In the wake of the London attacks, I spent the day feeling numb. By now, that feeling is familiar. I don't think it is necessary to replay the London atrocities in this space, or verbosely lament how another layer in our civilization's veneer has forever been washed away. We all know it too well. There's plenty to read about how Britain's experiences with IRA bombs and the Blitz has endowed them with their trademark stiff upper lip. Britishers will manage terrorism as their cultural norms allow, unique from the Spanish and Americans.
Really, the whole 7/7 experience has left me brooding, and frankly, I am in a dark mood. So please forgive me for letting the black clouds of 7/7 shadow this little post; I can't summon the stiff upper lip on 7/8, not quite yet.
I've read about the clash of civilizations, and how our way of life is in the breach in the era of terrorism. I watched Red Ken impersonate Winnie, like he knows who his enemy is. I saw that rather strange video of Prime Minister Blair making a statement about the bombings, with the G-8 leaders standing behind him like placards. It wasn't Blair's statement that was strange -- it was the leaders arrayed behind him that were odd. They stood there in purported unity, nictating into history's television camera. For some reason, I wasn't overwhelmed with the feeling that they were unanimous in their opinions of what transpired in London that day. I detected no genuine solidarity, which one might expect from the leaders of the seven richest nations on Earth -- plus Russia, since we have to be nice to them. No, there behind Blair stood the Deer-8, blinking into terror's headlights. I half expected them to scatter in separate directions.
My wife and I are currently watching an old PBS miniseries on DVD called The Flame Trees of Thika, written by Elspeth Huxley. It's set in 1913 Kenya, where young Elspeth Grant and her parents acquired colonial land to cultivate with native labor. Throughout the series the juxtaposition of African tribal customs and English propriety contrast to absurd proportions. In one scene that we watched on the evening of 7/7, we saw the Grants on their English-like porch, surrounded by the dainty habiliments of high tea and crumpets. From their thatched balcony they looked down at the native workers' round huts, where the local chief and his entourage were witch-doctoring an ill tribesman, in a savage spectacle. And there sat the Grants, delicate teacups in hand on their English porch, gazing down at the peculiar natives, agog. Their English faces were bemusedly blank, like they were staring out from a high tower, exposed to the inexplicable.
I couldn't stop thinking about those G-8 guys standing behind Tony Blair who had the same listless glare as the Grants, in the face of the London bombing spectacle.
"What to do," Elspeth's perplexed father opined, "they have their way, and we have ours." Then he and his family resumed sipping their earl grey and politely munched on cucumber sandwiches, while the tribesman's hut went up in flames. And so too after Mr. Blair's speech about the horror of 7/7 London, the assembled world leaders momentarily dithered on their standing spots, and then shuffled back to the G-8 meeting, agendas and crumpets largely intact.
Really, I'm not suggesting here that terrorists can or should dictate the time, place and agenda of the G-8. Indeed, the world must press on. But I was struck by the dichotomy that took place yesterday. I really think that all of us in the West -- liberal, conservative, religious, sectarian, etc. -- would really rather worry about global warming, abortion, corporatism, creationism, financial matters and extending the terms of Social Security. Certainly, those issues are pressing. But even though the G-8's tone was grave, and the topic of terrorism was brutally apropos, I feel cynical the day after 7/7. Does the West really have what it takes to defeat nihilism?
I think it's debatable as to whether or not nihilism is a western disease that infected Islam, or visa versa. Europe's falling apart in the midst of trying to come together comes as no comfort when some kind of unanimity is required to defeat global terrorism. The shades and hues of nihilism has much to do with Europe's malaise, as well as the West's. Nihilism isn't just for Islamofascists.
So while I fully expect that Britain and the West will go on red alert for a while, in the larger view I sense a collective shoulder shrug. "What to do," a perplexed western world opines, and turns away to refresh a familiar teapot. Except this time, we're not in tribal Africa, with the option to go home to England, yet to be sullied by two devastating world wars and decades of indulgent socialism. This time, the savage spectacle is not easily and neatly separated from who we are, and who we might become.
"I think it's debatable as to whether or not nihilism is a western disease that infected Islam, or visa versa. "
I daresay late 19 century anarchists and early 20th century fascists were NOT infected by Islam. Either Islam was infected by the west (per Paul Berman), or Islamofascism and Western nihilism are independent reactions to modernity, but certainly Western nihilism didnt come from Islam.
