Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes in the Wall Street Journal about Samuel P Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. She claims it describes the world as it is, not as President Obama wishes it to become. She says we have to win the clash of civilizations. But is she not speaking against herself then, by assuming the fusion of civilizations to a One World scenario?
The US chose not to rule the world. I was under the assumption that this is a futile approach. I think Obama has a point in facilitating the cohabitation of Earth. We have to get along with the other civilizations rather than to win out somehow. After all, Fukuyama's idea about liberal democratic capitalism remaining as the ideology of choice is not that bad. I think he still might be right. I don't think this means that we have reached the "end of history" though.
Unfortunately then we are heading for a new Europe scenario on a world scale. The multipolar world everyone have been talking about. Someone recently wrote that we are now historically positioned again before World War I. I am not necessarily that pessimistic but I have a feeling we have retracted maturity wise due to the use of new technology, unfortunately. In some areas of the world they might just drive people a little too hard?
Ms Ali brings up China and Islam as the main competitors on the stage. I would say that Islam as a threat has been over rated. There is not, nor has it been, a risk that Islam would conquer the infidel West. We have terrorism yes, but that is down almost to a police level. I don't think it will disappear. It is rather a built-in problem with current management systems.
China, however, seems to become a real competitor. Mostly because of its state capitalism which is an economic system that entices many authoritarian governments around the globe.
En försvagning är en försvagning, inte en förstärkning
5 timmar sedan