George Handlery about the week that was. Create equality: Shall theory or experience count? Conservatives are for structured change. History‘s lesson: what not to do. Pay ransom for careless citizens? Why some hate what they emulate.

1. North Korea has returned the journalists it had captured, tried and duly condemned. A group of climbers is held by Iran. In both cases, regardless of the sympathies for the pawns, raised eyebrows are provoked. Westerners tend to get in harms way. It is the result of mindlessly exposing themselves to the danger that is inherent in getting physically too close to radical tyrannies. To their advantage, the evil of such systems is dangerously under estimated. This inclination of arrogant innocents to provoke trouble suggests that the ones who stumble into traps  set for them do not understand the nature of the systems to which they expose themselves. Most conveniently, for politically uneducated Westerners the last dangerous totalitarian was the National Socialist Hitler they downgrade as „Fascist“. This not only exonerates Stalin -and thereby existing systems with a connection to his- but also reduces the wariness that is due to existing radical totalitarian regimes.

One can detect a further, potentially costly symptom of an illusion. These travelers do more than to only misjudge the systems they are provoking. They also feel secure in the irrational conviction that nothing much might be done to them. The idea that the dictatorship suppressing its people does not affect those born to be free has, starting with the Thirties, paid dividends to extremists in power. Being misunderstood and underestimated as a source of danger provides opportunities that have been, and continue to be, shrewdly exploited.

Those who through their risk-provoking comportment make their capture, detention an then their rescue after a pay off into a ritual, do more than just putting themselves mindlessly in harms way. Significant disadvantages are created for the countries that wind up paying ransoms by making concessions. Through their carelessness, captives force their protective governments to pay the asking price raised by their captors for their citizens that are about to become modern galley slaves. Here primarily not financial costs but political-economic concessions are meant. Of equal weight is that the clever culprit makes a double profit. For the capture respect and then a pay off is extended. For the subsequent release, a political gain is harvested. Internationally the discharge is used to prove that „one can do business“ with the „humanists“ that are, at worst cast in the mold of being „reasonable“ kidnappers. This will undermine the sanctions imposed against such regimes and will soften the front that is to be built up against them.

The foregoing triggers a question. Should those who, through their own fault, get themselves captured be purchased back at a high costs to the security of their government?

2.Why they hate the West. On paper, the naive might expect appreciative gratitude for the West‘s willingness to transfer its recipe for success to undeveloped societies. The actual resentment is in many ways a characteristic response to success. Even in advanced societies  a number of political parties have, in their program measures that reflect the enmity individual laggards feel toward the high fliers in their midst. This suggests that the hostility to achievement, when its causes are not understood, is a standard response by those that are left behind. The failing have a tendency to assert, in an act of the self-treatment of their bruised egos that, success is always the consequence of crookedness. Therefore, the plight of those that remain stuck on the ground is transformed to reflect the high moral qualities of losers. This puts a „good guys, bad guys“ cloak over the phenomena. At this juncture we shall remember that, on a personal and collective level, the gap between success and failure can only be overcome by the copying of the ways that caused the rise of winning individuals, classes or societies. Generally, those who need to advance by imitation tend to lack the self-confidence to follow. In addition, the need to copy provokes resentment -which is why pupils dislike some of their teachers. Imitation implies that the imitator becomes a bit like the imitated. This does more than to threaten the ill-perceived identity of the follower. If the moralizing explanation for falling behind is accepted, such imitation implies the sacrifice of spiritual virtue on the altar of material progress. At the same time, nationalism -or a sense of exaggerated community consciousness- is likely to characterize the worldview of belated starters. Therefore, the feared loss of identity or a „we will become like they are“ constitutes a barrier to the implementation of proven success strategies. With  that, a new reverse to be rationalized away will have arisen. Once this happens repeatedly, the solution to under-development is not seen in trying to catch up effectively. Destroying the proclaimed adversary, whose success is seen as a humiliating challenge and as a declaration of war, is likely to receive priority.

3. Equality might be a valid ideal that is worth pursuing. Any positive assessment will depend on the definition of the concept. Whether someone accepts equality as a goal or not is a question of personal preferences reflecting a psychological state. An inclination to dismiss some of our historical experience in favor of abstract logical constructions can also play a role. It is another question whether equality, as some assure us, does a  favor to all of us. If equality is radically implemented we will wind up with a static society.  A mobile order is propelled by the efforts exhibited by those „unequal“ in ability and drive. This element unfolds its contribution in the expectation of rewards earned by achievers.

4. Equalitarians might defend their position by suggesting that they do not advocate absolute equality. With that said they admit that they wish to determine who will, and to what extent, be made how equal and who shall be allowed to evade the norms that are set for most. Since no natural force can perform this task, inadvertently, the tyranny of the to be appointed „judges“ is advocated.

5. In some quarters „conservative“ is, and has been for some time, a dirty word. However, what is „conservative“ in reality? The conservative wishes to channel change without losing sight of some critical points of reference. These are tradition that is established folkways, and the existing attitudes and preferences with which we are endowed. In this case, change is welcome but it is to be structured in such a way that we do not lose our essence in the process.

6. The study of history is to lead to an awareness of precedents. This puts emphasis on „meaning“ and not on the lexical knowledge of names and dates. Sounding knowledgeable is not a legitimate purpose. Admittedly, the allegation that history is a guide to the future is not tenable. Even so, a correctly understood awareness of history, if not made into a millstone around the neck, can serve as a useful guide. It might tell us what we should not do.

7. Some of us like to hide behind a fiction that convinces no one besides the tale‘s inventors. It is that actions against Jihadists in places such as Afghanistan are a police operation directed against religion-driven rowdies. The result is a justification for comfortable, therefore weakfish, counter measures discreetly opposing the unwelcome challenge. Actually, the ongoing conflict is a war of the new type. In it the „other side‘s“ advantage is its criminal brutality and the victim‘s denial of this. This confusion eggs Jihadists on to find their preferred solution in violence. Therefore, movements such as the Islamists‘ practice indiscriminate violence, that is „total violence“ -as in Göbbels‘ „total war“. The limitation of the approach is not set by concepts of decency but by the extent of the capability to destroy. The response that under reacts, or the one that denies the perceivable parameters of the ongoing struggle, aids the enemy. It does not, as it is hoped, result in „light“ treatment of the faithless by their foe. The adversary does not extend, as a dividend for moderation, restraint even if outsiders find moderation to be of advantage because they calculate rationally their opponent‘s options. Given Islamist fanaticism, restraint, such as refraining from terrorism if other means promise to give comparable advantages, is an unlikely outcome. Responding softly to actions that were intended to cause maximal damage by resorting to the least of one‘s means, fails to ensure an appreciative „pong“ acknowledging the „ping“. Moderated responses to attacks by the terrorist adversary will not mitigate the blow at Western homelands. The PC-related reluctance to face up to the nature of the challenge and, therefore to employ all the means in the arsenal to maintain equivalence, suggests that terrorism will continue to pay. Obviously, what is allowed to pay will  not go away.