Or perhaps im misreading what you meant?
Does the West really have what it takes to defeat nihilism?
Yes, that's the bottomline question, isn't it?
Some of us do - but do enough of us? In enough countries?
Or will Europe and the Europhiles here in the US play "let's kick the nasty Americans again" games -- a decadent Nero fiddling, (temporarily) secure in his villa, while Rome burns around him?
The stiff upper lip can be an unwitting disservice at times.
This is indeed one of them.
The future of Western Civilization is under a slow, persistent attack...lulled to sleep with a response of muted anger that evolves with each 'minor' attack (within context of 9/11 scale) into an almost helpless indifference over time.
The retaliation with language like 'They will never conquer our will or spirit' and 'They despise our freedom' is hollow and ineffectual when left those words alone. Such phrases border dispassinoate, when the time for passion is now.
Passion inspires action. Action is the antidote to the creeping 'helpless indifference' (for lack of a beter phrase at the moment).
So don't fret over the elusiveness of the stiff upper lip, Cicero.
If you ask me, the fact that it is fleeting and elusive is a good thing.
Cheers, my friend.
"I half expected them to scatter in separate directions."
That comes later. There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests.
"Islamofascism and Western nihilism are independent reactions to modernity, but certainly Western nihilism didnt come from Islam."
I think that is part of the answer. The other part is where they diverge. The islamofascists are nothing more than classical fascists wrapped in religious garb, hardly new. The nihilist post-modernists cant or wont recognize thatreality because they have too much hatred of Western Civilization in common with the terrorists. Its too easy to transfer their own rationals for hating the West onto the Islamicists. That would be a fatal mistake were these people to have any real power.
The problem we have in waging this war is that the nihilists cant bring themselves to advocate spreading western ideals like democracy, freedom, and capitalism even at the cost of defeat. They have come to a place where they view Western Society as just as unjust as the Taliban, those arent just hyperbolic slogans. If they cant have the party their way theyd rather burn down the dance hall.
>>The problem we have in waging this war is that the nihilists cant bring themselves to advocate spreading western ideals like democracy, freedom, and capitalism even at the cost of defeat.
Democracy can go get stuffed. When a significant percentage of those supposedly fighting the "War on Terrorism" demonstrate even an elementary understanding of Freedom and Capitalism, maybe some progress can be made. I'm not holding my breath.
Yesterday a bunch of pathetic fools killed 50 people. This is unfortunate, but in the grand scheme of things, not particularly important. I'm not impressed with the "strategy" of these madmen, and I refuse to be intimidated by them. I'm also not going to be suckered by those who wish to use the situation to take advantage of me.
>>The future of Western Civilization is under a slow, persistent attack
I think you need to remember that just over 60 years ago London was being terrorised and blown to bits by the nation that produced Kant, Goethe, and Beethoven. "Western Civilization" is a fragile concept.
Does the West really have what it takes to defeat nihilism?
A related question, maybe the proceeding question is Does the West believe in itself and its values enough to try? It's a lot easier to fight for something than to fight against something. I think the most critical factor we need political, media and intelectual leaders to do is to stand up and defend the Western tradition. Not to say it is perfect, but not to say it is just good enough either. Just good enough does not inspire.
The Western tradition provides more freedom, opportunity and progress for humanity than any of the laternatives that exist, have existed, or have been imagined. If we take obvious pride in where we've come from, where we are, and where we are going, we can inspire people to stand up against the nihilists.
David:
""Western Civilization" is a fragile concept."
Agreed. However, was Britain then also under attack from a fascist ideology headed up by one European man? The attack is the same today but under different stragegic constraints.
TJ:
"Democracy can go get stuffed....I'm not impressed with the "strategy" of these madmen, and I refuse to be intimidated by them. I'm also not going to be suckered by those who wish to use the situation to take advantage of me."
So what you are saying is that you:
A) Have no better strategy to offer, just complaints.
B) Will defiantly object to such murderous actions within the confines of your mind and conscience.
C) A and B.
Quite effective. Meanwhile, while you and others like you righteously cling to inaction on moral authority, the wave continues...and grows...until either you and your society no longer exist or you are spurned to action, possibly too late to save yourself.
Your inaction is your (our) weakness. Your (our) weakness is the invitation and source of motivation that encourages more of the same.
Keep refusing to be suckered. That's how they are taking advantage of you.
You don't see it and they delight in your blindness.
