The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.— Samuel P. Huntington
The most heartwarming Samuel P. Huntington quotes that may be undiscovered and unusual
It was one thing to contain the Soviet Union in Europe because Britain, France, and Germany were all willing to join in. But will Japan and other Asian countries be willing to join in the containment of China?
Islam's borders are bloody and so are its innards.
The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.
Partial truths or half-truths are often more insidious than total falsehoods.
But then I came to the conclusion that no, while there may be an immigration problem, it isn't really a serious problem. The really serious problem is assimilation.
Power remains strong when it remains in the dark; exposed to the sunlight it begins to evaporate.
Some Westerners […] have argued that the West does not have problems with Islam but only with violent Islamist extremists. Fourteen hundred years of history demonstrate otherwise.
Democracy is premised, in some measure, on majority rule, and democracy is difficult in a situation of concentrated inequalities in which a large, impoverished majority confronts a small, wealthy oligarchy.
It will take a long time, and certainly the West will remain the dominant civilization well into the next century, but the decline is occurring.
The relations between countries in the coming decade are most likely to reflect their cultural commitments, their cultural ties and antagonism with other countries.
Nationalism is a central ideology for people who are trying to establish their own states in which they can play a dominant role.
I think fundamentalism is this radical attitude toward one's own identity and civilization as compared to other people's identities and cultures.
The argument now that the spread of pop culture and consumer goods around the world represents the triumph of Western civilization trivializes Western culture. The essence of Western civilization is the Magna Carta, not the Magna Mac. The fact that non-Westerners may bite into the latter has no implications for their accepting the former.
In the emerging world of ethnic conflict and civilizational clash, Western belief in the universality of Western culture suffers three problems: it is false; it is immoral; and it is dangerous.
Hispanics speak Spanish or Portuguese, which are languages we Americans are familiar with, so it doesn't seem to pose the same types of problems as Arabic-speaking Muslims do in Europe.
Every civilization sees itself as the center of the world and writes its history as the central drama of human history.
Two significant developments in the past several decades have been the collapse of communism as an ideology and the general acceptance, in rhetoric, if not practice, of liberal democracy.
There will be associations and partnerships between some Muslim countries and some Christian countries. Those already exist. And they may shift as different regimes come and go and interests change.
We really only came around to accepting and integrating the propositional dimension of identity into a concept of ourselves at the time of the American Revolution.
Thus, biologically speaking the American people are literally only half an immigrant people.
Civilizations evolve over time, and most scholars of civilization, including people like Carol Quigley, argue that they go through periods of warring states, and eventually evolve into a universal state.
Cultural America is under siege. And as the Soviet experience illustrates, ideology is a weak glue to hold together people otherwise lacking racial, ethnic, and cultural sources of community.
In the coming decades, questions of identity, meaning cultural heritage, language, and religion will play a central role in politics.
A lot of people tend to think I'm a dogmatic ideologue, which I'm not.
And the big question for the West, of course, and to the Europeans is, what other countries, which were formerly part of the Soviet bloc, should be incorporated into western institutions?
These transnationalists have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the elite's global operations
I am doubtful that there will be any sort of real coherence of Muslim societies into a single political system run by an elected or non-elected group of leaders.
Religiosity distinguishes America from most other Western societies.
Americans are also overwhelmingly Christian, which distinguishes them from many non-Western peoples. Their religiosity leads Americans to see the world in terms of good and evil to a much greater extent than most other peoples.
Well, I think the United States first of all has to recognize the world for what it is.
It was this society and culture that among other things - including economic opportunities here and repression in Europe - attracted subsequent generations of immigrants to this country.
Finally, in my critique of the immigration image of America, it is also important to know that we're not only a nation of immigrants, but we are in some part a nation of emigrants, which often gets neglected.
The basis of association and antagonism among countries has changed over time.
Obviously Pakistan and the U.S. are very different countries, but we have common geopolitical interests in preventing communist take over in Afghanistan and hence, now that Pakistan has a government that we can cooperate with, even though it is a military government, we are working together with them in order to promote our common interests. But obviously we also differ with Pakistan on a number of issues.
Iran of course is Shiite, while the bulk of the Arabs are Sunni, that is a problem or could be a problem. Also, there is the simple fact that Iran is non-Arab and most of the Muslims in the Middle East are Arab.
Obviously there are divisions within the West and divisions within Islam - there are different sects, different communities, different countries. So neither one is homogenous at all. But they do have things in common.
Quite obviously power will continue to play a central role in global politics as it always does. But usually there is something else.
People everywhere talk about Islam and the West.
Presumably that has some relationship to reality, that these are entities that have some meaning and they do. Of course the core ofthat reality is differences in religion.
Many more people in the world are concerned about sports than human rights.
The United States has been an immigrant country.
The Hispanics who come here are largely from Mexico and South America. They are Catholics, but that is an American religion. One-third of our population is Catholic so that does not have the same impact as Muslims coming into Europe.
Fascism and communism have not entirely disappeared but have been sidelined certainly, and liberal democracy has come to be accepted, in theory at least, around the world, if not always in practice.
The other aspect of American identity worth focusing on is the concept of America as a nation of immigrants. That certainly is a partial truth. But it is often assumed to be the total truth.
Immigrants are people who leave one country, one society, and move to another society. But there has to be a recipient society to which the immigrants move.
Global politics remains extremely complex and countries have different interests, which will also lead them to make what might seem as rather bizarre friends and allies.
America doesn't border on Muslim countries.
European countries do and that seems to be a fundamental difference.
Total falsehoods can be easily exposed for what they are by citing exceptions to their claims. Hence, they are less likely to be accepted as the total truth.
Many of the most difficult questions concerning the role of ethnic minorities centers on language.
The larger society has to recognize some degree of autonomy for the minority: the right to practice their own religion and way of life and to some extent their language.
There are lots of conflicts going on in the Middle East.
It is unclear as to which country will emerge, if any, as the dominant or hegemonic power in the Middle East.
I think we can expect leaders of Muslim societies to cooperate with each other on many issues just as Western societies cooperate with each other.