November 04, 2005
Train-wreck happening...
Hugh Hewitt has an great interview with Mark Steyn, mostly on the rioting in Paris...
...HH: Mark Steyn, how do you account for the indifference or ignorance of the mainstream media in America?
MS: Well, I think this is now basically becoming a willful effort at misleading. It's not just the United States. Other countries, too, are reporting this as their youths, or their French youth. And it isn't until you get thirteen paragraphs into the story, and they're quoting one of these youths, and you realize he's called Mohammed, that it occurs to you that there might be an ethno-cultural religious component to this situation. And this is absolutely grotesque, because the one...I'm sometimes accused of being terribly pessimistic when I speak in North America. And I always tell Americans and Canadians, that the one great advantage people have, you know, everything may...there may be a lot of bad news in the world, but the one advantage North Americans have, is that Europe is ahead of you in the line. And you have to learn what's happening....
There is an obvious effort to mislead. (see also this post, by Dafyyd.) Why? Think of these groups:
Mainstream media
Democrat Party
"Blue State" America
European governing elites
"Anti-war" activists
Almost all academics, "artists," and intellectuals.
They all share a common ideology, though one that's so inchoate that it 's hard to define clearly. But it is congruent with terms like multiculturalism, secular rationalism, pluralism, open society... And "Old Europe" is the laboratory where those ideas have been most thoroughly put into practice. And the Old Media is burying this story, and a thousand other stories, because they dare not admit, especially to themselves, how utterly their policies have failed.
Conservatives have been arguing for decades that those ideas are disastrous folly, and will lead the societies that practice them over a cliff. And one of the predicted flash-points is the unassimilated Muslim populations in Europe. They are a danger point because several of Europe's pathologies combine in affecting one group.
By choosing security and stability over the changes that free enterprise and globalization bring, Western European states have created an economic stagnation that means that most of those Muslim immigrants don't have jobs or a future, or any economic stake in society.
And by destroying Christianity and Judaism, and losing faith in their own civilization, they have created a terrible moral vacuum in which Islamic pathologies can grow. The bitter irony ofthe endless assaults we see on Christianity and Christmas, and those shit-stupid complaints that "Christian fundamentalism is the great danger to us," is that these assaults are destroying Muslims first of all.
Quoting Mark Steyn again:
....They're [the Parisian suburbs where Muslim immigrants live] miserable places. But what was interesting to me is that after that, I then flew on to the Middle East, and I was in Yemen, and a couple of other places. And what was interesting to me was that I found more menace in the suburbs of Paris than I did in some pretty scary places in the Middle East. I mean, there is a real...this, I think, is the start of a long Eurabian civil war we're witnessing here...
It is, I think, a war we are seeing. And in war, the most important thing is not having numbers, or the best weapons, it is believing in your cause and being willing to fight for it. I predict that the war will not go well for traditional Europe.
War will happen exactly because they don't want to fight. They have embraced the evil doctrine of pacifism, and the result, as always, will be war. Bloody war.
Let make some predictions, so as to "put my money where my mouth is." (Any "pacifists" and leftiests out there care to make a counter-prediction. I predict that the future of Iraq and Afghanistan, and other countries where we are pushing the ideas of freedom and democracy with armed force and diplomatic pressure, will be increasingly prosperous and democratic. And the future of Old Europe, and of all the places where "war never solved anything" is an accepted idea, will be exactly the opposite.
Posted by John Weidner at November 4, 2005 09:25 AMOK. I’ll take you up on your offer to make a counter-prediction even though I am no leftist. I’m just a very optimistic conservative with a lot of faith in human nature who believes that ultimately, and it may take many years, truth wins out.
I simply cannot believe that Europe is truly lost, and I predict that eventually we will see the tide turn. A time will come when no amount of rationalization can hide the fact that Europe is genuinely fighting for its very way of life. When that happens Europeans will recover their will to fight.