Sure we would all like to address these issues and more. Solving these issues however does not help when terrorism isn't even on the agenda of the G-8. Terrorism should have been priority #1 on the agenda. What do you expect when it doesn't even make the list.
"Democracy can go get stuffed. When a significant percentage of those supposedly fighting the "War on Terrorism" demonstrate even an elementary understanding of Freedom and Capitalism, maybe some progress can be made. I'm not holding my breath."
Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.
>>However, was Britain then also under attack from a fascist ideology headed up by one European man?
Britain most certainly was.
>>The attack is the same today but under different stragegic constraints.
Indeed. But my point was mainly that "savages" can appear anywhere, at any time, in any cultural conditions, whether in the North, the South, the East or the West. "Western Civilization" may be what's needed to end the present conflict, but in order for its values to be universally accepted, human beings would probably have to evolve to a higher stage of development.
At any rate, it seems unlikely that the War on Terror can be won by military means. It's really a cultural and ideological war, and can probably only be decisively won by means of education.
Liberalhawks re-statement is very solid. It's also possible that Cicero's "visa-versa" meant that Islamism is a 'disease' that moved westward to prey, seeing nihilism as the defining weakness of its enemy. Or that its aims are symbiotic with the nihilism inside the societies it targets.
That gives us a continuum of:
1: Islam was infected by the west (per Paul Berman), and fundamentalist Islam + Western fascism, Marxism + nihilism = modern Islamism. A.L. has posted bits on this before.
2: Islamism is a 'disease' that bestirred itself to prey, seeing nihilism as the defining weakness of its enemies. A vacuum it could both fill and take advantage of.
3: Islamofascism and Western nihilism are independent reactions to modernity. A related variant on this is the "rage at the same symbols of whose who have slain their god-idols" meme, which updates the critique to the recent era.
And then there's this concept, rattiling around in embryonic form within my head:
4. Islamism is not just coincidental with modern nihilism, or enabled by its weakness, or even infected by it - though those things may be true. What it is becoming, however, is something more: a symbiote with it.
Sir Richard Burton, said to be the first white man to visit Mecca, remarked the problem the British have is that they move around the world as though they were moving from room to room in their own house. That sums up the problem in the West and those whom emulate our values(tolerance, respect for the law, republican democracy et al) now. The Jihadists and their terrorist allies are OUR house, determined to burn it down.
Too much of our response has been as though the children are having a tantrum and being wealthy enough to fix it, we are alarmed but quite sure they will grow out of it. The Jihadists are NOT going to grow out of it. We will have to decide how to stop them and not destroy OUR humanity in the process. Destroying our humanity is what to many people are worried about. Hopefully post- London everyone will understand the Jihadists want to burn down the house with us in it. If that happens OUR humanity is gone anyway and the house will not matter.
""Western Civilization" may be what's needed to end the present conflict, but in order for its values to be universally accepted, human beings would probably have to evolve to a higher stage of development. "
But I dont think universal acceptance is the goal, if by that you mean 100% of humans embracing it. We certainly dont even have that here. A lot of people talk about the threshold being things like:
1.self determination
2.limits to corruption
3.equality
4.freedom of thought, speech, and press
5.capitalism, and hence prosperity
Once those processes are in place, I think the cultures will naturally come around to the type of resistance to violence and hate that are required to kill off terrorist movements. Its probably not possibly to force, coerce, or convince those societies to abandon hate and look inwards. But by providing the tools for freedom and prosperity we instill a natural conservatism to not rock the boat. We give them something to lose.
"At any rate, it seems unlikely that the War on Terror can be won by military means. It's really a cultural and ideological war, and can probably only be decisively won by means of education."
I dont think the most hawkish among us believe in a purely military solution. But education is an empty hole without fundamental political change. How do you preach peace, prosperity, and harmony when it is withheld? You have to place the tools for these things while teaching about them.
uh, guys, I think theres a little confusion about what we're talking about when we say "western nihilism" Berman was talking about a violent antihumanist antiliberal ideologies - Russian anarchism, and european fascism, for the most part.
I dont see those groups as being at all important today.
If youre using it to refer to hardline relativists you may be on okay ground philosophically - but youre certainly getting away from Bermans (and I think Hitchens) arguments - which is okay, you have your own.
But I dont see that we really have any of them in power anywhere in the G8 either.
