Sunday, February 27, 2011

Playground Bully

Erdogan and Merkel

A hundred years ago Turkey was known as “The Sick Man of Europe” — and with good reason. For most of the 19th century it had been driven back and whittled away by the European powers until its territory was reduced to a tiny slice of European soil, the Anatolian peninsula, and a set of destitute fiefdoms in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Maghreb.

At the height of its power in 1683, the Ottoman Empire — which was also the Caliphate in those days — extended to the gates of Vienna in the northwest, into Polish territory in the north, into Russian territory in the Black Sea and the Caucasus, into Persia in the east, and along the Arab-dominated littorals of Arabia, the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea, and North Africa.

Ottoman decline

Turkey staggered into the 20th century as an empire only because certain of the great powers found it expedient to keep it on life support. Great Britain in particular needed the “sick man” to act as a buffer between Russia and British interests in the Mediterranean and the Near East. Denying Russia access to the Dardanelles was a principal British foreign policy objective right up until 1914, and a near-moribund Turkey served that purpose very well.

Then came the Great War, and everything changed. Turkey was dismembered, Russia became the Soviet Union, and Britain, France, and Italy agreed to divide up the Near East as best suited their interests.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Modern Turkey is a stronger and more effective power than the Ottoman Empire was under the last of the Sultans. Even so, it is still no real danger to Europe — if the Turks were to become bellicose, even the shriveled military capability of the EU could handle them.

So why has Europe chosen to cower and truckle in the face of Turkish arrogance and supremacism? Why did the EU allow Turkey to become the playground bully of Europe?

As an example of this inexplicable trend, consider the following article from The Local about Turkey’s latest demands on Germany:

Erdogan Says Germany Must Support Turkish EU Membership

A day before he is due in Germany, Turkish President [actually Prime Minister — BB] Tayyib Erdogan has harshly criticised Germany’s policy towards Turkish efforts to join the European Union, saying it should support full membership.

“The expectation of the Turkish population is that Germany, as previously under earlier CDU governments, take a leading role within the EU regarding the entry negotiations with Turkey,” Erdogan told Saturday’s edition of the Rheinische Post.

Notice that the Turkish prime minister is right at home with ordering the German government around. His demands are not phrased as polite requests, but as near-commands — as if he were accustomed to German obedience.

He acknowledges that Chancellor Merkel’s policy is aimed at a domestic audience, but he has no qualms about interfering directly in Germany’s internal political affairs:

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union has most recently proposed a ‘privileged partnership’ between Turkey and the European Union, something Erdogan rejects, and suggested was only a construct for domestic consumption.

Mr. Erdogan has good reason to believe he can meddle in Germany’s affairs, because he has the support and collaboration of eminent German political figures, including a former chancellor:
[Former Chancellor Gerhard] Schröder said this weekend, Turkey should no longer be offered the privileged partnership, which he told the Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung had no substance. Germany should behave as a lawyer acting in Turkey’s interests – out of its own interests, considering that Germany is Turkey’s biggest trade partner he said.

There it is in black and white: a prominent German politician says that Germany should act in the interests of Turkey, and not Germany.

How did Germany’s political culture become this degraded?

Erdogan also criticised German integration policies, saying they took no notice of the wishes of the Turkish people concerned.

“I think it successful integration requires the German authorities to no longer deal only one-sidedly but rather to aim for cooperation with Turkish migrants, Turkish civil organisations and the Turkish government.”

In other words: Turkey requires Germany to grant it a say in — and presumably veto power over — German immigration policy. If the Turks insist on filling up Germany with Turkish migrants, then that’s just the way it has to be. Germany has no choice — it must comply.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

This post isn’t about Prime Minister Erdogan or the AKP or the arrogance of the Turks. It’s about the fecklessness and cowardice of the German government and the European Union.

How did Europe become so weak and spineless in the face of a foreign power which is such an obvious long-term threat to European interests?

Why all this truckling and spinelessness?

