The Trinity of Evil

I’ve just previously quoted from Mencius Moldbug. His context was the rioting in Egypt. Moldbug’s whole post is worth reading. He winds up offering alternate responses to the official lines offered by Hillary and the current Administration.

Although not explicitly, Moldbug highlights that there are no solutions, only trade-offs. His lines fit well with both the anti-American-Imperialists in the lefty and Progressive factions, and with the isolationist libertarian factions.

In rhetoric and casual conversation, it may sound nice to wish the United States would just leave the world alone. That may be good and acceptable policy. But it doesn’t eliminate bloodshed. And if inaction when lives could be saved imparts responsibility on the non-actor, non-intervention does not offer moral absolution.

Here’s the Moldbug policy statement, assembled into one piece:

I would like to say something about the riots in Egypt. We are watching this on TV like everyone else, but we are deeply concerned about the threat to public order. Egypt is a foreign country, nowhere near America and of no economic or military importance to us. Its legitimate government for us - in the words of President Monroe - is the government de facto. At present there seems to be only one government operating in Egypt, the existing Mubarak regime. A stable, orderly world is the only interest of our foreign policy. We hope the Egyptian security forces can suppress the riots quickly and with minimum bloodshed.

We call on the rioters to obey all official instructions, and return to home and/or work. The United States no longer practices democratic imperialism. We have returned to our historic foreign policy of continental neutrality. We do not believe that political power is a "human right." We are not the "leader of the free world" - free nations need no "leader." We do not export revolution, we do not operate satellite states or amuse ourselves with puppets, and we deeply regret having played this game in the past.

Not that our advice matters - since Egypt is a sovereign country, it can and should do whatever it has to do. But we believe it is imperative for any sovereign to avoid concessions in the face of force, whether foreign or domestic. If the rioters make unreasonable demands, their demands must be denied. If they make reasonable demands, these reforms must be withheld at least until the rebellion has failed and its participants thoroughly regret their actions, so that they appear as the gifts of the government and not the fruits of victorious rebellion.

We urge the Egyptian authorities to consolidate their security structure by arranging a legitimate succession for President Mubarak. We also suggest a titled nobility and a civil list, so the dignitaries of the ruling party can secure their financial futures and not have to steal so much. We also recommend indefinite separation from the global Internet, which Egypt is clearly not ready for, and severance of international cultural links such as NGOs, tourism, and educational exchanges. The policies of Bhutan might approach an example.

Egypt does not have a healthy relationship with the West. Egypt does not need our revolution; we don't need its terrorists. The government of Egypt, if it survives these riots, should end this bad marriage and focus on reconstructing a healthy traditional society, preferably one which funnels the talents of the best young Egyptians into constructive work rather than emigration or rebellion. Even trade should be restricted to the extent consistent with human nutrition.

Supporting genuine democracy, as I’ve heard boosted on lefty radio, accepts the possibility that the people will choose some cruel incarnation of Islam to govern them.

Creating a guided democracy, as was the Bush policy, requires periodic war as a “corrective” measure.

Taking no role, as Jeffersonian libertarians would prefer, accepts the possibility that oppressive tyranny will endure, and perhaps become aggressive beyond its own borders.

The devil waits at every turn.