Sunday, May 18, 2008

Is Isolation from Europe an Option for the USA?

AH, a reader from the United States, wrote me an email while I was at the Vienna conference. In it he detailed his concerns about Europe’s position on the front line of the struggle against Islamization. With his kind permission, I am reproducing both his email and my response:

Dear Baron and Dymphna:

There is no point in wasting time castigating PJM or commiserating with you for any loss you may feel. What is necessary is, for those of us who do understand exactly what Islam is, not merely to provide moral and material support to each other but to develop a strategy to change popular perceptions of the “Religion of Peace” as just another entity much like Methodism etc.

I understand your present focus on Europe (Eurabia in Bat Yeor’s felicitous phrase) in the sense of it being a true front line. But, unless I don’t see the picture clearly, I believe it to be a poorly defended front line. Further I am uncertain of the nature of the apparent strongest anti-Muslim forces in Europe, the various rightist groups. There is little doubt in my mind that I am not so well-informed as I would like about those forces, and I cannot trust our own MSM at all. But while Steyn is clear about the collapse of Canada and the general state of Europe and while you are clear about the collapse as well, I remain uncertain about the nature of what might well be our allies there.

I suppose, in part, my distrust of European perspicacity and fortitude is a result of having “been around” during their staggering incapacity and stupidity and cowardice. All of these seemed to increase through time from the inadequate response to Hitler, the French military collapse and Petainian compliance through the disarmament craze of the fifties the victory of the relativists and “existentialists” in the 60’s, the abandonment of colonies to insanely inadequate “native” governments the anti-Americanism, the failure to fully support the Korean fight and the near total lack of assistance in Vietnam, the castigation of Americans as war-mongers, the hatred of Reagan, the idiot adulation of James Carter, the continuing hatred of President Bush, the desperate dhimmitude of most Europeans, the near totalitarian imposition of the EU etc. Have I missed something? Are they somehow better than they look? (I remember Mark Twain’s quip “Wagner is actually better than he sounds”.)

Your own passion and awareness of the European problem, so far as I can tell, has few strong allies. Do you think I am being isolationist for saying I think we need look to our own gardens rather than to saving the sewers of Paris, the stews of Cologne, or the wall to wall brothel that is the lowlands?

Warm regards,
AH

My response:
- - - - - - - - -
AH,

Your message came while I was in Vienna, and I’m only just now getting to some of my email backlog.

In my Transatlantic operations I repeatedly find an astonishing level of ignorance on either side of the Atlantic about the other. People seem to glean their ideas about the other continent mainly from the MSM, which means that inaccuracy, caricature, and oversimplification are the order of the day. When I go to Europe, I have to combat an invincible ignorance about America. Too many people get their ideas mostly from Hollywood and CNN International — after all, what other sources do they have?

Americans, on the other hand, grossly oversimplify what is happening in Europe. When you speak of “incapacity and stupidity and cowardice”, your example is the French, and it may or may not be accurate. But you overlook the courage of the Danes and the Swiss, for example. And the Czechs, the Poles, and the Hungarians — indeed most of the former East bloc peoples — are stalwarts.

The front line in Europe is poorly defended. The strongest anti-Muslim forces are generally on the right, but not entirely — witness the Socialist Workers’ Party in Denmark. Some of them are inveterate anti-Semites (e.g. FN and FPÖ), but others, such as Sverigedemokraterna and Vlaams Belang, most assuredly are not.

Unfortunately, to find out the differences, to discover the most viable allies in our efforts, requires a lot of work. I try to listen to what the Europeans themselves have to say — regular people, not the political leaders or talking heads on TV — and be open to seeing the situation the same way they see it.

Relying on what the political leaders or NGO reps say is not a good idea, because ordinary people have a totally different view of what’s happening.

And to write off entire countries or the whole continent is to neglect the fact that millions of people — literally millions, the majority of the populace — do not agree with what is being done in their name. They are decent, law-abiding citizens with jobs and families who want to find a way to reverse what’s happening. The political deck is stacked against them, and I have dedicated myself to helping them find a viable way of defending themselves against the Islamization that is being forced upon them. As an American, I have some advantages in the fight, including the First Amendment and my relative safety on a different continent.

Whether you are “isolationist” or not is irrelevant for our purposes. If we let Europe fall to the new Saracens, the consequences for the United States will be devastating, if not fatal.

It’s not a battle we can afford to sit out.

— Baron Bodissey

31 comments:

The Average Joe said...