Why do I say this? Because history has taught me how quickly things can change. I graduated from college in 1987, and was an optimist even then, but if any one had told me that the Berlin Wall would start to crumble before the decade was out I would have laughed.
And here is a lesson from history that you should know well – in 1937 (I believe it was 1937) students at Oxford publicly pledged to “never fight for King and Country in any war.” By the end of that decade they were willing to stand alone against Hitler’s fearsome war machine.
People tend to cling desperately to their world-view even when it’s falling apart all around them, but eventually it cracks. It will crack in Europe and as crazy as it sounds now, I predict that a Thatcher-like figure will emerge.
The Cube is repulsive and inhuman. It is also inept. If the French remain people of The Cube they will die.
Posted by: Luciferous at November 4, 2005 12:03 PMMike,
I think the Anglosphere countries have greater reserves of whatever it takes. There may be hope for Britain. But Thatcher was a figure of the 1980's. And she was not part of a broad conservative movement and intellectual revolution, as Reagan was at the same time, so her legacy is not impressive.
And, from then to now, no continental Western European country has thrown up ANY leader or movment of comparable weight to defend their ancient traditions and virtues. I think if it were going to happen, we would have seen some signs by now. So I remain a pessimist on this.
Luciferous,
Cube?
Posted by: John Weidner at November 4, 2005 12:16 PMThe English may weather the onslaught, but it is not reassuring that the best example of their resilience is 65 years in the past.
Such resilience is not in evidence on the continent. European populations are elderly. Socialism has made initiative rare and leftist groupthink nearly unanimous. Intellectuals peddle vapid anti-Americanism, when America's example is the only thing that can save them.
Worst of all, because the United States has provided their security since World War Two, they have lost the capacity to fight, even if they had the will. They cannot recover.
Posted by: lyle at November 4, 2005 12:50 PMJohn,
Reference is to Weigel's new book The Cathedral and the Cube. Can't recommend it highly enough. I think you would find it terribly interesting.
Posted by: Luciferous at November 4, 2005 12:52 PMLooks like the title is: "The Cube and the Cathedral," and it looks like something I need to read! (Or maybe not, I'm already depressed...)
Posted by: John Weidner at November 4, 2005 01:47 PMActually, and I am a very left-leaning pacifist, I think the Europeans have good reason to fear the sort of far-right, ethno/linguistic nationalism that prevailed throughout the first half of the 20th Century. They've learned hard lessons about getting along with their neighbors, unlike anything experienced by America.
That said, I think European peoples still hold unfathomed reserves of jingoism. Attached to it is a genuine guilt and hesitation over exercising any form of extreme nationalism, and I think that's very commendable. It's a shame Americans don't practice more tolerance and diplomacy. But the well is there nonetheless, and unlike certain chickenhawks I don't think a desire for peace signals weakness: I just think it's a measured response. As violence continues, if indeed radical Islam continues to threaten as it has, I'm certain the day will come when you'll get your right-wing governments in Europe. Already the Le Pens and the NDP are making great gains, and I think the day will likely come when Muslims are forcibly expelled from Europe. I actually think this is inexorable; whether I agree with it or not. The unfortunate thing is, the EU by that point (just like the American states now) will be a federalized, fascist oligarchy.
So I say, we have nothing to lose by trying to make peace. But Thatcher- or Reagan-style economics will do nothing to help disenfranchised Muslims in France integrate with their societies. To say they would is a bold-faced lie. The nationalists who'll be brought to power, though, will have the authority to fight a much less civilized battle against Islam.
The last time Europe was so threatened from the East was when the Turks were turned back at Vienna in the 17th Century. But make no mistake - Western Civilization is not at its end. And there's nothing wrong with trying to hold onto as much respect for life, freedom, and human dignity as we can in the years ahead. Democracy will never come from the barrel of a gun, and he who holds that gun will also lose his way. Europe seeks to preserve the founding ideal of America - pluralism - that America seems to have forgotten, and does so in the face of much more danger than we.
