Thursday, July 03, 2008

Future Scenarios for Europe

The Observer, who used to blog at the News From Norway (which is now in hibernation), saw my post the other day about Demographic Conquest and was prompted to write me an email with his views on the future of Europe. With his permission, I am posting the entire text below.


Future Scenarios for Europe
by The Observer


A scenario that has been widely debated over the last decades is a possible Muslim takeover of Europe within the next 30-40 years. It has become somewhat of an academic puzzle for the politically correct elites, a question that must be discussed, but not taken too literally. After all, according to this elite, the Muslims will eventually integrate into our societies, provided we treat them properly and give them enough time. They are simply Europeans with another color and cultural background. Nothing to really worry about.

For others with a more highly developed sense of survival instinct, this scenario is the cause of grave concern. It’s simply a problem that has to be dealt with, whether we like it or not, and the fact that we’re starting to shed light on it, is a sign that we’re willing to do so. The first step of solving a problem is to admit that we actually have one.

EU Skull & Dragon

But there’s one scenario that hasn’t been debated to nearly the same extent, and that is how this eventual transformation from a Christian to an Islamic continent will manifest itself.

Will it be a violent clash between the two cultures that will leave the continent in ruins?

Will western Europe resemble war torn Chechnya after the final battles have been fought?

Or will it be a peaceful takeover, where the Europeans simply concede defeat and succumb to the stronger and much more aggressive tactics of the newcomers?

Or will the Europeans rise up to this challenge and resist the onslaught from the invading Muslims, and eventually win this fight?

I believe there are six possible outcomes to this crisis:
- - - - - - - - -
1. The Muslims will win by sticking to democratic principles. Peaceful victory.
2. The Muslims will win by undemocratic principles. Terror campaigns and intimidation.
3. The native populations of Europe will revolt and defeat the Muslims. A revolt.
4. Major terrorist attacks will cause the governments in Europe to reconsider their position on Muslim immigration, and start the deportations of Muslims on a grand scale.
5. A coexistence between the two cultures, where both groups are given an equal status. Not a very likely scenario.
6. An uneasy status quo, where immigration is curbed, and the Muslims will forever be a minority.

At the present time alternative #1 looks to be the most likely outcome, but of course things could change in a heartbeat. If there’s one thing that history has taught us, it is that rapid change is the norm rather than the exception.

There’s no question that the liberal laws of the present European governments work in the Muslims’ favor. All they have to do is sit back, act in accordance with the democratic principles in the societies they reside in, and high birthrates and the open border policies of the West will make them a majority within the next couple of generations.

All they need to do is blend in and seize control when they’re strong enough to do so.

But of course, there are several factors that need to be brought into the equation. Political views that are considered the norm today can easily be discarded for more radical and pragmatic ideas in the future. We’ve witnessed liberal European governments introduce very tough immigration and asylum laws, and others could follow suit.

So let’s assume that things stay the way they are for the next thirty years. Let’s assume that the European governments decide to introduce tougher anti-discrimination laws, and clamp down on what they view as anti-Muslim sentiments. Let’s also assume that they start persecuting people with opposing views on this issue. The immigration would then continue, and quite possibly accelerate, making it next to impossible to prevent Muslims from becoming a majority in Europe.

If this scenario were to take place, the question one would have to ask is: what kind of society would rise up from the ashes? Would we get a moderate form of Euro-Islam, like the proponents of the multicultural society hope for, where a relatively moderate Muslim population would accept and tolerate other religions and values? Or would they, with or without democratic means, decide to introduce an Islamic caliphate, where Sharia law takes superiority over existing criminal laws?

Like many other people, I see the term Euro-Islam simply as a smokescreen that the elites use as a means to try to pacify the native populations of Europe.

Let’s face it, Muslims believe in the writings of the Holy Koran, and not in any utopian illusions that some non-believing bureaucrats in Europe may hold. It is my opinion that the Muslims would use our undying belief in democracy against us if it came down to it, and simply point out the obvious, which would be, that they won the referendum fair and square and they’re going to introduce the Islamic caliphate whether we like it or not. And technically this would be within the boundaries of accepted democratic rules. What the majority decides, goes. The native Europeans would then have to decide whether to accept this new regime or not.