My dear Baron,

Churchill ended the first volume of his history of WWII with these words: "Facts are better than dreams." In that dark hour he was relying on his knowledge of the British people, the Empire's still considerable resources and his certain belief that the U.S. would not be able to sit out the war. I'm not sure he would feel so sanguine about Europe's current state.

In my view, three things have to happen to save Europe: The Lisbon Whaterveritis must be derailed, Multiculturalism must be exposed as the folly it is in a way so spectacular that it cannot be ignored or explained away and people, other than "Asian youths", must take to the streets and air their grievances in such a way that the spineless politicos are made to understand that their phony-baloney jobs are in jeopardy.

If you have any suggestions as to how we in America can help achieve any of the above, please let us know.

Sagunto said...

Dear AH & Baron,

My impression in 3 quotes:
"..I think we need look to our own gardens rather than to saving the sewers of Paris, the stews of Cologne, or the wall to wall brothel that is the lowlands?

And to write off entire countries or the whole continent is to neglect the fact that millions of people — literally millions, the majority of the populace — do not agree with what is being done in their name. They are decent, law-abiding citizens with jobs and families who want to find a way to reverse what’s happening.

Whether you are “isolationist” or not is irrelevant for our purposes. If we let Europe fall to the new Saracens, the consequences for the United States will be devastating, if not fatal.."


In a way the "isolationist" theme seems pretty relevant to like-minded individuals on both sides of the Atlantic. I agree with the Baron in rendering this theme irrelevant online, but at home an isolationist can contribute as much to the CJ and perhaps at the moment he can actually do more.
In the end it all boils down to people who prove themselves to be able to contribute to the counterjihad, wherever their contribution proves to be most useful. The esteemed isolationist AH, who apparently has his eye firmly fixed on the wonderful brothels when visiting Holland, has every right to play in his own garden at home. Isolationism can appear relevant only online when it incites cross-Atlantic flames between home-gardeners of all nations that every now and then flock "to keyboards!". I couldn't care less. These people might have good reasons not to join the mysterious "we" who are reporting from the international frontlines, whatever those may be. As long as isolationists find practical ways to actually roll back the tide of islamization at home, no harm is done.

There are others who are more inclined to make themselves useful in an international setting. At the moment it still is way too early to tell whether speaking of "we" in the sense of a broad international CJ movement is fully justified. I wish it were, but the network is only beginning to take shape.

On both sides of the ocean it will have to be the ordinary people who must do the actual resisting when they've had enough of Islamic harassment. Most of them are not at all interested in strategic discussions; in ideological debates, or the history of religious worldviews. The challenge for both isolationists and internationalists i.m.o. will be to support local communities in their defense of what they regard as their cherished way of life. Frontlines, battlefields, geopolitics and so forth, all belong to the job description of generals. I think it doesn't provide the right vocabulary to think and act locally where the actual "battle" against Islamization will be fought.

On the level of ordinary people - counterjihadists included - there is no "we" whose action or lack of action would let Europe fall. That's online virtual reality talking. There is no "we" in Europe (there's no Europe for that matter, only - and sadly so - the EU of the elites) whose lack of transatlantic understanding would push the US into the arms of the "religion of Peace". Only people everywhere in the West, trying to come to terms with the evermore openly agressive presence of Islam in our different societies. And it's very simple: those counterjihadists who want to reach out across nations will do so, the others stay at home and do their part. No way of telling what works best, 'cause nothing has really worked so far. I can tell though what in my view will not work at all, and that is the online quasi-geopolitical debates between convinced isolationists versus internationalists, as if the commenters where some kind of army generals themselves, overseeing frontlines on oversized maps.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Dear friends

Indeed, isolationism is an option for the US. It will buy a generation of peace and tranquility, while civilization collapses everywhere else.

Then it'll be the turn of the US.

Or, in other words, isolationism is not an option after all. It'd be like abandoning Israel, only worse.

Don't underestimate, however, how far we are in dealing with Islam.

Here in Denmark we have huge debates over Islam these weeks, and the headscarf in particular. It is waged between the nationalists (like myself), the abstract libertarians and the naïve left wing. It's a mess, but one thing is for sure:

Islam is being taken seriously.

And I think this increases public awareness at an amazing rate, much better than anyone had imagined a mere five years ago. We are insulting Islam, the pedophet and all that belongs to it at a rabid pace.

Sure, many of our governments, and the EU in particular, are crap. But the general public is no longer left in the state of ignorance and deceit it used to be, and awareness of the true nature of Islam is spreading fast.