I’d be interested to hear some analysis by our readers. Yes, I know the ideology of Politically Correct Multiculturalism is behind it — but cynical politicians would discard all that in a heartbeat if it improved their electoral chances or served to enhance their power.

So let’s hear what you have to say. But stay on topic for a change — I don’t want the discussion to veer off into any of the customary preoccupations of certain commenters.

Hat tip: C. Cantoni.


EscapeVelocity said...

The reasons for PC Multiculturalism have 2 primary helpers.

The Left (and its gaggle of minority groups which are substitute proletarians) pushes it.....but equally important...perhaps even moreso though it wouldnt happen organically without the Left driving that the West and European peopples lost their cultural confidence. First by abandoning their religion, Christianity (which has several reasons and some similar to what comes next) and then having their man made ideologies of human reason turn into spactacular death dealing oppressors of humanity...namely Communism and Fascism. Its a culture of guilt and rejection of the past....which can be easily described as self hatred, which leads to nihilism. The only thing that stands is the rejection of ideology or the embracing of moral and cultural relativism....which leads to Secular Hedonism.

The best book Ive seen discuss this later phenomenon is Chantol Delsol's Icarus Fallen: The Search for Meaning in an Uncertain World.

EscapeVelocity said...

Notice not only should the Turkish Government (like the Mexican Government also claims with regards to US immigration and naturalization policy) should be creators of German immigration and naturalization policy, but the Turkish immigrants as well. Assimilation to German culture is not the end goal. Germans have to integrate/assimilate to Turkish norms and culture as well.

Its colonization.

Anonymous said...

First of all, the role of the USA cannot be overestimated. Much of the European elite is simply mesmerised by America. They are so accustomed to taking orders from Washington that they have simply lost the capacity for independent thought. The US has been pushing Turkish membership for decades and, for the most part, the European elites have meekly complied. It is no coincidence that it is France and Germany, two countries with more of a tradition of independence from Washington, that have opposed Turkish membership most firmly.

Some EU members nurture dreams of the EU being a rival to the US; others, like Britain, fiercely oppose this. The ones who oppose this dream welcome as many new members as possible, the more unlike the better, because it dilutes the possibility of the French-German dream ever coming to fruition. This is why they supported the countries of eastern Europe as new members, and it is why they support Turkish membership too.

Second, the element of skulduggery should be considered. It is a distinct possibility that the Turks have been engaging in large-scale bribery and blackmail to push their cause within the counsels of the EU. This may sound fantastical, but the Sibel Edmonds case revealed that they were doing similar things in the US, including sending honeytrap agents and blackmailing senior US politicians. I've mentioned this a few times on my StopTurkey blog.

Some of these politicians have financial interests at stake. Schroeder, for example, is involved with the Russian energy companies that plan to run a pipeline through Turkey. Things would go much more smoothly for them if Turkey was an EU member.

Third, most politicians simply know very little about Turkey. They have no idea about the kind of virulent nationalism or retrograde attitudes that exist in Turkey. They think Turks are just funny brown people, the same as Africans or Arabs, and that they will be meek and grateful if allowed into the EU. In fact, Turkey ruled over most of the Middle East for centuries and still has a sense of imperial hauteur that derives from that. Turkey intends to dominate the EU if it gets in, but these naive fools have no conception of that.

EscapeVelocity said...

Here is an article about Icarus Fallen that is worth reading.

What Ails Us

The problem is not just that the Left is hell bent on Western European peoples, civilization, cultures, systems destruction....but that they have a populace full of self doubt to push around. Without the later, they wouldnt get far....but without the former there wouldnt be movement in this self destructive direction.

CubuCoko said...

Yes, there's US involvement, and yes there's the Frankfurt School cultural Marxism, but the fertile soil their ideas fell on was the apocalyptic devastation wrought by WW1 and WW2. Europeans were tired of war, their empires were gone, and they were in a daze - in such a state, it was easy to feed them a bucket of slop about how political correctness and progressivism would make everything all right. That's how it started...