What we have are more or less cynical pols - all of whom want to beat terrorism, all of whom are taking steps to do so - but who dont all agree on how. Now I agree with democracy promotion, and I agree with the Iraq war as a key to that - the Lewis-Wolfowitz strategy if you will. Which is why im reading here, and not somewhere else. But to say that anyone who disagrees with that is a nihilist? And thus similar to the enemy?
>>4. Islamism is not just coincidental with modern nihilism, or enabled by its weakness, or even infected by it - though those things may be true. What it is becoming, however, is something more: a symbiote with it.
At the risk of sounding trite, I'd say that Islamism is just the latest global nihilistic fad, succeeding, though probably not replacing, Fascism/Nazism and Communism, which were also nihilistic perversions of ideas that were once linked to ethical values. The difference is mainly that Islamism derives from an Eastern, not a Western source - but it certainly connects with Western nihilisms, I agree.
Here are some words worth hearing, by Andrew Sullivan:
"Sure, we fight with each other; but up against this kind of evil, our divisions are petty. I also admire Livingstone's ability to see how liberal and left-wing Londoners who have helped build an amazingly vibrant, diverse and tolerant city are particularly affronted by these medieval monsters. Maybe this will help build support for a war that is as unavoidable as it is unlosable. I don't mean we won't continue to differ over means and methods and tactics and strategy. We will. That's our strength. But right and left, we are in this together."
Sullivan has returned to his old form since this happened.
Frankly I dont see the basis for despair. The UK is working against terror on all fronts, from LE to Iraq, to Afghanistan, and will continue to do so. They may need to tweak their extradition policies, and i expect a serious debate on that. France, which is NOT helping in Iraq, actually is far more serious about extradition than the UK is.
This will not alter the course of events in Iraq, or elsewhere in the middle east - indeed, did you see the brief by the general of the 3rd ID - bombings in Baghdad are down by half from late May, when Op Lightning began - thats just the sort of metric ive been talking with Bill Roggio about.
"At any rate, it seems unlikely that the War on Terror can be won by military means. It's really a cultural and ideological war, and can probably only be decisively won by means of education"
ultimately thats true. I think curriculum reforms in KSA, in Pakistan,etc are crucial. But those states, which are moving grudgingly in that direction, need the security space to do so. And of course education is not only in the class room. Voting booths, demonstrations, civil society in general are all part of the class room of democracy (though i know youre talking about things broader than political democracy)
"So while I fully expect that Britain and the West will go on red alert for a while, in the larger view I sense a collective shoulder shrug. "What to do," a perplexed western world opines, and turns away to refresh a familiar teapot"
what they did during the blitz - shrug, make some tea, and go on playing their role in the War.
Unless you think theres some major thing we (collectively) should be doing in the war, that we're not doing now, Im not sure what the source of your angst is. Which isnt to say its not justified, its just hard to discuss it, is all.
Islamicists are not nihilists, that much is certain. They have very exacting beliefs and values. If anything they are the opposite of nihilists.
LH (#15) -
Sloppy argument. Just because such people aren't in power in the G8 doesn't mean they aren't prevalent, or influential, in those socieities. As for "anyone who disagrees is a nihilist," that's an argument you made up of whole cloth.
And a very different one from "many of those who are most strenuously opposed aree animated or significantly influenced by anti-liberal and/or nihilist ideologies." Which I believe to be true.
Finally, I too have a great deal of time for the Lewis-Wolfowitz analysis of root causes. These days, however, I am less sunny then you are re: the prospects. Perhaps it's that natural conservative acknowledgement of tragedy and fall as a strong force in human history reasserting itself. Or just more frequent exposure to the moonbat brigades in their own words.
But I am not nearly as convinced as you are re: "...all of whom want to beat terrorism, all of whom are taking steps to do so..." among the politicians, let alone the political class. Too much evidence to the contrary.
I do believe, however, that the saving grace in this war continues to be, and will continue to be, our enemies.
Longer term, all that means is that our civilization is dead once we get a smarter enemy than the Islamists (and the GWOVE will eventually produce them, vid. my piece on The SPECTRE of Terror, Inc. in Sept. 2002). See aso Victor Davis Hanson, today:
And Lexington Green:
We may in fact lose it to the Dark Ages. But what we make of this time we live in matters, and there is honour in choosing to fight the fight.