As is the feeling that representing Islam is suspicous in itself, which is very helpful.

Personally, having examined and debated Islam for years on end, I find myself moving on to other matters, like defective democratic processes, the real purpose of the European Union, and how to re-engage the public in democracy, long lost in distractions of electronic entertainment, in defending our civil liberties.

And those problems I'm looking at now applies equally to the US, which is quite visible from the utter foolishness of the presidential campaign. Islam aside, we need to re-conquer democracy, and we need to stick together in doing so, or the US will very likely descend into a quagmire of Liberal Fascism.

Honestly, I don't think democracy in the US will survive long without close contact to its European roots.

Baron Bodissey said...

Joe --

If you have any suggestions as to how we in America can help achieve any of the above, please let us know.

The job is actually harder in the USA, because people here are either focused on what seem (to me) to be irrelevancies, or are not paying attention to the larger issues.

Europe's situation is dire, and therefore Europeans are easier to reach. That's one reason I deal with Europe, because the light is better there.

It's hard to prescribe action for an American, because any of the three presidential candidates in this election is going to be bad for us, and will bring amnesty and the NAU that much nearer.

But read what Sagunto says below. All success will begin locally. If nothing else, consider the local chapter of CVF or some like-minded organization.

Baron Bodissey said...

Sagunto --

It is rare indeed that I take issue with a gentleman as esteemed as yourself, but I must disagree on a couple of points.

Isolationism can appear relevant only online when it incites cross-Atlantic flames between home-gardeners of all nations that every now and then flock "to keyboards!".

This is not entirely true. Many things have been globalized nowadays. The spiteful actions of prominent Europe-haters in the USA can reach across the Atlantic and do harm. I have seen it happen.

And the fact also remains that Americans can aid the European Counterjihad quite effectively in certain ways. Europe does not have a "donor culture", and raising money outside of governmental structures in Europe can be problematic. America has a lot to contribute, and I'm sure that there are reciprocal ways for Europeans to aid the USA.

What is now emerging is not just an "online" occurrence. Real action is being taken by real people in the real world, not just in the virtual world.

What you see here on Gates of Vienna seems like it's only talk (and it is) because this is the "talking zone". But there's also an "action zone", and the nature of the situation requires that the two zones remain mostly separate.

But that doesn't mean that no real action is occurring, nor does it mean that a transatlantic component is not a valuable part of it.

Having said that, however -- I agree with you on your essential point: effective work will generally remain local. People who strengthen the determination and self-reliance of their own communities will have the greatest effect.

It doesn't make my own job meaningless, but what I do is nowhere near the most important part of what is beginning to happen. Look to your own back gardens for the sources of your future success.

Sagunto said...

Hey Baron,

Just a "short" clarification 'cause I see your point. I don't think it necessarily contradicts what I said earlier.

- There are people who value the transatlantic component and people who don't. Both can contribute to the CJ.
- Of course, when I somewhat criticise the online virtual reality, I'm not referring to talk in se, but to the "scale/level of talk" that seems way too abstract and sometimes downright megalomanic, like "strategic coalitions with Russia" and that sort of lingo. For ordinary mortals like us, I see no practical use for that geopolitical vocabulary whatsoever, nor how it would lead to results in our neighbourhoods. Such grandiose talk "gets real" online, without i.m.o. any connection/consequence for real people in our cities today. That's why I call it virtual reality (like playing Risk).
- Of course information is globalized and so is action. But I'm really at a loss to see how spiteful actions of Europe-haters reach across the Atlantic (other than in the blogosphere) and do harm. You must help my poor imagination with an example here ;-)
I try to imagine how this might work to hasten the Islamization or undermine successful initiatives to counter it, but first of all: the Europe-hater might discover to his amazement that he has many friends among citizens of different countries in Europe. Most Dutch don't feel Europeans at all, and many hate the very idea, certainly in large part due to the EU, but even long before that. I don't consider my German friends to be fellow-Europeans nor would they consider themselves as such. It can be useful in conversation, for simplicity's sake, but Europeans don't exist at the personal level and it certainly is not a heartfelt cultural identity, except perhaps for the power-elites. Again: virtual reality (and the stuff of bureaucrats' dreams).

But back to the actions of Mr. Europe-hater, how does that work? Comes a US isolationist to Amsterdam, red lights in his eyes, walks into a bar and spits in my beer, complaining about those darned Europeans. I'd wholeheartedly agree with him and buy him one (and a fresh one for myself). There naturally would be people who'd spit back but I see no harm in that, as long as they don't waste my time.

