Author: Curt Doolittle

FWIW: Linquistic analysis makes it obvious he’s from islamic culture, and I don’t doubt he understood the difference between the primary values of both civilizations – simply because this is a very ‘western’ way of thinking and he was in an environment where we teach the western analytic method but also contrast with other cultures.
I think his thesis could have been expanded upon but given it’s simplicity it’s pretty useful. And we know why, historically our cultures diverged. Because europeanism began as an aristocratic military organization and christianity only as a mocement for womenand slaves, while the fertile crescent was a region of constant conflict from collisions of four continents and an endless supply of raiders from all directions. Then islamic civ began in no small part as a revolt against tribal chieftains, and a long history of conquerors and oppressors who were abusive. In other worlds western top down (like china) and islam bottup up. And the infighting between persia and europe made it possible. And the Nicean attempt to convert christianity from a middle eastern informal system to european formal system made it intolerable, especially for the people of the peninsula.
I wouldn’t doubt he was influenced or given the idea, but he clearly understood the meaning of it. Unfortunately like many thinkers he didn’t solve the problem. That is, that monarchies are far more durable and reliable than democracies, and that the system of government is all but irrelevant if you have rule of law of the natural law, which is effectiely dispute resolution by who ‘paid’ for something.
My complaint about the west is the absolutely devastatingly foolish ambition to spread democracy that just incdreases infighting and corruption, instead of rule of law and a court system and reliable police to enforce it. The tendency of democratic governments is to get involved in everything. Where the natural law and rule of law, are just about who owns a thing and pays for a thing.
There is a value to western naivety becaues it is part of our high trust of one another. Btu we are unlike all other people in the world, and we are often foolish that what works for us will work for others, who do not have that trust, and whose politicians are not trustworthy.

Reply addressees: @elbanna101