As to how it will end, I think it was Vox Day who said that Americans underestimate the Europeans' capability for violence. Simply because so many Europeans today are in an appeasing mood doesn't mean that they might not completely reverse that position sometime in the near future, and decide to settle it in a violent manner.

Van Grungy said...

Quite simply because the muslim tipping point has been reached.. All government officials can expect to be assassinated and/or their families liquidated by disposable muslims already waiting for orders around europe.

Self preservation.

EscapeVelocity said...

Germany is pro US...and has been since the end of WW2.

Its the French that have delusions of grandeur about their former glory as world imperial, just like the Turks. And why the French have time and again allied themselves with Anti US governments and ideologies (or given them respect and credibility).

Do I need to make a list?

jeppo said...

"How did Germany's political culture become this degraded?"

Just because disgraced former Chancellor Schroder wants Turkey in the EU doesn't mean Germany's entire political culture is degraded. Quite the contrary. Consider this from Spiegel:

"The majority of Germany's politicians -- and presumably also the German people - are of the opinion that the country has already had enough immigration. There may be minorities such as Economics Minister Rainer Brüderle, employers' associations, the German Chambers of Industry and Commerce (DIHK) and the German Engineering Federation who are calling for new immigrants, but no one appears to be listening to them."

"Unfortunately, the immigration policy based on these reflexes is "effective": Germany's borders have been virtually sealed. Tougher asylum laws mean that Germany has practically stopped accepting refugees. In 2008, only 233 people were granted asylum.

After Germany stopped recruiting guest workers in 1973, the main way to emigrate was for family members abroad to join their relatives in Germany. However, because these family reunions primarily allowed women and children to move to Germany -- thereby causing the already low educational level of immigrants to drop even further -- they were later severely impeded. Since then, an ever-dwindling number of Turks have been emigrating to Germany. Their net immigration plunged from 10,130 in the year 2000 to 1,746 in 2005. In the meantime, the direction of emigration has even reversed itself. In 2008 -- the most recent year with available concrete figures -- there was a net emigration of 10,147 persons to Turkey."

"Nonetheless, it looks as if the politicians in Berlin have long since embraced Sarrazin's problem group definition and tailored their immigration policies accordingly. The numbers, in any case, support the assumption that Germany is sealing itself off. Neither unqualified nor qualified immigrants are apparently welcome. Only poor EU countries, from which the flow of immigration cannot be stopped, still provided significant numbers of new arrivals to Germany in 2008: 8,103 from Bulgaria and 10,447 from Romania. Statistics also reveal that over the past two years the number of people from majority Muslim countries who returned home significantly outstripped the number who immigrated to Germany.

And we are by no means being overrun by highly-qualified foreigners either: In 2008, a total of only 157 individuals from non-EU countries were granted permanent residency status -- 71 of whom came from the US. That is an impressively low number in view of the 40,000 to 80,000 vacant skilled worker positions upon which up to a quarter of a million jobs depend. One reason for the relatively low productivity of immigrants here in Germany is that we don't even allow qualified individuals into the country.

It is absurd that for years Germany has steadfastly ignored all the warning signals and refused to become a country of immigrants -- with the result that it is now de facto a country of net emigration. For many years, an annual average of 250,000 people came across the border. According to official statistics, however, since 2008 more people have been leaving the land of poets, thinkers and engineers than have been arriving. This puts Germany in a league apart -- along with Japan -- among the world's highly-developed rich industrialized nations."



Anonymous said...

Blogger Van Grungy: "Quite simply because the muslim tipping point has been reached.. All government officials can expect to be assassinated and/or their families liquidated by disposable muslims already waiting for orders around europe."

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. On any given day, Europeans could round up ALL imams and proceed with the same plan - even better eliminate all mosques and monetary payments to Muslims in any form including all social services.

Kevin Stroup said...

Europeans are decadent now. Does anyone reading this blog doubt this? Stop blaming the politicians for the mess Europe is in. Politicians have always been corrupt and dumb. But it is the electorate, the common man, who reelects them, and buys up their lies. In a democratically elected republic, you have only yourself to blame for the state your country is in. The Turks? They are just junkyard dogs who smell fear and weakness. Fear and weakness make vicious dogs aggressive.

jeppo said...