The supposed lack of donor culture is beyond me. Perhaps it looks different from that in the US, but in Holland the landscape is littered with a crazy amount of private orgs that attempt to raise money for all kinds of causes, and get it in spades. Money is not the problem.

The biggest problem is the extreme level of atomization of our personal lives over here, especially among the well-educated, who usually are the people at the front of new causes, like the CJ. Raising money is not the real issue. It's connecting with people who still consider themselves to be part of some sort of community, and then try to be useful to them from a counterjihad perspective. Many counterjihadists in Western-Europe are disconnected from more traditional ways of life. That used to be the realm of religion. Within the space of one generation (the baby-boomers, who have destroyed a lot over here) traditional identity in that sense has been completely obliterated. So secular CJ's in Europe are often cut off from community life and can only speak for an insignificant group of vaguely connected individuals. Ask them to reach out to traditional religion for instance, where members are way better organized, and many will go beserk and run like hell.

Sag.

Baron Bodissey said...

Sagunto --

The idea that Europe does not have donor culture is not mine. It was told to me by a Swede just a few days ago, in Vienna. Maybe things are different in Sweden than in other parts of Europe, and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

But my personal experience is that it is more difficult to raise money for a cause in Europe than it is in the USA.

For ordinary mortals like us, I see no practical use for that geopolitical vocabulary whatsoever…

I couldn’t agree with you more. If you’ve been reading this blog for a long time, you know how often I have tried to get people to stop using the word “we” as if “we” were the President, or Congress, or the State Department, or CENTCOM, etc. “We” are simply ordinary people within our limited sphere of action. It’s important to focus on what we can do within that sphere, and communicate it among ourselves so that we can leverage it into more effective action. That’s what distributed networks are about.

I realize that “Europe” as such does not exist. But it’s a handy way to refer to a region that is made up of divers nations which yet share certain aspects of a common culture. There may not be a “Europe”, but Sweden and Italy are more alike than Sweden and Italy are like, say, Laos. There are reasons to lump them together.

It’s also a lot simpler than the verbal gymnastics I would have to execute to avoid altogether using the words “Europe” and “European”.

This is especially true when the EU throws all these countries and cultures together into the same prison cell.

Europe-haters have done (and are doing) damage to the CJ cause in Europe. It’s difficult for me to answer all your questions here. Not every fact that I am personally aware of can be posted publicly. If you like, you may drop me an email and I can explain a little more fully.

randian said...


But my personal experience is that it is more difficult to raise money for a cause in Europe than it is in the USA.


I think it important to be precise here. It's more difficult to raise money in Europe from private citizens, primarily because they've been taught "that's the government's job". With the outrageous taxes, who can blame them? Nonetheless the influence of government corrodes the charitable spirit. Most charitable organizations in Europe appear to focus on government handouts rather than private donations. They are really extensions of government, not charities. There's a lot less of that in the US. Most charities operate as real charities with 100% private money.

Baron Bodissey said...

randian --

Thank you, yes -- that is exactly what I meant, but you stated it clearly: it is more difficult to raise money from private non-governmental sources in Europe.

In Western Europe, everyone seems to be used to the idea that the government pays for most collective activities -- churches, civic organizations, political parties, etc.

In the USA it's very different.

mike18xx said...

> It’s not a battle we can afford to sit out.

Like hell "we" can't.

-- This is an *evolution* test for Europe.

You are either sheep, or men.

Choose, and act accordingly.

mike18xx said...

> In Western Europe, everyone seems to be used to the idea that the
> government pays for most collective activities -- churches, civic
> organizations, political parties, etc.
> ....In the USA it's very different.


-- You're kidding, right?

Aside from the churches, it's been full-bore socialism over here for at least one generation, and it's getting worse every day.

Just because it isn't as crappy as Sweden or France yet is no reason to be proud.

Henrik R Clausen said...

In the USA it's very different.

Which is very fortunate, for it keeps citizens - not anonymous civil servants - in charge.

We have in Denmark a system where 'artists' (quotes deliberate) get on public funding if some committee finds that their works warrant it. Now the artists are creating whatever is needed to please that committee, and art is less interesting and less public than ever before.

We tried to terminate that system, but the gravy train moves on. We just can't get rid of it.

Defiant Lion said...

Wow, it seems like hypocrisy day here on GoV.

Here we have people from the US criticising Europeans for their cowardice against Islam and yes, there is some merit in this.

