even dare to nationalize their oil, c'mon!

So, for the central figure of your conspiracy, you should try Hugo Chavez or Vladimir Putin, not George Bush.

I didn't suggest any conspiracy. I just stated that Exxon or Shell are surely not worried just because oil is more expensive. Not if they are making increased profits certainly.

...

Of course it's pure comedy that a guy like Chavez would think that his country is so wealthy that he can fund a leftist takeover of all of South America, when in fact their GNP is less than that of a tiny county like Ireland.

You are an ignorant of Latin American reality if you thnk that Chavez alone is pushing the changes in Latin American politics. What is driving them is the relaxation of the US grip, more focused in the Middle East than anything else right now. Socialist movements have been relatively strong in most of Latin America since many decades ago (certainly you can't blame the Cuban revolution on Chávez, can you? - nor the Soviets can be blamed either) and the military dictatorships promoted by the USA in the Cold War (and before too), plus the brutally neoliberal policies promoted by the IMF/WB (US-dominated entities) have only created a widespread feeling of hatred for both the USA and capitalism in Latin America.

We are talking of peoples of (mostly) Western values, largely literate and educated, who find themselves dumped into abject poverty and corrupt regimes (democratic or not) at least partly because of the colonialist policies of their large northern neighbour.

Their only realistic alternative is some form of nationalism and continental nationalism rather than state nationalism, as only Brazil is large enough for the latter. Bolivarianism, either in its traditional form or the Socalist version promoted by Chávez and others is therefore a natural reference.

You may look down upon Cuba... but this country is admired by many of similar status in the global scale because, even if poor and totalitarian, nobody is hungry, homeless or lacks of healthcare. For the poor of Latin America (and they are a large majority), such achievements are certainly enviable. So promises or projects to imitate Cuban achievements are not a nonsense for them. Instead they had already more than enough of promises of imtation of the USA that only end up in semislavery and international robbery.

Maybe it's the struggle between two strong mimeplexe's culture and religion. Both tend to homogenize, religion might be perceived as a stand against western-liberal homogenization.

that all religious were simply manifestations of the same truth as in hinduism. I think it's more of a Jain philosophy than Hindu.

We don't want to acknowledge that the autocracies that West has supported for decades are precisely the most fundamentalist regimes. In Egypt, for instance, your ID card must state which of the three authorized religions you supposedly belong to. What happens if you are atheist or, say, Hinduist? You cannot - not officially. And different civil law applies depending of your official faith. Of course, freedom of speech or democracy are not really values that the Egyptian state upholds at all, but even in somewhat democratic Malaysia you also have that kind of sharia and religious "caste" issues all the time.

your mixing and matching a lot of different issues. i stand by my assertion that the population of morocco is more religious than that of iran, while the gov. of iran is more religious than that of morocco. i am well aware that most "secular" muslim regimes are pretty savage in their religiosity of a gross primitive form (ergo, moderate muslim = very conservative christian). but you judge retards by the retard IQ distribution, not that of normals. i know most of the things you are talking about, i'm comparing in terms of rank order within the muslim world. some of the western supported regimes follow the model you assert (e.g., saudi arabia), but some do not, if you use iran as the measure.

You have avoided the main part of my comment when I said that increased demand (specially from fast developing countries like China and India) was the main drive.

Yes I have and that's because it's not relevant: the oil companies have no influence on Chinese development. They cannot drive up prices by some behind the scenes plot to make China develop really fast (if they could, that would be just great, actually).

We obviously aren't going to get anywhere with the details, since you're just eager to rant about the evil oil companies. I'd say there's a simple test to this that bypasses all the nonsense and that is to look at the profit margins of the big oil companies. If there's really something fishy going on and oil companies can use their supposed influence on George Bush to drive up prices higher than they should be on without interference on the market, then the profit margins should be exceptional. AFAIK they aren't. Oil companies are making record profits but they're also spending record amounts on keeping the production up.

It really seems like the peak oil guys are right...

I guess you mean as corrupt as possible, right? If they are non-corrupt and focused in their national interest they might even dare to nationalize their oil, c'mon!

Of course not. Nationalization is a typical move of a corrupt authoritarian regime, precisely because it isn't in the national interest but is of course in the interest of any leader capable of pocketing the profits.

I tried Googling something just out of interest and ended up with a very amusing chart:

http://i61.photobucket.com/ album...ust3rdQ2005.gif

Buying politicians does seem to work for *some* industries...

but you judge retards by the retard IQ distribution, not that of normals. (...) i'm comparing in terms of rank order within the muslim world.

Guess I tend to think in terms of global comparisons. Otherwise it's like comparing apartheid South Africa only with its equals, like Nazi germany or Jim Crow SE USA. I am not ready to give the Islamists the acknowledgement that there is a distinct reality called the "Muslim World", the same that I'm not ready to give the Pope the acknowledgment of the existence of a "Catholic World", much less with clear borders they could feel authorized to rule exceptionally in.

I think this exceptionalist attitude is very Anglo-Saxon but it only fuels communitarianism, sectarism, not integration. We live in a globalized world and we are all equally humans "in rights and dignity". Morocco is therefore not different from Spain, at least in the fundaments.

...

Yes I have and that's because it's not relevant: the oil companies have no influence on Chinese development. They cannot drive up prices by some behind the scenes plot to make China develop really fast (if they could, that would be just great, actually).

High oil prices do not push ahead the developement of China. The developement of China pushes up oil prices instead.

Look: Earth is small and finite and so are its resources (at least most of them). The more the developement, the greater the demand and, with roughly the same offer, the higher the prices (and eventually a global structural crisis like the one we may be sinking into). Historically Capitalism has grown through expansionism but there's nowhere else to go and "the dwarves are growing". Result: all sort of problems, specially scarcity and high prices of some basic stuff.

Nothing conspirative in it: just basic economy (serious economy, not Reaganomics).

Nationalization is a typical move of a corrupt authoritarian regime, precisely because it isn't in the national interest but is of course in the interest of any leader capable of pocketing the profits.

Not at all. Excepting the very peculiar cases of UK and the USA, every single developed country has used some socialist means along its history to protect its national capital (private or public). Just giving away your precious natural wealth in exchange for crumbs is not the kind of policy that makes any country rich and developed. When the national capital is not strong enough to take care of a sector, nationalization may be a very pragmatic alternative. The only problem that may bring is growing foreing intervention lobbied by the companies you have expelled or brought into discipline.

Corruption is (sadly) a very common human fault but certainly giving away your national treasures for a small rent (and a huge private bribe) is the worst form of coruption, and something any nation should arise against.

I tried Googling something just out of interest and ended up with a very amusing chart:

http://i61.photobucket.com/ album...ust3rdQ2005.gif

Buying politicians does seem to work for *some* industries...

Aha! Pharmaceuitcals are a very interesting and dubious industry, certainly. Banks... well, they rule the system, don't they?

But oil industries are still above average. (No conspiration theories: just "business as usual).

Here is an interesting essay on ethnic-nationalism...

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20...s-and- them.html