Alternative #2 is also a likely outcome. We’ve seen the emergence of radical Muslim elements in our societies that are advocating such a solution. We’ve had several devastating terrorist attacks within the last few years that has have made us reconsider our beliefs that we live in free and open democratic societies.

These attacks along with other forms of intimidation have already eroded some of our freedoms. We think twice about criticizing Islam in public, and we refrain from publishing any drawings that could be deemed offensive to the Muslim community. There is no question in my mind that the results of the scare tactics are viewed as small victories among radical Muslims, and only make them more determined to push forward with their plans for overthrowing our democratic societies.

It doesn’t take that much effort to subjugate the masses. And a small group of highly dedicated and trained individuals could easily wreak havoc in our societies if they so choose. If ordinary people feel that they’re putting their lives on the line just by venturing down to the local supermarket or by simply hopping on the tube to go to work, we’ve entered a very critical phase.

If we end up with a spiral of violence in Europe on a similar magnitude of, let’s say, South Africa, where crime is a very real part of everyday life, we’ve passed a point of no return. How long could we survive in such a violent environment? The next natural progression would be a situation similar to the one we have in parts of Iraq, a total breakdown of law and order. If the governments should prove unsuccessful in weeding out the insurgents in such an environment, which is the most likely scenario? Would it be that unheard of for them to try an negotiate a truce? European politicians have been keen advocates of “land for peace” deals in other parts of the world. Would they consider such an option in Europe if the result would be a cessation of hostilities?

The third possible scenario would be the creation of armed European resistance groups. This is very plausible option. We’ve seen such groups operate in Europe before, both during and after the Second World War. If people feel they’re being pushed too far, they’ll eventually start to push back. In the novel Hvitvasking (Money laundry) by Tom Kristiensen (Norwegian author), a clandestine group of Norwegian patriots plans to rid Norway of third-world immigrants. The methods they rely upon are similar to those the terrorists use in present-day Iraq, a war of intimidation and scare tactics. They try to create an environment so hostile and dangerous that the immigrants themselves choose to leave the country.

I believe this would be the tactic of choice adopted by such resistance groups. It has proven highly successful in other parts of the world, such as Iraq and Sudan, just to mention a few. It is very hard to fight such unconventional guerrilla groups, mostly because they can hide amongst the civilian population after they’ve carried out their attacks. It would also be very easy for them to identify members of the Muslim population, but equally difficult for the Muslims and the authorities to identify members of these resistance groups, simply because the members of these groups share the same ethnicity as the majority population in Europe. I am of the opinion that everyone sooner or later will succumb to these scare tactics. Just as the native European population are intimidated by radical Muslims at the present time, Muslims would be equally intimidated by Europeans if they were targeted in a similar way. It would be a totally new experience for them.

The fourth possible scenario is one where terrorist attacks just become too frequent and the loss of lives too hard to tolerate, or that the elite themselves are being targeted by the terrorists. If we get frequent terrorist attacks on the same scale as 9/11 or even bigger, say the partial or total destruction of some of our major cities, it would next to impossible for European governments not to introduce radical measures to rid themselves of this threat. If the number of terrorist attack victims reach into the tens of thousands, or possibly even hundreds of thousands, they would have to act. It is not unthinkable that mass deportation of Muslims then would take place, and that the creation of detention camps like the one at Guantanamo Bay would go ahead.

If, on the other hand, after incidents like these, some politicians still wouldn’t act, something that’s very unlikely, it would still create an ambiance where more radical and pragmatic politicians would win landslide elections, and the execution of these plans would go ahead. I think ordinary people’s survival instinct would override any other human instincts, including any utopian reference to human rights and religious freedom.

A fifth scenario is a peaceful or hostile coexistence between the two cultures. Where both are granted equal status, and where segregation, both cultural and demographic, only increases. It would be a continuation of today’s status quo. This is not a very plausible scenario, because both cultures have shown their unwillingness to live under such unnatural conditions. Sooner or later one of the cultures would resort to undemocratic methods to exert their will over the other.