But remind me, which nation collaborated with muslim terrorists to create an Islamic state in the heart of Europe?

Thanks US. Really, thanks a lot. And the EU were part of it too but the point is that the US is on the same path as Europe.

The US is also suffering from the same curse as Europe: cultural marxism. For the original writer to condemn Europe for its lack of support in Vietnam whilst conveniently ignoring that it was events at home, i.e. anti-war socialist-liberals - that did more damage to the US war effort in Vietnam is somewhat selective.

Let's not forget that the soldiers who returned from the Vietnam war were treated like pariahs by their own people and that isn't Europe's fault.

Both the US and the EU are facing dark dark times unless marxism is rejected and the Islamic threat is fought.

Don't hold your breath.

Henrik R Clausen said...

One of the worst cowards towards Islam is George W. Bush, who insists on not even naming the enemy. Oh, he just entered a nuclear deal with his buddies in Saudi Arabia, too.

I think we might as well abadon this tiny quarrel and go feed IHT and other mainstream media some common sense. It's sorely lacking.

Sagunto said...

@ the Baron,

"..The idea that Europe does not have donor culture is not mine. It was told to me by a Swede just a few days ago, in Vienna. Maybe things are different in Sweden than in other parts of Europe, and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.."

The response by Randian, seems to clarify the issue, but I'm not so sure.

- it's important i.m.o., to distinguish between the charity/philantropy of private money by private persons for all kinds of causes, and on the other hand the international debate about the commitment to use a certain percentage of the national income for foreign aid. The latter is typically a discussion between "home-gardeners" across the Atlantic. Officials from some European countries reproach the US govt. for their 0.22 percent instead of 0.70 that was agreed among wealthy countries somewhere in the seventies. US officials respond by pointing at a figure produced by the Hudson Institute that shows Americans are giving 71 billion in private money to foreign aid (2004), about six times as much as the official foreign aid by the US government. EU-fficials respond to that figure by pointing to US researchers who state that from this 71 billion, 47 billion consists of money sent by migrants to their respective homelands and to the fact that big pharmaceutical companies, dumping their outdated products in developing countries is also included in the estimate, and so on, et cetera. Officials, politicians, researchers, think-tankers.. and some commenters, lots of people can play this game over and over until retirement. They all seem to share the basic and i.m.o. deeply flawed assumption that foreign aid, whether public or privately financed, is somehow bona fide in and of itself. There are many researchers who beg to differ from that view. Foreign aid, they say, is basically throwing vast amounts of money at a problem, without it going away. I think the book by William Easterly (2006; read it, it's good) and especially the subtitle sums it all up: "The white man's burden, Why the West's efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good."

- To get back at the level of private money spent on philantropy/charity by ordinary people: it might be important to realize that there are only two countries in the world where the total amount of private "philantropic currency" (Dutch: geldstroom) is systematically studied and actually accounted for on a macro-economic level. Those countries are the United States and the Netherlands. In America the AAFRC issues "Giving USA" since 1955, in the Netherlands it is somewhat unoriginally called "Geven in Nederland" [Giving in the Netherlands] a huge two-yearly study performed since 1993. From this it simply follows that only about these countries some conclusions could be drawn as to the giving-behaviour of ordinary citizens, provided the data of the beforementioned research are used.

All other opinions about private/public money raised in different countries are little more (or less) than that: individual opinions. The Swede you talked to the other day, can have interesting things to say about Sweden, but there's no way of knowing whether his insights or personal impressions reflect the actual situation, even in his own country. He certainly is not able to speak on behalf of other countries in Europe, unless he's some kind of international researcher on the subject. So the example you give, perfectly illustrates my point: there is no "we" in Europe. The label "Europeans", as you point out yourself, is primarily a convenient figure of speech. Abandon that and pretty soon you'll get lost in a jungle of fragmented loyalties that even break down at the national level. Talk about "the Dutch" to a Dutch lady and she'll tell you there's actually no such thing as "the Dutch". Pretty soon, you'll get the sneaking suspicion you're adressing nothing but phantoms in a continental opera ;-)

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

P.s.: I'll drop you a mail as soon as I find the time. I know you must be busy too, sorting out you mailbox after your visit to Vienna (did you visit the first coffeeshop, started with the confiscated beans from the Turks after their defeat the the Gates? Beautiful story of Jerzy Kulczycki, 1683's James Bond and founder of the first Viennese café.

Baron Bodissey said...

mike18xx --

Consider this: would an Islamic state on the Seine born out of the ashes of France be in the best interests of the United States? How about if the mullahs in charge of Al-France inherit the French nuclear arsenal?