Posted by: Josh Strike at November 4, 2005 10:11 PMIt seems we all agree they will change or they will be conquered. I stand by my prediction - they will change.
The movement may well begin in the East where there is still energy and vitality. Who would have ever predicted that we would one day pin our hopes on Eastern Europe.
Posted by: Mike Plaiss at November 4, 2005 10:20 PMSo I say, we have nothing to lose by trying to make peace.That's what Western Europe said in the 1930's. What did they end up losing? Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at November 5, 2005 06:27 AM
My sweet lord, Josh, can you please name me one era in American history where this country was even marginally more pluralistic than it is today? Honestly, friend, read some history, please.
I do agree with you - Europe and all of the West need desperately to fight against the far-right fascism of the world today. That's precisely John's point - if Europe doesn't fight it, in its current guise as Islamic Radicalism, it will be going down the same road it took in the 1930's.
Posted by: Ethan Hahn at November 5, 2005 06:40 AMI've heard that comparison between radical Islam and fascism a lot, and it's a red herring. Radical Islam may be as dangerous as any fascism, it may be totalitarian, it may be a threat to the fabric of our way of life, but it is _not the same thing as fascism_. Fascism is a very specific political and economic system.
Now: The West certainly needs to fight against militant Islam - on that point I agree. Whether and where we need to do so with pre-emptive invasions of sovereign countries is debatable. But any comparison to fighting the Nazis is bankrupt for many reasons - not the least of which being that Islam has no centralized power structure, no single leader; its armies need neither tanks nor factories to wage war. There's no infrastructure for us to attack and no regime for us to dismantle. Short of killing a billion people, there is little way for us to "win" this "war." It's therefore about time we think in terms of how best to live as peacefully as possible with the other peoples of this planet. I'm not suggesting appeasement; I'm only saying that the last time we were faced with an enemy where between us we had the ability to destroy the world (that being the USSR), we prevailed because our culture was so free, magnetic and energetic that the people of that country gave up communism to be a part of it. We must win a cultural war against Islam, the way we did against the Soviets, because total war is not a viable option.
And in order to win a culture war, we need to insure that our own society remains free.
The real question - the only question - facing the West today is whether WE must give up our freedoms, close our societies, wage pre-emptive wars and silence our oppositions -- in short, whether we will become fascists in order to defeat the other side. If we do, then ours is no longer a society worth defending.
Posted by: Josh Strike at November 5, 2005 01:44 PMAnother leftist pacifist brings a series of tired non-sequiturs to an argument. God this is boring. I'll just play with one" "It's therefore about time we think in terms of how best to live as peacefully as possible with the other peoples of this planet." Er, we aren't waging war against "the other peoples of this planet." Believe it or not, we are living "peacefully" with most of the rest of the world -- the rest of the world, that is, that isn't using terrorism in order to get a portion of political power. That would be most of the world, Josh. Only in the fantasies of leftist pacifist is the West the horrible raging monster causing trouble for the happy, peaceful Shire-like rest of the world.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 5, 2005 04:05 PMBy the way, for some reason I am sure that by "The West" you mean the United States. I just get that feeling.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 5, 2005 04:20 PMWhen I referenced the West, I meant the center of money and power in the world; the English-speaking countries and the EU.
But wait a minute, Andrea -- are you telling me that people in the *majority of the world* are trying to gain political power through terrorism? That therefore, our difficult position is of defending the "freedom" -- along with the vast wealth and power -- of our civilization against a majority of people, in a majority of countries, who are disenfranchised, have nothing to lose and no power? You're implying that America has an intrinsic right -- a burden, maybe -- to commandeer a greater share of the world's wealth than those other people do, those people who would use "terrorism" to advance their political goals.