From the Guardian:

"A leading German politician has stoked a debate about foreigners and the workplace after calling for a halt to immigration for Turks and Arabs, citing the difficulties they have in integrating.

Horst Seehofer, premier of the conservative southern German state of Bavaria, stressed the urgent need to stem the flow of immigrants from Arab lands, and focus instead on cultures more similar to Germany's.

Seehofer, a member of the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats, told a German magazine it was time for the country to look elsewhere for qualified workers at a time when many parts of the labour market are facing grave shortfalls.

"It's clear that immigrants from other cultural circles like Turkey, and Arab countries have more difficulties. From that I draw the conclusion that we don't need any additional foreign workers from other cultures," he said.

He added that Germany should first "deal with the people who already live here" and "get tougher on those who refuse to integrate" before opening itself up to further immigration."


It's no coincidence that Thilo Sarrazin's book sold over a million copies in Germany, or that Angela Merkel was the first Western leader to denounce multiculturalism. It's the policy of the American government to push for Turkish entry into the EU, not that of the German government, which is adamantly against it, the impotent whining of Schroder and Erdogan notwithstanding.

jeppo said...

2nd linky no work

Van Grungy said...

"On any given day, Europeans could round up ALL imams and proceed with the same plan "

The rub is, muslims would use that sensible action to solidify their claim that they are more jewish than Jews.

It's a bit of a catch 22 until enough regular People hate muslims enough that they finally realize that muslims are not worthy of victimhood after actually causing front line violence Jews were never capable of committing during their long exile in Europe.

In Hoc Signo Vinces† said...

In hoc signo vinces

Looking through the comments "the Left" is to blame, what is meant by "the Left", Dennis "the Left" Skinner MP recently challenged David "the Right" Cameron PM on his wish to “willingly swap” Englishmen for 80 million Turks, this turns the political labels of left and right in mainstream politics upside down.

Steven Zoraster said...

Right to keep and bear arms? Possibly there would not be so many no go areas in Europe if citizens had the right and real opportunity for self defense?

EscapeVelocity said...

Stephen Zoraster, the US has plenty of no go areas, of the African American and Latino variety.

Anonymous said...

This may only seem tangentially related to the subject of this post...

Oddly, the Turkish Wikipedia page for "Territories of the Ottoman Empire" claims that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was an Ottoman "protectorate" from 1576-86 (the reign of Stephen Bathory, also the vassal king of Transylvania at the time).

Scroll down here:

Truth is, while Bathory could be considered an Ottoman subject by virtue of his recognizing Turkish suzerainty over his territory in Transylvania, neither Mehmed III or Vizier Sokullu Mehmed Pasha could exert any control over internal politics in the decentralized, liberty-loving Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Of course, the claim may come from the Orientalist scholar Martijn Theodoor Houtsma, who in his Encyclopaedia of Islam wrote the following...

"Even Poland was considered more or less as an Ottoman tributary vassal state; the Polish king, Stephan Bathory, owed his crown to the sultan’s protection and after his death (1587) the new King, Sigismud began to reign by the grace of Murad [III]."

As I said, it's hard to believe staunchly-independent Poland, in constant war with Ottoman and Crimean aggressors (past the siege of Vienna in 1683, down through the retaking of Podolia in 1699), would ever accept even the nominal suzerainty of the Ottomans. Actually, the Treaty of Buczacz in 1672 was supposed to make Poland-Lithuania a vassal of the Ottomans, but such a status was never implemented and was officially revoked with the Treaty of Zurawno. I think such a notion of Polish submission to Ottoman suzerainty only constitutes the fantastical ramblings of an Islamophile, the facts demonstrating otherwise.

Philip Daniel

Olsen Rainer said...

I just want you in Europe to know how an American sees all of this.
First of all yes I am an American. 34 years old, an Iraq AND Afghan war veteran, and male. I think it is important for you Europeans know this about be because 1. the avg. Europeans antiwar stance against America, & 2. because we look at Europe killing itself with multiculturism BS.

