In Pursuit of the Non-Secular

I got a number of responses to my last  post-unfortunately none of them through the comment function which probably says more about my ineptitude with a computer than my readers.  Be that as it may they ranged from "great" to a rather more detailed questioning of a number of my points.

One of the more difficult queries was if I were not perhaps over-egging the dangers of the Islamic State just as in the past the West might have over-egged the perils of communism.

At breakfast this morning I ventured that the communist "threat" was actually a totalitarian government bent on world domination and that the Islamic State threat was also a form or totalitarian threat cloaked in the shrouds of religious fervour.

I was whacked immediately for suggesting that the US's reaction to the Soviet threat was valid given that it was actually one imperialist power confronting another.

That set me to reflecting on imperialism in general and whether one can speak of different forms of imperialism and is one more acceptable than another.

My answer is that the subjugation of one group by another, regardless of the rationale behind it is clearly despicable.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.  And it doesn't mean that there aren't gradients to it which brings me back to my Realpolitik point that the "good" solution might not exist and the less bad proposition is often the best one can hope to achieve.

Still, supporting South American dictatorships because they were in our sphere of influence and more importantly because they were much more malleable then democratically elected governments in supporting our economic imperialism leaves me very uncomfortable.  The fear of communism as an excuse for the removal of Allende and replacing him with the monstrous Pinochet is indefensible-regardless of the fact that the domino theory was the dominant ideology at the time.

Indeed, it is the US action in Chile which made me pause for a moment with regards to the Islamic State.

But just for a moment.  

Pinochet was eventually removed-through the democratic process.  There is no way that the Islamic State can be removed through a democratic process.  They are by definition anti-democratic. In the various forms of an IS manifesto that I have read they state that they are declaring war against the current state of affairs.  The objective is to replace the concepts of law, politics, economic and sociology fashioned by the west with an implementation of law based on the Koran and the tenets of the Sharia.

Global domination predicated on a medieval interpretation of a religious law is not for me.

And just to be clear, I am not enamoured with any evangelical creed.  This is not a comment on Islam- it is as good or bad as any other mainstream religion.  It is a statement directed at any fanatic who would force their world view on me.