>>Voting booths, demonstrations, civil society in general are all part of the class room of democracy (though i know youre talking about things broader than political democracy)<
But is it going to be possible to introduce voting booths, civil society, and the rest of it to the classroom of the Greater Middle East on the model of Iraq? Echoing the Russian political analyst Alexander Golts, I'd suggest that it seems the West may have to devise some different means of forcible education if it's to make an impact on such a vast geographical, cultural and demographic area.
Mark Buehner:
>>Islamicists are not nihilists, that much is certain. They have very exacting beliefs and values. If anything they are the opposite of nihilists<
It depends what you mean by beliefs and values. Like Hitler and Goering, Stalin, Beria and Dzerzhinsky had what they considered to be very strongly held beliefs and values - but they were based for the most part on murder, torture, and armed conquest. Nowadays many people would characterize those men as nihilists.
"Sloppy argument. Just because such people aren't in power in the G8 doesn't mean they aren't prevalent, or influential, in those socieities. "
the original post made extensive reference to the G8 leaders, and indeed was an extended rif on a photo of them. I thought the nihilism referred to them. Are there folks in Britain and France, say, who are truely nihilist wrt to terrorism - sure, but there are also folks (esp in France, and Germany) who are MORE firm on the war, than their leaders.
"As for "anyone who disagrees is a nihilist," that's an argument you made up of whole cloth."
I may have misread. I was going on the implication that what was under discussion was the G8 leaders.
"And a very different one from "many of those who are most strenuously opposed aree animated or significantly influenced by anti-liberal and/or nihilist ideologies." Which I believe to be true."
Those who are most strenuously opposed to the entire WOT? I wouldnt disagree.
"Finally, I too have a great deal of time for the Lewis-Wolfowitz analysis of root causes. These days, however, I am less sunny then you are re: the prospects. Perhaps it's that natural conservative acknowledgement of tragedy and fall as a strong force in human history reasserting itself. Or just more frequent exposure to the moonbat brigades in their own words. "
Perhaps its my liberalism that makes me optimistic then :) Also that I avoid the leftwing blogosphere. Im sure reading Kos or DU leaves one depressed. I read Galloway, and I see that his party took one seat in the Commons, and that his words were rejected by the Labour party spokesmen yesterday. I look at actual Dem politics here, where even someone as irresolute as Carl Levin opposes a withdrawl timetable from Iraq. Most of all I look at Iraqi politics, where the Constitutional meetings have begun. Or Egypt, where the trial of Nour has been postponed. Or Kuwait, where the first election with women voters is coming up.
"But is it going to be possible to introduce voting booths, civil society, and the rest of it to the classroom of the Greater Middle East on the model of Iraq? "
What about the model of Lebanon?
Well technically Sadam's Iraq had voting booths and a civil society (if by civil, you mean "orderly"). But the important thing here is a constitution with guarantees of minority rights and I'm not sure how much of this needs to be "taught." But if anyone needs to be taught it will need to be the Iraqi military. If the Iraqi military sees itself as servent to the constitutional framework, then it can provide the security needed to make this work. If the military ultimately alligns with a faction -- all is lost.
"But is it going to be possible to introduce voting booths, civil society, and the rest of it to the classroom of the Greater Middle East on the model of Iraq? Echoing the Russian political analyst Alexander Golts, I'd suggest that it seems the West may have to devise some different means of forcible education if it's to make an impact on such a vast geographical, cultural and demographic area. "
thats the 64,000 dollar question, isnt it? Weve chosen a path that starts with the 4th wave paradigm, the revolutions of Eastern europe, latin america, east asia, with a focus on recent changes in Serbia and Indonesia, but that recognized something huge was needed to kickstart the process in the greater ME. That kickstart was the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, after two more color revolutions outside the mideast (ukraine and Georgia) we are looking at events in the ME and muslim asia - Kyrghiz, Uzbek, Egypt, Lebanon, etc. Its a huge tableau, with a range of different conflicts and relevant happenings - from open war in Waziristan and Yemen, to almost open war in KSA, to protest and politics in Lebanon and Egypt, to the work of school teachers, and brave secularists in places like Punjab, or the Persian Gulf. Thats why one turns to a place like this to follow it, even if one doesnt always agree ideologically :)
"Well technically Sadam's Iraq had voting booths and a civil society (if by civil, you mean "orderly")"
By civil society, I mean the whole host if organizations other than the state - businesses, NGOs, political parties, etc. Its been widely used in understanding the development of post communist societies.