The attitude you exemplify prevailed in the 1930s, and yet somehow a half a million Americans ended up dead anyway less than 10 years later.

How many fewer would have died if we had looked ahead and then acted in the best interests of our country?

Reacting with junior-high-level emotional vindictiveness when thinking about crucial national security issues is the height of folly.

If it's in the interest of the USA to bail out Europe a third time, then let the bailing commence.

Punishing an ungrateful continent for its past sins by letting a nuclear-armed Islamic power emerge in Europe has got to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

Baron Bodissey said...

Sagunto --

While in Vienna I visited (among other delightful places) Café Sperl, the favorite haunt of Adolf Hitler during his time in Vienna. No signed photos of Der Führer on the wall, for some reason. But the coffee was excellent!

OK, I'll give you my own personal experience, very recent. This may serve as an example, assuming that donations to Gates of Vienna constitute "charitable giving".

About 25% of our readership comes from the USA, and about 65% from Europe. However, during our recently concluded fund drive, about 75% of our donors were American, and about 20% were European.

A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation based on these figures shows that the per-capita giving of our American readers is approximately 9.75 times as high as that of our European readers.

This is not to slight the generosity of the people who sent us money from Europe, where we are fortunate to have many friends.

But, statistically speaking, it's a fact that our American readers were almost 10 times as likely to open their wallets in support of of an avowedly Eurocentric blog.

I realize that all of this proves nothing. Per-capita wealth is, after all, lower in Europe than the United States.

However, it's not 10 times lower, so there must be some other explanation.

I don't have any expert statistics on the eleemosynary behavior of Americans versus that of Europeans. All my evidence is anecdotal and impressionistic.

However, other people with experience on both sides of the Atlantic have reached similar conclusions. So there may be something to the idea that Americans are more likely to donate to private charities than are their European cousins.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Let me add a few words about the donor culture - or lack thereof - here in Europe.

A lot of the charitable work has indeed been taken over by the state (which basically means: "Someone should do it, but not I"), and the tradition of charity being a normal cause for the citizen has all but evaporated. It's something extra that Red Cross or the other bigshots bring along once in a while.

Further, we have problems with the organisations themselves. One of the big ones, Folkekirkens Nødhjælp, is using the name of our national church without permission. They just stole it, as it would presumably make people more willing to donated if it was percieved as being an official Christian organisation. Yet, they campaign against Israel for some of the money they recieve!

There's also the perception of the 'Goodness Industry', that these people are making a living from being professional 'charitists', not idealists, and that detracts as well.

It has become somewhat suspect in Europe to ask for money for whatever cause. Taxation level is also a problem - it's much easier to be generous if you have a hundred grand in the bank for no specific purpose. Europeans tend not to have that.

Finally, most of the GoV activists, those who write essays, translate and print stuff, go to demonstrations etc. are, for natural reasons, in Europe. Their contributions cannot be counted but still adds value.

Summing up, while the situation looks odd, I think it's a natural divison of labor.

mike18xx said...

> mike18xx --
> Consider this: would an Islamic state on the Seine born out of the
> ashes of France be in the best interests of the United States?

I reject the premise of the question, because it'll never come to that.

What will happen, is that socialist governments will collapse -- and then indigenous El Cids will take matters into their own hands.

AFAIAC, it is pointless as well as counterproductive to *delay* this phase.

> The attitude you exemplify prevailed in the 1930s, and yet
> somehow a half a million Americans ended up dead anyway
> less than 10 years later.

...because the "attitude" wasn't the one which prevailed in Washington.

> Punishing an ungrateful continent for its past sins by letting a
> nuclear-armed Islamic power emerge in Europe has got to be one
> of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

How do you propose the US not "let" this happen? Invade France ahead of time?

Yeah, like that's going to happen.

Really, seriously: Just stop thinking about it right now.

-- You know what? It's not going to happen *after* the fact either, so you're rowing your own boat, buddy.

==//==

You want to save Europe? Start forming your underground militias right now.

Proud Infidel said...

I agree completely we can't afford to sit this one out. The fall of Europe would have devastating consequences for the safety and well being of the US.

But what can we Americans do to help? I accept that most people in Europe oppose what's happening to them, but unless they mobilize and act, I don't see that there's much we can do. They have a tough road ahead, with the vast power of the EU and it's media standing against them. Even the power of their vote has been usurped, France voted against the original EU constitution but their goverment ratified the Lisbon treaty without any sign or opposition from the population that I could see.