The sixth scenario is one where the governments of Europe finally see the dangers of the influx of immigrants, and ban immigration from third world countries altogether, but allow the ones that are already here to stay. This could be the outcome if the people in Europe elect radical right-wing politicians to office. As described above, they introduce tough new measures to stop the rapid growth of immigrants in Europe. Maybe they would go as far as introducing a one-child policy for all third-world immigrants, or resort to other economic sanctions to achieve this goal. They could possibly even ban Islam altogether in Europe, or at least ban the radical approach to the religion that the Islamists follow.

This would then lead to a situation where Europe forever would have an ethnic minority within its borders, a continuation of the present day situation. The Muslims living in Europe could then of course choose to either sever all ties to their native countries and perhaps reform their religion, or still choose to cling on to their old culture and strive to change the system to their advantage.

No matter what happens to this continent, whether a full scale war breaks out or not, it’s going to get very nasty. I believe that a rapid deterioration will first occur in one nation, and then others will follow in its track, or chose to introduce countermeasures to prevent a similar fate. It is naïve to expect that an atmosphere of tranquil coexistence is going to last forever here in Europe.

War and hostilities have been the norm here, and not the exception. That’s probably also how it’s going to be in the future.

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

A most excellent and enlightening essay. In my opinion, I think scenario #4 is the most likely. There will be a few, perhaps several, more large terrorist attacks, resulting in many, many deaths, and this will force people to wake up to the threat. Perhaps this will even cause the people to elect right-wing politicians who will deal swiftly and mercilessly with Islam.

I could also see option #3 happening too - but only after some nasty terrorist attacks.

Either way, I believe we're in for a big war. And by "big", I mean something that makes the Second World War look minor.

Chalons said...

Good article.

Lebanon is worth a case-study, too. Ask the non-Muslims how it's all working out for them.

Charlemagne said...

I only pray to God that the Europeans have enough remaining self-respect, national and cultural identity, pride, and determination left in them to prevent #'s 1 and 2. I'm ready, willing, and able to go fight for Europe whenever they call.
If Europe gives up without a fight I will be both sad and disgusted at the same time.

Charlemagne said...

c

gun-totin-wacko said...

Not sure that the elites will ever turn against the 'slammies. As long as the latter sticks to the correct policy of harassing the commoners, and leaves their friendly neighborhood politicians alone.

As for coexistence, yeah right. As somebody pointed out not long ago about negotiating with the slammies, it's hard to negotiate with somebody who holds the position that you must yield or die.

Conservative Swede said...

Hi!

A very interesting article. Especially the description of #3.

I think in the coming two decades we will see a mix of all six points. To different degrees in different Western countries.

There will be a sort of a chicken race here before the moment when the gloves come off (or rather like the card game Old Maid / Schwarzer Peter). More and more European countries will make more and more clear that Muslims are not welcome there. While others (the chickens) will continue to sing the kumbaya, and get an increased stream of Muslim "refugees" (now from replacement within Europe). The development in this stage will be an important factor in deciding the mix of #1-#6 in that country.

Next step is the chicken race of who will leave the EU first. The first to go will get the South African treatment. But once the ice is broken, more will join. And the EU will subsequently fall apart. However, the first one to go might be curbed and broken down, and it could discourage the next attempt for a few years.

Finally, the next level is either Islamic nuclear strikes (with ensuing world war) or a proper counter-revolution in some Western country. An Islamic nuclear strike might be the best thing that could happen to currently ruling elites, since the aggression of the people will be facing outwards towards an external enemy. But also, a world war is a good climate for a counter-revolution. And in a war situation, our nomenklatura might meet a more violent fate then just a tribunal.

Counter-revolutions cannot be avoided in the longer run, since the issues go very deep and are about more than just Islam.

Brian H said...

To a North American, this essay reads like whistling in the wind. Eurostan is pretty much written off as a lost cause. No way have EU éclair-hearts got enough gumption to fight back.

Dave said...

"No way have EU éclair-hearts got enough gumption to fight back."

I haven't given up on them, Brian.

As an example, Churchill once said of the Germans, "They're either at your throat or at your feet." In other words they tend to go from a passive extreme to a violent extreme. Now that might be a bit of a hyperbole, but not entirely. I simply can't imagine the German people giving up without a fight, a very nasty, brutal fight at that.