Victor Davis Hanson has an interesting piece, explaining why he thinks it might actually work:
A Speech Given to the Woodrow Wilson Center on Democracy - Part II: Spreading Democracy in the Modern World
Other days, he looks at our society and he's a lot less optimistic about the outcome.
I can relate.
Oh, and Liberalhawk. We can use some of that sunny liberal disposition here. Stick around, and never feel that you need to apologize for it.
>>Your inaction is your (our) weakness. Your (our) weakness is the invitation and source of motivation that encourages more of the same.
Who said anything about inaction and weakness?
There's plenty of action to be taken. Certainly someone should get rid of the clowns responsible for yesterday's mayhem. That said, there are much higher priorities for action with much bigger payoffs, as I've discussed many times before. I'll name two today:
Darfur.
Mugabe.
Now, you're a member of the Brotherhood. If you're interested in assembling a team of brothers to go deal with one of the above problems, I might be interested in assisting. I'm not particularly biff, but my skills might be of some limited value. And if the plan is good enough, there's an outside chance that a certain Marine I know might be able to chip in substantial resources.
Failing that, my team and I will probably continue working on indirect ways to attack the Great Firewall of China.
I'm sorry I wasn't around to add to this thread when it was hot -- I dashed off the essay and then dashed out to a wedding.
The discussion here about nihilism is interesting, and quite broad. I was using the generic definition of nihilism, which is:
nihilism -- n 1: a revolutionary doctrine that advocates destruction of the social system for its own sake 2: the delusion that things (or everything, including the self) do not exist; a sense that everything is unreal [syn: nihilistic delusion] 3: complete denial of all established authority and institutions
I am not certain as to how to compare Islamic and Western nihilists. Certainly, they are cut from different cloth. But I think they have in common the advocacy of destruction of the social system for its own sake; and they share a complete denial of established authority and institutions.
Arguably, Islamofascist nihilism rests on a foundation that is authoritative and institutional indeed -- that of Allah's authority reflected in the institution of Islam and Sharia law. So theirs is a revolution against one order to supplant it with another. But frankly, being a non-Muslim, I don't believe in jihadist Allah and the Koran, so I consider these people to be quite deluded, and therefore nihilistic to the core. And I wouldn't care a whit if it weren't for the fact that the Muslim religion tends proselytize with swords. And RDX. And someday, nukes?
In my mind I often think of nihilism simply as decadence. I find the fringes of the western left and the Islamic right remarkably decadent. Both the suicide bomber and the self-hating, destructive leftist are excessively self-indulgent. They each are degenerates of their culture. That's probably different from nihilism, but it is where I find the similarities between them. And really, I don't know if jihadist decadence and western left-wing decadence influenced each other or not. Although I agree with Joe's definition #4:
4. Islamism is not just coincidental with modern nihilism, or enabled by its weakness, or even infected by it - though those things may be true. What it is becoming, however, is something more: a symbiote with it.
If Islamic moral decay in the form of suicide bombs on double-deckers and train tubes occurs because of its symbiotic relationship with western decadence, then the war is truly within the West, is it not? And if this is true, 'fighting terrorism' probably means a lot more than fighting Islamic degenerates with bombs, who are arguably symptoms of a Western disease. As a culture, we need to redefine who we are, and what we stand for if we are to break the cycle of self-destruction. That's primarily a moral conversation that must take place within the West.
That's a tall order, and I want to be optimistic. But so far, there's not much to base my optimism on.
Dear Friends, Citizens, Country-men&women,
Here's how it is, these are the enemies of humanity and what to do about it.
(Get yourself a dictionary and look them up.)
1. The Corrupt -
2. The Criminal -
3. The Bigot -
4. The Hypocrite - Zealot -
5. The Greedy
6. The Jealous
7. The Ignorant
8. All sub groups of the above.
Locations: To some extent - everywhere.
Main Concentrations - Where ever there is ignorance and no democracy.
Iran
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Nord Korea
Africa
China
(Mostly under control in South America / Columbia)
Most Major Threat to the Free World - Neutrality and Noninvolvement.
Solution - Education, Democracy, Good Government, Law and Order -
A World Supreme Court and Law Enforcement Agency
Who has the most to lose from Law and Order? Criminals etc. (See # List)
World Wide Global 911 Service - Interpol, FBI etc. - World Marshals - World Health Organization etc.
How to achieve - Stand together and cooperate.
Global Emergency Service
.|. .).