I support Europe, but the European people seem, except for a few brave and courageous souls, a long way from awareness or action.

Sagunto said...

@proud infidel,

"..but the European people seem, except for a few brave and courageous souls, a long way from awareness or action.."

After what I've posted thus far, it won't come as a surprise when I say that I can only speak with some certainty about the Dutch situation.
The awareness might be quite a bit higher than you assume:
around 25% of the Dutch voters would vote for the two parties that will implement measures to counter the Islamization of Holland. This is a conservative estimate; usually more people will vote for CJ parties (imagine 25%, or even a bit more, of the US vote going to such parties; that would roughly amount to at least something like 29,000,000; 29 million American voters against Islamization right now (25% of the popular vote 2004). That's some awareness isn't it?).

And about the EU, that other enemy of the people: the Dutch jumped at the chance to throw the bureaucrats in Brussels a resounding NO! in their faces when a referendum was held about the EU constitution.

Sag.

Baron Bodissey said...

Proud Infidel --

Actual, awareness is higher in Europe than it is here, because of the severity of the problem. Don't go by media reports.

Spending time with people from various European countries has shown me that there is a lot of realism about Islam among ordinary citizens, despite the decades of brainwashing by their governments.

By comparison, most Americans are still asleep.

randian said...

And about the EU, that other enemy of the people: the Dutch jumped at the chance to throw the bureaucrats in Brussels a resounding NO! in their faces when a referendum was held about the EU constitution.

Of course, that's why the national governments are approving Lisbon without a referendum.

Henrik R Clausen said...

But what can we Americans do to help?

Insult Islam. Protect and promote Christianity.

Satelite television is a great tool for that. Word is that Turks and Persians by the hundreds thousand are leaving their hellhole of a religion for something better.

Promote alternative energy sources and infrastructure so that Bush & The Buddies no longer have to cater to Arab interests.

And, for those into history, I recommend rediscovering the 800-year old roots of modern civilization, capitalism and democracy. Europe, High Middle Ages. Read Rodney Stark, Thomas E. Woods and other authors who have rediscovered the 1st Renaissance. These are common cultural roots between Europe and the US, and the richness is staggering.

Oh, please change the US policies in the Balkans, too. You're supporting the wrong side, and this is causing us problems.

Simply speak up. Last year on a train in Denmark, I met an American lady whose husband was very critical of the US government, but stuck to grumbling and cursing when he saw the stupidity on television. There's a small, yet effective step to take here:

Instead of cursing to your wife over stupid Islamophile politicians, curse to the newspapers, or write your congressman. Not only will it be good for America, it'll also be good for the marriage :)

There's an interesting book by Timur Kuran, Private Truth, Public Lies about this tendency to speak the truth only in private. It's a significant problem that causes heavy damage to public discourse.

The politicians need our feedback and support to do the Right Thing, or they'll act in even more silly ways.

As an example, friends of mine were challenging the EU-Turkey negotiations. Their demonstration was in Luxembourg, and they had a letter for prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker. By chance, he was having lunch right next to the demonstration, and our pals had the chance to talk to him directly about opposing Turkish entry to the EU. He exclaimed: Why didn't you come a year ago? Point was, he had already given away his position, for he had no public support to base his own opposition on. Even a token demonstration in the right place can go a long way towards changing things.

There's plenty to do. Opening and running a blog on a favorite subject is easy and cheap, and one quickly becomes part of a wider network of activists and self-publishers.

Once getting the habit, participating in democracy is wonderfully addictive :)

Proud Infidel said...

Sagunto and Baron,

I'm glad to hear you say that awareness is higher than it seems. I was in France and Italy last month and didn't see much, but then I don't read French or Italian, plus I was there on business and pleasure so I wasn't paying much attention or looking very hard. I also think henrick r clausen has some damn good suggestions on things we can do here from the US.

I think the recent electoral victories in the UK and Italy by conservatives is also a sign of growing awareness by the people. I'll be the first one to celebrate being proven wrong about awareness among Europeans, let me tell you.

Isolationism is one thing we can't afford. We must stand with Europe.

mike18xx said...

> Insult Islam. Protect and promote Christianity.


*No*.

This is NOT a "religious squabble".

It is Liberty vs. Totalitarianism, and to paint it in any other terms is abject foolishness.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Mike, in our struggle against a certain totalitarian ideology, which happens to have adopted religious clothing, insulting the religiousness of the thing is very, very effective.

How?