Nor do I think the Germans are unique in Europe. The British can be quit bloody-minded and willing to fight to the death, when they're pushed to the wall. Even the French and Spanish have histories-in revolution and civil war-of brutally violent warfare.

Let's think of the recent breakup of Yugoslavia. The Serbs fought a decidely not-Marquess-of-Queensbury war.

This interlude of peace since the end of WW2, the Pax Americana, will be shown to be the anomalous exception in European history.

NO, I think it more likely than not that Europe, or at least major parts of it, are in for a violent time...within our lifetimes. For my German example, in extremis, in a German war with the 90% native Germans vs the 10% Muslims, my bet would be on the Germans. Ditto for the British and some others.

Conservative Swede said...

"No way have EU éclair-hearts got enough gumption to fight back."

Either that or we are genocidal natural born Nazis. And many Americans flip between these two views within a second. To see Europeans as non-dehumanized normal people becomes unthinkable. As Freud would have asked, what's the motivation behind such a mind game?

Baron Bodissey said...

CS --

And many Americans flip between these two views within a second. To see Europeans as non-dehumanized normal people becomes unthinkable. As Freud would have asked, what's the motivation behind such a mind game?

I'll make an intuitive guess here, and say that it is a way to dismiss a topic which is so painful and disturbing that we don't want to think about it.

To say that "Europe is done for", or that "racist Europe will eventually exterminate all the immigrants" effectively closes off further analysis.

An inevitable and extreme outcome is postulated. Bad or good, it's what has to happen, and there's nothing we can do about it.

So now we can safely forget about it and go back to watching American Idol or whatever it was we were doing before.

Conservative Swede said...

That's an excellent point, dear Sigmund Bodissey. Very good, indeed.

But unfortunately there's more to it. It's not just out of laziness and psychological comfort. There's more to it. Americans wouldn't allow themselves to think and talk about other people than Europeans in that sort of way (except possibly for the Chinese), even if the same psychological benefit had been gained from it. Why the Europeans?

American national identity is ultimately based on anti-European ideas/emotions. The original American identity is of quakers and puritans who felt oppressed in Europe and left it behind to create a new and different nation. The modern layer of America as "world police" is also based on anti-European emotions, how the Europeans are incorrigible warmongering savages, that would constantly be at each others throat if America was not there to stop them (save them, etc.).

To better illustrate this whole thing to an American. Think of the Canadian national identity. What's to it? Not much. It's main identity is that it's not the U.S. and not like the U.S. In the same way American identity is primarily based on how it's not Europe. It professes to be anti-Europe.

Imagine then how Canada would have interfered in your civil war and stopped it and since then police you and the whole continent, while lecturing you on good manners about diversity etc. (you need to think modern Canada back in the 19th century to get it right).

Now, as an American, you can start appreciating what it's like for Europe today and what role your country plays in this whole setup. To us you are Canada. A very powerful and scary Canada.

Baron Bodissey said...

Dear Carl Swede,

A very powerful and scary Canada? Yow! Like Sponge Bob Square Pants with nukes, maybe...

Well, you are not entirely off the mark. America definitely has a strong streak of anti-European sentiment.

But you still don't understand Americans well enough to be sufficiently nuanced about our character foibles.

You see, Europe is DADDY to us. Let's get all Freudian again: it's an Oedipal rage thing. We have to despise Daddy, but we need his attention and approval all the same.

So what we're contemplating here is Daddy's imminent death, and that is very, very hard for us to face.

Besides being in denial (a very common adaptation to such mental stress), some of us have written him off as already dead ("Europe is lost") or have decided that Daddy can actually defeat death itself ("Europe will ethnically cleanse itself of Muslims in an apocolypic horror that will make the Holocaust look like a tea party").

To consider other ways of cognizing the situation -- let alone acting to help change it -- takes more mental energy than most Americans are able to muster.

And, if truth be told, not many people could. The Europeans have their own flip side -- "America the ignorant trigger-happy cowboy" is at least as widespread in Europe as the attitude you describe in the USA.

Seeing other cultures just as they are, in all their perplexing contradictions, rather than how they fit into some preconceived schema, can be very difficult, even for well-educated people.