Germany you are one of my favorite countries. So I shake my head with dismay and sorrow how you are allowing your politicians to sell your country out to islamic barbarians. You should tell the barbarian turks to go copulate with themselves and stay in their hellhole. You should kick your turks out.

Perhaps the German on the streets understands the problems with islam just as here in the USA we avg American understand the threat. I hope this is the case. As an American though it is hard for me to understand how Germans hold such AntiAmerican sentiments at the same time they are getting bullied by subhuman islamist barbarians.

Hesperado said...

"...cynical politicians would discard all that [PC MC] in a heartbeat if it improved their electoral chances or served to enhance their power."

So would relatively sincere and ethical politicians who are, in the West, the majority.

There are two main reasons why Western politicians continue to pursue the PC MC agenda in terms of favoring Muslims:

1) They are true believers in PC MC (this applies across the political spectrum, to both conservatives and liberals and those in between, with precious few exceptions): thus their behavior on this account is not duplicitous or cynical, it is sincere and they believe they are being ethical.

2) The majority of the people agree with them.

In the West, unlike in dictatorships or totalitarian societies, politicians tend to swim with the prevailing stream and do not as a rule go against the grain. In the West, unlike in dictatorships or totalitarian societies, we can measure where the people are (the majority of them) by how the politicians behave.

(Another persuasive barometer of where Western people stand on Islam is reflected by the massive fact that popular mainstream arts and entertainment throughout the West, from Hollywood to Cannes, has not produced one anti-Islamic television show or movie (dramatic, comedy, or documentary), with only an infinitessimal amount of amorphous exceptions. If you want to talk cynical, it is in the entertainment industry: The bottom line is the only thing that matters, not ideology. The producers and businessmen in charge are not producing PC MC movies about Islam (and also not about Islam) because they are trying to push the PC MC dogma on The People: they are doing it because they know -- through their decades of business savvy and expertise in demographics and trends -- what is likely to make money, and what is likely to lose money. And they continue to determine, apparently, that anti-Islam themes will lose money, because most people are either not interested or positively would be turned off by them. The instant that the producers and businessmen were persuaded that most people had changed their minds, they would begin churning out anti-Islam themes like there was no tomorrow.)

Baron Bodissey said...

Hesperado --

I agree with your excellent analysis with two partial (and minor) exceptions:

(1) Many politicians have no real beliefs of their own -- they simply believe whatever zeitgeist their wetted fingers detect in the wind. This is why they can execute an about-face with such convincing sincerity -- they are sincere, in their own way. They just reflect what they intuit to be the opinions of the people who elect them.

(2) Don't underestimate the threat of violence as a deterrent to Hollywood. The lessons of Salman Rushdie, Theo Van Gogh, the Motoons, Lars Vilks, and Sherry Jones have been absorbed, even if they are rarely discussed in public.

Hesperado said...

Gray Falcon's comment (and those of nearly every other anti-Islam person here and elsewhere) reflects an inability to process one massive possibility. First, the relevant portion of the comment:

Europeans were tired of war, their empires were gone, and they were in a daze - in such a state, it was easy to feed them a bucket of slop about how political correctness and progressivism would make everything all right.

Gray Falcon's formulation depicts a people who are passive recipients of PC MC; and Gray Falcon's way of explaining why they were disposed to receive it at all is that they were war-weary. Other anti-Islamic individuals may have other explanations, but all share the same basic template:

1) Western people are not PC MC by free and relatively thoughtful choice.

2) To explain the dominance of PC MC throughout the West, then, given #1, we must hypothesize some kind of mass inertia and/or hypnosis by which hundreds of millions of people have been duped and continue to be controlled.

3) And who is doing the duping and controlling? Why, a dastardly cabal of Elites, of course. How many Elites are there? What makes an Elite?