Every land-reform revolution from the American to the Cuban started off with people whom the power labeled "terrorists." When they win, they become "heroes." It's all bullshit to me. My point is not that radical Islam isn't dangerous to our way of life (it very much is) -- only that you're delusional if you think America has the superiority, moral or military, to win the fight it's now picking. All your abstract notions of foreign policy are built on a basic fallacy that Americans somehow deserve 25% of the world's wealth at the expense of billions of other people, or that we act as if we understand the enormous responsibility that comes with being the sole superpower.
It's no pacifist's fantasy to see that of the past several dozen wars fought the world over, the US has either supplied arms, specialists or infantry. So don't make it sound as if we're the center of peace and civilization, while the world around us roils. We're the scalding stone in the pot of water. We're the glistening head of the massive, horrible zit that's about to burst. We're agitating what's underneath us to the point where it's gonna pop. And it ain't gonna be the fault of pacifists in hybrid Hondas; it'll be the fault of fat, contented chickenhawks in their carbon-crapping SUVs, making abstract decisions and "charging" the consequences against their worthless, all-important property.
But think what you're house will be worth when the epidemic Bush and Bin Laden are promising finally strikes.
When I see you huddled in some stadium with your Reagonomics and plastic Jesus to protect you from the plague, I'll wonder why George HW didn't call anyone from Air Force One to save you. And I'll wonder why people hated us so much to do something like that to us. And I'll wonder why you didn't care enough to be one of the good guys, who at least tried to find a peaceful solution.
Posted by: Josh Strike at November 6, 2005 05:40 AMYou're implying that America has an intrinsic right -- a burden, maybe -- to commandeer a greater share of the world's wealth than those other people do, those people who would use "terrorism" to advance their political goals.
From whom did we commandeer the internet? From whom did we commandeer business management techniques? From whom did we commandeer labor-saving machines, and assembly-line manufacturing, and the concept of capitalism itself? Do you honestly think the unprecedented wealth of this country comes primarily from us taking that which others have, and not from creating value here at home?
Every land-reform revolution from the American to the Cuban started off with people whom the power labeled "terrorists." When they win, they become "heroes."
I agree, you're completely right. But so what? We aren't fighting these people because of the label we put on them - we're fighting them because these fucking bastards are trying to kill us. France invaded people all through their history...did that mean they had no right to complain when Germany invaded them in 1940? (And 1915...and 1870...) "Oh, you call us invaders, but that's what the losers always say." Just because you can play at moral relativity doesn't give it logical power.
And, by the way, the bastards who burned down the houses of Tories and harrassed their families and stole their property - those people were wrong, and they are no heros of mine. Had I been here at that time, I may have supported the Revolution, but I'd want hanging for the leaders of the rabbles.
And I love your ending. Indeed, if only John Kerry had been elected, we'd have been saved from a naturally occurring mutation of the avian flu...if only I'd known!!! Honestly - telling your debating partner that he's going to die horribly and it will serve him right is generally considered a high-school mentality, if that. If you can't win the argument, pound on the table, friend...
"But wait a minute, Andrea -- are you telling me that people in the *majority of the world* are trying to gain political power through terrorism?"
No, that's not what I said, you dumbass! I said exactly the opposite! Are all pacifists unable to read?
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go "huddle" in a "stadium" with my "plastic Jesus statue."
God, what a dork. I shouldn't have even bothered saying anything. I almost wish Zoomie would come back.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 6, 2005 07:31 AMAnd, incidentally--
"We're the glistening head of the massive, horrible zit that's about to burst."
EW. Your metaphors need work.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 6, 2005 07:56 AMWhat DID happen to Zoomie?
Posted by: Cathy at November 6, 2005 07:50 PMIt's very strange, the Doc prescribed me some new meds, then Zoomie disappeared, and then...
Posted by: John Weidner at November 6, 2005 08:43 PMWhatever that stuff was, it must have caused one hell of a hangover...
Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 6, 2005 09:01 PMIt's the moon, something to do with the moon...so beautiful, so full, so bright...and then suddenly I start to see...everywhere...NEOCONS, with the blood of Progressive babies dripping from their fangs, and and and.....aaagghhhh!! CHENEY!!