Lombard1985 said...

A most excellent and fascinating essay. IMO, I believe #3 & #4 are the most likely to occur for Europe in general, but I do agree that it is likely that different actions can/will be taken in different countries.

Conservative Swede

I agree that there is a sub-conscious anti-Europe sentiment that's built into the American identity, but I think it's more of a recent phenomena.

It is true that since America's founding we've wanted to distinguish and separate ourselves from our European cousins, but until after WWII there was always respect (if at times grudgingly) for Europe.

Nowadays it seems there are only two visable camps: those who want the U.S. to be just like Europe (warts and all-politically & economicaly speaking), or those who want nothing to do with Europe if it doesn't follow us lockstep. The latter describes, more often than not, the mind-set of neo-cons.

Baron

You make an excellent point. I'm sure Freud would agree with your assessment.

Zeke said...

Scenario one is the most interesting. What happens when the first Sharia government is elected in Europe? In the USA the Constitution would slow this down greatly, but much of Europe lives without formal Constitutions, or with ones that are easily changed or discarded. So presumably scenario one could happen.

Then the qeustion quickly moves to is there a revolt? Or do Europeans accept their new status of dhimmitude.

Yes, Americans love to make brash statements about Europe. I don't think that we are as much "non-Europe" in our identity as we are the younger brother. We may have grown up to be as rich and successful as big brother, but we still look up to him, and we're still jealous of him.

You see these contradictions frequently. Americans view European luxury goods as the height of excellence. German cars are still considered the best, in no small part because of the residual respect that Americans have for the old cultures of Europe. English intellectuals are prized, light English accents are considered a sign of intelligence, etc.

But at the same time we do enjoy pointing to the issues that Europe has with too much glee. "Big brother has gained a lot of weight and has a drinking problem."

It's also true that for many cultural and political conservatives in America, Europe has ceased to be an ally and become an enemy. Liberal Americans, on the other hand, love Europe. They constantly point out the superiority of European Socialism's universal health care, Europes love of diplomacy, European labor practices, etc.

Several of our Supreme Court justices have even taken to sighting European judgements in their own.

All of this makes it easy to equate Europe with the worst excesses of Democratic Party leftism, from where it apparently gets so many ideas.

John Kerry was derrided as "French", but his constituents in Massachusettes like that! After all it's New England.

Much of American politics is still about New England and the Atlantic states Vs. the rest. Will the Boston and New York power centers run the country, or will the more dissassociated Western, Southern, MidWest and Plains states find commonality enough to rule.

We seem to be headed towards more power returning to the center, the elites (NY, Washington) running things more and more.

Many westerners in rejecting that shift also reject the philosophical home of of it: "Old Europe" as President Bush put it.

Conservative Swede said...

But you still don't understand Americans well enough to be sufficiently nuanced about our character foibles.

The lack of nuance was due to brevity. It's always a trade-off. The complexities of the American national geist cannot be summarized in a few short paragraphs.

Anyway, going Freudian is the way to go, to understand these things. And we've been doing this before, Baron. I'll get back to this after the interlude.

SEOULDIER13 said...

I'm only an American, but I do wish I was the one to "fire the shot heard around the world" for this near future war. I would kill to do that and send those dogs back to the cursed desert like the jackals they are.

Johnny said...

Your essay is interesting. However - there is another possibility that you haven't considered. Perhaps living as a Dhimmi under Sharia will be preferable to the political correctness hell that places like modern Britain are becoming. At least the Muslims believe in some kind of morality and they have a codified system of morality-based law that means you know where you stand. In Britain today laws have proliferated so much and become so disconnected from reality in such a lunatic way that any thinking person can but despair. There is no limit to the insanities of the bureaucrats who operate in a fantasy world which can never exist - but at least as a Dhimmi you can appeal to Allah. It isn't the Muslim minorities that have constructed the societies we live in today. Seems to me that the real enemy is us.

Robohobo said...

Swede - you said:

American national identity is ultimately based on anti-European ideas/emotions. The original American identity is of quakers and puritans who felt oppressed in Europe and left it behind to create a new and different nation.

