Customer Reviews
Civilization and Its Enemies : The Next Stage of History
Harris must be very popular with those in the Bush administration. From the publication of his first political essay in Policy Review, "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology," through this new book-length polemic, he makes a stark and simple argument: we have a ruthless enemy and we need to annihilate him, so get used to it. Although drawing upon the lessons of history and the writings of philosophers, Harris maintains his focus on the dangerous post-9/11 world. In his view, 9/11 marked the beginning of an "ideological epidemic" that has fundamentally changed how we now must approach the world. He expounds upon the nature of the "enemy," the need for ruthlessness in world affairs, and patriotism. He is highly critical of liberal apologists for internationalism and cosmopolitanism, both of which he regards as nave and ineffectual in the battle to preserve civilization. This provocative and controversial view will appeal primarily to political conservatives. Although Harris is being compared with Francis Fukuyama, his book may not achieve the fame of The End of History and the Last Man. Nevertheless, it deserves a place on library shelves
Pulling punches
For those who believe it imperative to deal with the threat that became apparent after 9/11, this book is worthwhile. Mr. Harris makes some telling points, namely ÒIt is the enemy who defines us as his enemyÉwe are the enemy of those who murdered us on 9/11Éif you are the enemy, then you have an enemy. When you have it, this fact must change everything about the way you see the worldÉto insist on maintaining utopian values when your society is facing an enemy who wishes only to annihilate you is to invite annihilation.Ó
Yet he pulls his punches when he says we have become forgetful because the threats against civilization have become Òtoo distantÓ. (It is hard for some to forget the horrors of fascism and communism.) Moreover, when discussing how fantasy permeates the enemyÕs world view, he deemphasizes the context within which it arises, denying that there is Òsome inherent flaw in Islam, either as a culture or a religion, or in ArabsÓ. Consequently, he cannot counter the threat by providing disincentives to the Muslim and Arab movements by making them pay a price for their attacks.
Mr. Harris writes that Òthe various things that must be done to protect societyÉare at odds with those values that express the highest that civilized life has to offerÑtolerance, individual liberty, government by consensusÓ as though our response requires a rejection of civilization. Yet perhaps the highest value of civilization is justice, which is the very thing needed for our protection.
Mr. Harris notes that the Arabs did not develop their economic resources, nor create their own wealth, but have benefited from the West. Consequently, their advantages appear to stem from magic, rather than from dealing with reality. Surely they have gained from our trusting negotiations and agreements, while benefiting from Western protectionism. Yet most of their advantage has derived from exploiting the flaws in Western beliefs, which they have mastered with great clarity. Here, it is we who have been blind to political and economic realities. Thus whereas Mr. Harris has properly addressed the material and military realm, he has overlooked the primary source of enemy power, which is political and ideological.
I concur with his view that ÒThe civilization that the US is now called on to defend is not AmericaÕs or even the WestÕsÓ but civilization itself. I further agree with his requirement to review the positions of our utopian intelligentsia. However, it is unfortunate that Mr. Harris has not gotten to the source of the problem, namely the self-sacrificial orientation of our values, promulgated by liberal ideology, that incites and rewards the commitment of the Arab-Muslim bloc to destroy us.
Historical revisionism is not cool
A quote: "Forgetfulness occurs when those who have been long inured to civilized order can no longer remember a time in which they had to wonder whether their crops would grow to maturity without being stolen or their children sold into slavery by a victorious foe....They forget that in time of danger, in the face of the enemy, they must trust and confide in each other, or perish."
When things like this are said, it's funny because we're being led to believe there is an immediate danger out there...and it's Liberals. Well in Nazi Germany it was Jews who were the danger. Of this quote, the most important point is lost, that, sure we know things were and still are like this in some places, but in America we DON'T live like this. Times change, this fact seems to be lost on people. The book leads us to believe there is an "Enemy" out there. Not Jews this time, now it's Liberals.
Also the history: Historical revisionism at it's finest. Right-wing authors have made a high art out of this tactic of revising history to fit their needs. The Greeks were not "republicans". The did not live in "countries". They lived in city states. He claims Sparta was successful because they beat the Athenians. OK. The Spartans were the conservatives. What is left of them? What happened to them as soon as new tactics and technologies came on the scene? What value is there living your whole life as a servant to the state (see NAZIISM)? What art, or anything of lasting endurance, came out of Sparta? They were conservative all right, but their lack of willingness to change and adapt to the new political and military situations destroyed them almost immediately after their victory at Athens. New improvements in military strategy were un-"PC", liberal, and "Utopian". OK, you believe that Sparta, and what happened to you? You died.
Historical revisionism is not cool: read 1984 by George Orwell before reading this.
The Greeks did not live in the 'burbs and work for corporations. Some things ARE different in different times. This book takes historical situations and pretends the Ancient world was like "Ozzie and Harriet".
And no the Greeks did not have cell phones or mopeds.