Once we begin to probe the demographics of "Elitistics", we find that the model shows cracks and threatens to break down, for the West is not a dictatorial or totalitarian autocracy. In addition, we find innumerable types of people reflecting a vast array of sociopolitical strata who parrot the PC MC line. Is the associate editor of a local newspaper in Dubuque, Minesota, who unremarkably regurgitates all the PC MC platitudes about Islam, also part of the dastardly cabal of Globalist Elites? To explain him -- and the millions others like him throughout the West -- then requires another maneuver, a maneuver that begins to edge into incoherence, insofar as the anti-Islam analyst wishes to preserve his sweeping assumption that the Common (Western) Man is on Our Side, alongside the logical need which his overall hypothesis demands: namely, how to explain the mainstream dominance of PC MC, if so many hundreds of millions of Common Men are on Our Side. Thus, the almost supernatural powers of those dastardly Elites begin to be exaggerated (and it particularly helps, in this pinch, to be an antisemite, who comes with a ready-made supernatural villain with amazing powers).

And so forth.

Anonymous said...

Those who blame ordinary Europeans fail to grasp the significance of the suppression of free speech in Europe. Part of this is the criminalisation of opinion, but perhaps the most important part is the censorship in the media. In some countries there are laws that prohibit journalists from mentioning the race or religion of a criminal; in other countries, such restraints are applied voluntarily by journalist trade unions.

Stories that reflect negatively on Muslims or immigrant groups in general are played down or not reported at all. Last year the chairwoman of the Conservative party in Britain, who is herself a Muslim, claimed that Asian (elite code for Muslim) vote fraud had altered the outcome of the British general election. Most British newspapers didn't even report her claim! What ought to have been one of the biggest stories in British history - a British general election being stolen - was simply buried.

People cannot react to what is happening unless they know about it. We face a systematic, Soviet-style conspiracy to suppress the truth, all the more insidious because our countries otherwise have the appearance of being free.

Hesperado said...


With regard to your first point, I realize such types of politicians exist, but I don't believe they are anything more than a small minority. The problem of PC MC is not in the easy villains we can spot to explain it, but precisely in its widespread prevalence among relatively good and intelligent people, on all sides of the political spectrum.

On your second point, I meant to mention the fear factor. But, for example, if we were to hypothesize a global cult of white racists who were similarly making threats and making good on some of them, the PC MC majority in the entertainment industry would be cautious, but they would not be going the extra mile with obsequious solicitousness as they are with Islam. Obviously, there is something else operating besides the fear factor: and that is that the axioms of PC MC are sincerely believed. Most Muslims are Brown People, they number in the hundreds of millions all over the world, and most of them are ostensibly not saying or doing anything bad: therefore, there is no systemic problem of Islam, only a problem of a Tiny Minority of Extremists. There simply cannot be a systemic problem, because all those Brown People cannot be bad: it's a physical, ontological impossibility to even entertain such a notion, for the PC MC mind. And at any moment data arises to the attention indicating that the problem indeed has systemic proportions, a whole complex array of other axioms kicks in on auto pilot, to explain how somehow Islam has nothing to do with it (and that more likely than not the West in one way or another is the real culprit).

Baron Bodissey said...

Hesperado --

Yes, I think I'm in general agreement with you on both points.

The fear factor is important, but only at the margin -- that is, it helps tip them into full PC/MC behavior that is already naturally attractive to them anyway.

Molly Norris is the best example of this type of behavior. After she showed the mildest of disrespect towards Islam, a fatwa quickly woke her up and returned her to orthodox PC dhimmi-mode. One wouldn't be surprised to see her in a year or two paying a friendship visit to a "moderate" Islamic center, clad in a stylish (maybe even self-decorated) hijab.

Anonymous said...

considering that Germany is Turkey’s biggest trade partner

There you have it. If Germany isn't respectful enough, Turkey can shop elsewhere. As long as Western corporations are free to make their own foreign policy, Western politicians will follow. This is why so many countries allow private companies to sell technology to hostile third world companies, and why students from hostile third world countries are allowed to study nuclear technology and other iffy subjects at Western universities. The Western corporations and universities just don't care about the results, and neither do the politicians who need money to get re-elected and retire comfortably, perhaps as ambassadors and consultants. Money is good.