AND as a penal colony, please do not forget. That point was pressed home to me many decades ago by a friend when I was stationed in the old West Germany. He was not nasty about it but reminded me that many Europeans did consider us the unwanted that were run out of the countries on the continent.

I come from stock that fled the home island due to oppressive policies of starving the local populace out rather than aid them during times of failed crops throughout the continent and the islands. My great grandparents and some grandparents came and made new lives doing hard work. A Welsh coal miner from Cork who moved and worked the silver mines in the Colorado mountains. Farmers from the west of Ireland who had their land taken for back taxes and were driven/starved out to come here and fail at dry land farming in the San Luis valley. That is just some.

But they came and succeeded. That is the point. Do not think that all Americans treat the idea of the European as one homogeneous citizenry. We do not.

The future of Europe is not all of this or that choice but perhaps somewhat of a Chinese menu of the choices given. Some this for Denmark, some of this and that for Sweden, etc. Each will react as the local populace sees fit. Or if the Irish referendum is ignored and the superstate of the EU is created as the elite claim, there may be nothing done but acceptance of their fate OR massive, bloody civil war. It could go either way.

Us American are interested because we see common cause with the problems born of multiculturalism and trying to adapt to or understand the massive pressures that a large influx of illegal immigrants is causing. We do have our own issues there albeit our illegal immigrants are at the least more like us than not. The American experiment is a unique one that many US citizens do not want to see replaced by some supernational state or broken by pressures from outside.

Anyway - to all:

Happy 4th! God Bless America!

Anonymous said...

Johnny, you can't possibly be serious. Dhimmis under sharia law have pretty much NO rights or voice in society. Political correctness is absolute rubbish, of course - I agree with you on that. But Muslims believing in some kind of morality? No way. That's as ridiculous as saying that murderers and rapists believe in a kind of morality.

Conservative Swede said...

Johnny,

I suggest you try your thesis empirically. Move to e.g. Pakistan, and see what you think. Then write a report to us here about it. Oh, does the idea seem repulsive at the very thought of it? Well, maybe that is an indication about the validity of your idea.

they have a codified system of morality-based law

Wrong. There's nothing morality-based about it. There's just the law. There's just the complete submision to the will of Allah. No morality. You have a naive idea about Islam. Read this to get a first initial understanding:

Islam--perverted parasitical psychopathy

No matter how much PC liberalism degenerates, it will never be able to beat Islam in perversion.

Conservative Swede said...

Back to the Freudian slope, Herr Doktor Baron:

You see, Europe is DADDY to us. Let's get all Freudian again: it's an Oedipal rage thing. We have to despise Daddy, but we need his attention and approval all the same.

Spot on. However, since America became the leader of the world and "won" WWII the family relations have become much more complex. Europe is now at the same time the old harrassed grand parent (representing Nazism, colonialism, old monarchies etc. - what is feared and pushed down), and the spoiled teenage brat (the extravagant irresponsible liberalism - what is far too much encouraged). The two roles are superimposed upon each other. While America is in the role of the hippy parent. In charge, but with a hippy mindset about not really being the leader.

So what we're contemplating here is Daddy's imminent death, and that is very, very hard for us to face.

But here's an important aspect you put the finger on. In spite of the strange double nature of Europe, in its current incarnation, Europe is truly the biological father of America. While vice versa, America is more like mommy's new boyfriend to Europe.

Yes, with America as the step-father the reciprocal sort of contempt has developed in Europe against America the father figure. As in your example: "America the ignorant trigger-happy cowboy". But here's the remarkable aspect of it. In Europe it is the political left that shows this anti-Americanism. While in the U.S. it is the political right that exposes the anti-European expressions (both kinds!), as is being discussed here. And while the leftists in Europe can express joy over the death of American soldiers, you will not find them wishing for the whole country of America to perish, as you can see people on the American right (such as Mark Steyn) with regards to Europe. The American right is more extreme than the European left in this respect.

It's of course the American right that grasps the concept of "Daddy's imminent death", the left is all unaware of this as a possibility. The American and European left are not so different with respect to all this.

Anyway, herein lies the answer, brought forward by you. The extreme expression from people on the American right about Europe is all a Freudian thing. It's about being in shock and denial and writing Europe off as already dead. Mixed with fears of European fascism and old monarchies, and self-congratulation over the post-WWII world order.