Posted by: John Weidner at November 6, 2005 09:12 PMFirstly, the wealth we've generated in this country, by the creation of a disposable consumer culture, has not led to any great increases in happiness either here or abroad. Secondly, the raw material and energy which has allowed this boom in our country does come from other parts of the world, and local politics in other places very much affect our own livelihood (or else we wouldn't have gotten behind United Fruit to invade Cuba, nor would we have invaded Iraq.) And specifically, it is not possible for the entire world to sustain a modern American standard of living. Only a small fraction of it, at the expense of all the rest. Travel anywhere outside the first world and you'll get the picture.
And no, I never said anything about John Kerry -- he and the Dems are nothing but straw men set up by the same power structure that backs the Republicans. But the failure of our government to deal with real threats facing us (like plagues, hurricanes, etc.) is symptomatic of the dissolution of genuine democracy in this country, and a handing-over of the reigns to business interests that have little stake in the lives of ordinary Americans, let alone ordinary people anywhere else in the world.
All I see on this site is one justification after another for our incredibly short-sighted addiction to foreign oil, and all the bullying we have to do to get the last dregs of it.
Actually, there's no hope for this country. We're screwed from within by people who think "pacifism causes wars." What insanity. What a great message for posterity. With that attitude, the human race is basically doomed anyway, so why bother? Just spoilin' for a good fight?
Posted by: Josh Strike at November 7, 2005 03:12 AMFirstly, the wealth we've generated in this country, by the creation of a disposable consumer culture, has not led to any great increases in happiness either here or abroad.
Bullshit, and here's one example. The wealth this country generates pays for a medical system, public sanitation, police forces and a nutritional, varied diet that allows us to live decades longer than our ancestors did. Not everyone eats as well as he ought to, perhaps, and other countries edge our life expectancy out by a few years - but compare the life of an average Joe in the 1800's to the life of an average Joe today...don't even try to tell me that living long enough to get to know your grandchildren as adults is not a great increase in happiness. And don't tell me getting to know your great-grandchildren as adults is not a great increase in happiness. Screw the good olden days, I want more years with grandma, and grandma wants more years healthy enough to live on her own, not be a burden.
And yes, I assert that this standard of living, or one remarkably similar to it, is very much sustainable across the world. With nuclear energy, perhaps, or technology we haven't yet developed (truly powerful solar, perhaps?), to power fuel cells, or technology we haven't yet developed - and with free nations, strong enough to keep the peace, free enough to build prosperity - there's no reason at all that we can't have this, and far better, for everyone. All it takes is stability and freedom, and humans will do the rest.
Posted by: Ethan Hahn at November 7, 2005 05:29 AMYeah, it's so much better when people are poor and starving and dying of easily-treated diseases. Come to think of it, cemeteries *are* kind of quiet.
Josh, do the words that come out of your keyboard go through your mind at _all_? Do they even wave to your brain as they whizz by?
Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 7, 2005 12:36 PM"Democracy will never come from a barrel of a gun...."
OK, so the British negociated with the Colonies and granted us independence without a war....
Napolean negociated with the rest of Europe to let him run most of Europe for a few years, then he gave it back without a fight....
Adolph Hitler, being the nice guy that he was, was invited to take over most of the countries in Europe like Poland, The Nertherlands, Belguim and France and then returned them to their governments after about six years because we asked him to nicely.....
North Korea wanted to invade South Korea, but got bored and went back home....
Saddam Hussien was invited by the Kuwaitis to take over thier country, but Hussien decided that he didn't like the beach-front property in Kuwait City and left.....
Just a second, I am checking some of these history books to find these "facts"......
wait......
wait......
just a.....
Well isn't that fucked up, I cant find any of these "facts" anywhere. Can you tell me where you got this "Democracy will not come from a gun barrel" bullshit from and may Nevelle Chamberlain smile upon you.
Posted by: John Lanning at November 8, 2005 11:18 PM