This is why I'm not all that gung ho about free trade. As long as it's all about profit, why shouldn't German politicians submit to Turkey? The customer is always right.

Anonymous said...

correction: sell technology to hostile third world countries

Professor L said...

Actually, I'm curious to see if Chancellor Merkel has told Erdogan where to shove his self-righteous interference.

And really, I suspect that, while the business as usual may be the case for now as the politicians begin to accept the failure of multiculturalism (except in Australia. Pity, really, but what do you expect from Labor when they're under pressure from the Greens and the Coalition has a monopoly on the conservatives), the politicians have realised that the wind has chnged direction and they are tacking against it.

And I'm also inclined to agree with Hesperado - most people want to "be reasonable", and really just go along with things because it sounds reasonable or, if it doesn't, are too afraid to speak up. Only now that some people are being brave and speaking up, more are coming to the fore.

Anonymous said...

Hesperado: "Obviously, there is something else operating besides the fear factor: and that is that the axioms of PC MC are sincerely believed."

"Body of Lies is a 2008 American spy film directed by Ridley Scott. Set in the Middle East, it follows the attempts of the CIA and Jordanian Intelligence to catch al-Saleem, a fictional jihadist terrorist. Frustrated by his elusiveness, differences in their approaches show and strain relations between a CIA operative, his superior and the head of Jordanian Intelligence. The CIA orchestrate a staged bombing in Turkey, making it seem to be the work of a previously unknown terrorist, betting that al-Saleem's pride will encourage him to make contact with those responsible."

This Leonardo DiCaprio film ends with Leo deciding to stay in the Middle East after his having been absolutely brutalized by Middle Easterners. Another character is incredulous and says something like, "How can you stay here? No one likes the Middle East."

To which Leo replies, "Maybe that's the problem...."

OUCH! So, the end of the movie conveyed the PC MC theme that it's up to the West to like the Middle East - no matter how the Middle East likes - or treats - us...."

Hesperado said...

Egghead, I hadn't seen that one, but you could multiply that by a thousand, if you include also television (the American 24 and the British Spooks being acutely apposite examples).

EscapeVelocity said...

Anybody up for a Food Embargo?

elitist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sagunto said...

Kevin Stroup -

You wrote:

"Europeans are decadent now. Does anyone reading this blog doubt this? Stop blaming the politicians for the mess Europe is in. Politicians have always been corrupt and dumb. But it is the electorate, the common man, who reelects them, and buys up their lies."

I take it from your comment that you never went out to vote yourself?

Though you didn't express it openly, it would be supremely self-delusional to think of the "common man" in the US as different in any substantial way when it comes to politics.

FYI, over here we are - politically speaking - some 20 years ahead of the US.
Try to imagine a high profile US political leader (Bush senior) circa 1990, stating that "Islamic culture is inferior to the West". Try to imagine these and other statements scorning Islam would gain that party a landslide victory at the '98 national elections.
Picture another politician that would have become US President in 2002, if only he had not been assassinated because of his anti-Islam programme.

Of course there is genuine conservative folk both in the US and Europe who must stand together in the fight against Islam. In that sense, Americans are Europeans and vice versa. We stand together and the fight for freedom is not only against the Muzzies.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Sagunto said...

Hesperado -

Here's one golden oldie from Alexis de Tocqueville (on your unproven thesis, serving your particular PC MC theory, that people past and present choose willingly for multiculturalism. Cave: my objections are based on the situation in the Netherlands):

"I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.

Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. As they cannot destroy either the one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people."


(ps: it seems that a previous comment is still lost in cyberspace?)

john in cheshire said...

I'm not sure what it is like in the rest of Europe and in the USA, but I think that if here in England, we had not been aborting foetuses at the rate of 200,000 or so over the past 20 or more years, then there would be sufficient younger people in our country to obviate the need for any of the millions of, unwanted, immigrants that we must now endure. Just another deliberate policy by socialists in their grand plan to destroy the West.