Baron Bodissey said...

CS --

Well, we seem to be in major agreement here. There's not much I can except this: the reason that the American Right tends to loathe Europe is the same reason that the American left loves it: the reigning Socialist orthodoxy in European governments.

An amusing corollary to all that is what happened among American leftists with respect to the former communist satellites after the Berlin Wall fell.

They used to love brave little Poland when it was Brezhnev's Mini-Me. But as soon as the Poles cast off communism and embraced liberty and free enterprise, they were quietly forgotten, or even reviled for their materialist apostasy.

Amusing, that.

Conservative Swede said...

Bodissey,

Well, we seem to be in major agreement here.

Yes, I felt how we have been converging on these views. And we are approaching the issue in the same sort of way, as psycho-analysis of family relations. But it is a tricky analysis since there are many (historical) layers, and different roles and relations at different layers--living side by side, superimposed on each other, at the same time.

There's not much I can except this: the reason that the American Right tends to loathe Europe is the same reason that the American left loves it: the reigning Socialist orthodoxy in European governments.

While this is true, I'd say it does not apply here. You are mixing up the layers right now (you had it right from the start). When the American right is on shock and denial in the face of the immanent death of Daddy, it's not the prospect of the loss of the reigning Socialist orthodoxy in Europe that hits them so hard. It's the prospect of the loss of the real Daddy, the true historical Europe, that gets to them. It's this trauma that is too hard for them to face, so that they write off Europe as already dead, in order to effectively close off further analysis.

(Please note how I just repeating your own words here.)

The prospect of the reigning Socialist orthodoxy in Europe dying, would not be a trauma for the American right, but a cause for celebration. (Only that what they perceive as "fascism" would come in its place).

It's the prospect of the death of the real Europe, the real Daddy, that is the foundation for the extreme formulations (hey, you were the one who made this clear to me!). Other aspect from other layers may add to the mix, but would not constitute this sort of reaction as such.

Baron Bodissey said...

CS --

As for the Left, I was referring only to those Americans in denial about (or ignorant of) the coming catastrophe in Europe. The Leftists who love Europe for its socialism, brie, and gay porn are not looking ahead to what's about to happen, they are thinking of Europe as they have always known it to be.

Denial? Foolishness? Who can tell?

As for the right, the two threads can converge. "Those pinko bastards in Europe are going to get what's coming to them now; the Muslims will see to that." That kind of attitude woiuldn't surprise me at all, though I can't say I actually know anyone who holds it.

BTW, I think you're too hard on Mark Steyn. He doesn't want Europe to be destroyed -- he's an Anglophile, after all -- he just doesn't see any way destruction can be avoided.

I look at the same situation and see a different possibility. The more contact I have with actual Europeans -- normal ones, not the snoids that go to Davos -- the more I believe that change is possible.

It may well be, as Zenster so aptly puts it, the lampost-and-rope kind of change. But I think it will come.

Anonymous said...

I'm kinda with Conservative Swede on the whole Mark Steyn thing. I do like Steyn -- I respect him and would recommend America Alone to anyone, but I have a few deep ideological differences with him.

You see, I have a pretty big problem with people who say that Europe is a lost cause that's too far gone to save. I definitely don't see it that way. Europe is doing some stupid things right now, but there is hope for them.

I also had a problem with some statements in his book about the future of Iraq. He said that he thinks the future of Iraq is more stable than that of Europe. I think that's rubbish. He also supports keeping our troops in Iraq, which I do not (but for VERY different reasons than those liberals who advocate pulling out).

Despite my differences of opinion, I don't dislike Steyn -- as I said before, I do like him a lot. He's right in many other things. And I don't think he actually wants to see Europe destroyed, he just thinks it's inevitable (which I disagree with quite strongly).

Dymphna said...

Natalie--

When I read the book, I thought Steyn's gloomy outlook was just characterological. His mordant wit in his columns is what is so attractive. But applying it across the breadth of a book does not work so well.

This is true of P.J. O'Rourke also. I like him in small doses -- maybe a chapter at a time. The future Baron reads all his stuff, though.