It delegitimizes those leaders who exploit the hopes of their believers for a better, religiously improved future. Showing the leaders to be corrupt and the ideology to be unholy makes it a lot easer to convince people to reject 'religious' demands and choose rationalism.

Fortunately, the job is easy. Islam is self-insulting, once the sources are reada and understood.

I don't think this constitutes 'abject foolishness'.

Sagunto said...

@proud infidel,

".. I also think henrick r clausen has some damn good suggestions on things we can do here from the US.."

Absolutely. I almost jumped for joy when I read the name of Thom Woods. His book is an indispensible work I'd advise anyone to buy who has already read something by Stark (who I think has done a fairly great job overall, but a rather terrible one in his chapter on Darwinism in "One true God" (2003) which apart from that one unfortunate chapter is also recommended reading).
Thomas S. Woods does a tremendous job at the Ludwig von Mises Institute (Austrian school of Economics, certainly the right name for people visiting the Gates of Vienna ;-) ; think Hayek, Rothbard and of course Von Mises himself) and his lectures on economic/historical subjects are a veritable treat for any real free market spirited individual who might think that something is definitely not right about the many stories the standard txtbooks have taught people to believe.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

P.s.:
don't miss his rendering of the story by H. L. Mencken about the sadly neglected history of the bathtub. It's the mp3 called (direct link): The Mises Circle: The Economics of the 33 Questions

whiskey_199 said...

Forgive me for saying this, but this struggle (to maintain traditional Western freedoms from dual PC-Multiculturalism and Islamism) is bigger than Europe.

And in that regard, people in the US can help by listening, learning, and transmitting valuable information about organization, goals, publicity, and so on from nations outside Europe that are dealing with this problem (even including failures): Thailand, the Philippines, China, Japan, India, Australia, Ethiopia, etc. Particularly private organizations and so on.

I just get the feeling that there has been some valuable lessons out there that go un-noticed because they did not apply initially to Europe or America. Other people have dealt with this issue for a long time, it would be wise to seek their counsel.

mike18xx said...

Infidel: Isolationism is one thing we can't afford. We must stand with Europe.

This statement contains two ambiguous-collectives: "we" and "Europe". Who is "we"? Me? The government of the United States? The Pope? ...Who is "Europe"? The EU? Various governments (who send their tax loot to the PLO)? Paris Metro riders?

It's a pet-peeve of mine, but I just loathe substanceless generalities.

==//==

Henrik: insulting the religiousness of (Islam) is very, very effective. It delegitimizes those leaders who exploit the hopes of their believers...

Delegitimizes in the eyes of whom? "Their believers"? ...but they're not paying attention to you anyway. 99% of them do not speak English or any language other than their indigenous one.

The uncommitted people most likely to stumble across anything you write are going to be westerners wondering "What's wrong with Islam--isn't it just another religion?" To respond to them, you'll be most effective doing exactly what I, and Robert Spencer for that matter, do: hammer and hammer and hammer away repeatedly about what a totalitarian *political* monstrosity Shariah is.

for a better, religiously improved future. Showing the leaders to be corrupt and the ideology to be unholy makes it a lot easer to convince people to reject 'religious' demands and choose rationalism.

Define "unholy".

-- See what I mean?

You'll get exactly nowhere arguing over which "religion" has more angels crowded onto the head of its pin. And, I put that word in quotes because all of what is offensive about Islam is *political* in nature.

Sagunto said...

@mike,

I think that on all points you adress, y'r absolutely spot on. Islam is a political doctrine akin to other agressive collectivist doctrines, that is: extremely imperialist, totalitarian and parasitical in the sense that it preys upon weakened hosts. While Muslims pray (and what exactly do they pray for?), Islam preys. The religious veneer shouldn't mislead Westerners who either still have some vague sort of "respect" for all kinds of "religion" or others who don't have that luke-warm respect at all and seek to demolish all other religions heaped together with Islam. In a sense "veneer" isn't the right word, 'cause the religious aspect is deeply intertwined with the political and it adds a very dangerous transcendental dimension to the political fanaticism. Totalitarian dictatorships always sought after this religious dimension to add to their doctrine. Islam has already got that, prepackaged. But the Muslim religion is only really of interest to specialists (scientists, people writing about religion) and those who - for some reason - want to become Muslims. The general public in the West is better off with the idea that the religious aspect is indeed a thin layer, covering chaos, decay and totalitarianism of the worst kind. I often find myself in agreement with Henrik, but I think his particular argument doesn't quite cut it this time.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.