O'Rourke has the advantage of bringing a good knowledge of economics to his writing. A rare skill to make it witty.

BTW, Zenster said he spotted a rare bird: the writ-crested tantrumming snit. Have you ever seen one? (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

Johnny said...

Thanks for your comments guys.

But here's a quote from an Australian High Court Judge:

"As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to."
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/hca/transcripts/1999/B55/1.html
http://tinyurl.com/56lk4a

There are absolutely no restraints on the psychopaths running UK currently. They have disposed of habeas corpus and right to silence, introduced detention without trial, removed protections against double jeopardy, denied freedom of speech, denied the right to keep and bear arms and self defence in general, you have no freedom of assembly, constant surveillance with no effective privacy rights, voting is a sham and allowed only in certain restricted circumstances... the list could go on and on and on. It's hard to see, as a matter of practical fact, in what sense I'm not a dhimmi in my own country now but under the rule of godless Marxists and psychopaths who believe only what they want to believe.

I'm not saying it will be better under Sharia - I'm just saying that unless they do something like start up the gas ovens and forced labour camps again, as a matter of practical fact can it really be significantly worse? That, I submit, is not as certain as your dogmatic assertions would imply. You could pick third world Christian countries in Africa or South America where life would be as miserable as Pakistan. For that matter there are some tremendously bad areas even in the USA. OTOH, plenty of Westerners are choosing to live, work and own property in Dubai because of the economic vibrancy of the place and culture.

I strongly agree that Muslims and Sharia are a tremendous problem - but what does worry me is that we're not seeing the forest for the trees. There needs to be some serious cleaning of house in the majority populations in Europe, IMNSVHO. We wouldn't even be needing to have this discussion if it wasn't for the fundamental failures of so-called Western Civilization to maintain its social structures and a strong civil society.

Luke 6:41 (KJV).

Bert said...

Very interesting article and comments!
Maybe a mix of the third scenario (armed resistance groups) during the fifth (hostile cooptation) might happen when the welfare state finally collapses and countries slowly break up in muslim-leftist ruled cities and middle of the road ruled countrysides.

Scenario: The welfare state collapses, the muslim majority in the cities grab power aided by the 'anti' fascisits (marxists) to suck out the last drop of 'free money' and shower the still working population with whatever- and dhimmy-taxes. The now poor jobless and subsidy-less sleepwalkers wake up, join the dissidents and revolt from the countryside.

After a long period of ever more poverty and violence maybe a country like the Netherlands will split up in Hollandistan (muslim-marxist, but finally -after the useful idiots are done with and Arab financing comes to full aid- 100% muslim), Friesland (joining with the free parts of Denmark) and The United Provinces (in a partnership with free Flanders). All under constant threat by the terror coming from Hollandistan.

@ Zeke: "We (US citizens) may have grown up to be as rich and successful as big brother (Europe), but we still look up to him, and we're still jealous of him."
Maybe the other way around might be like this: We (Europeans) didn't make it to become as free, democratic and succesful as our younger beloved brother who decided to leave the house in time. He made it while we lost it and therefore still look up to him: some with envy and sincere admiration, some hyperventilating out of jealousy and anger.

Anonymous said...

Dymphna, Steyn's mordant humour is usually pretty funny, but I agree that it didn't work so well for a whole book. He was funny at times, but I had to read the book in small doses.

About Zenster's sighting, I think I have too...

Conservative Swede said...

Steyn is a prime specimen of the Bodissey Syndrome. There's no arguing about that.

Ypp said...

"Will western Europe resemble war torn Chechnya after the final battles"

The author does not recognize that in this matter he is rather on the side of terrible RRRussians than freedom-loving Chechens. What exactly is he fighting against? It is not yet proven that the Islamic takeover originates from Leftism or authoritarian regimes. It seems that the author continues his old partisan struggle with his ideological or national enemies, using Islam as an argument. Which is exactly the recipe for defeat.

jnod said...

KIPLING SAYS IT ALL

THE STRANGER

THE Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk —
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wonted to,
They are used to the lies I tell.
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy and sell.

The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control —
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.

This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf —
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.


THE BEGINNINGS
(1915, published 1917)

It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy — willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not suddenly bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.