Anonymous said...

I’d be interested to hear some analysis by our readers. Yes, I know the ideology of Politically Correct Multiculturalism is behind it — but cynical politicians would discard all that in a heartbeat if it improved their electoral chances or served to enhance their power.

PI has just published an article dealing with the answer to exactly that question. Someone care to translate? Then GoV could put the translation into an article of its own, maybe...

Ivan said...

Germany is in a class by itself. After WWII self-hatred became the national religion, inculcated in the schools and pushed from outside, especially by Jews who feared a redo of the Holocaust under new management.

Hesperado said...


I recall that you had posted that De Tocqueville quote before. It's an interesting quote, but it now occurs to me that perhaps De Tocqueville has been let off too easy. Everyone seems to laud him and no one suspects his motives. On second thought, re-reading that quote of his, he strikes me as one of those Enlightened Cosmopolitan Elites who looked upon the rest of Mankind (i.e., the rest of White Westernkind, with the new invigorated America at its progressive vanguard) with a jaded, supercilious eye: one thinks of the Modern-Postmodern trajectory here -- devolving into an increasingly pessimistic and nihilistic contemptus mundi in the form of a contemptus Occidentis-- running from Voltaire, to Flaubert, to Mark Twain, to Freud, to Spengler, to Sartre, to Kurt Vonnegut, to George Carlin; et al. (just to name a few of the more acute luminaries along the trajectory). I think it might be time to plot De Tocqueville along that trajectory.

Sagunto said...

Hesperado -

Hold that plotting just a sec..
The writings of Alexis de Tocqueville might very well transcend your particular PC MC design. They are a good read, try it sometime ;-)


Sagunto said...

Hesperado -

You wrote:

" [..] for the West is not a dictatorial or totalitarian autocracy. In addition, we find innumerable types of people reflecting a vast array of sociopolitical strata who parrot the PC MC line."

Two assertions and I beg to differ. The second part corroborated by day to day evidence, contradicts your first unsubstantiated assertion about totalitarianism. I submit that the liberal welfare state is a totalitarian structure supported by all mainstream parties, and that the writings of de Tocqueville and many others can give insight into its remarkable genesis, or does your imagination allow nothing besides marching jackboots and gulags to fit the bill? I'd recommend a well researched scholarly work, called "Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift", by Prof. Paul A. Rahe. It is enlightening.

It always strikes me about your statements that as a general approach they can serve as a useful perspective, elegant and simple. And yes, the elements of misguided or even deranged altruism that PC MC encapsulates and exploits are widespread indeed, but the political ideology of PC MC, i.e. progressivism, has not been a creed that large parts of the electorate in say, the Netherlands ;), adopted wholeheartedly and of free will. That is my assertion that I'll try to substantiate below. In short: your general theory always feels a little "abstract" when used as a blueprint that should force order and consistency upon verifiable political facts.


Sagunto said...


I'll rephrase your message as follows: political PC MC is and has been willingly supported by the electorate of Holland, because the Dutch have voted for political parties spreading PC MC.

Problem 1)
All parties in the Netherlands promoted some form of multiculturalism from at least the mid-seventies onwards. So what was the initial choice? (the Dutch didn't vote on MC issues anyway in that period, but that's not the point).

Problem 2)
You'll have a hard time, providing proof that the Dutch voted for those parties because of multicultural issues. Existing proof points to two factors, still very influential today. Firstly, people voted predominantly along "traditional" lines. This is something quite different from US practise. People voted for a catholic, a protestant, a liberal, a "classical liberal", a communist, a social democrat, and 110 other parties because their parents had done so, belonging to one of the many "pillars" in multi-faceted Dutch society. Traditional voting took a pomo beating in the 70's and '80s, but it was influential nevertheless, until this very day. Secondly, if and when people voted on issues, the prime one by far was, no.. not PC MC related, but economy.
It is only testimony to the perceived threat of Islam that this situation has changed dramatically in Holland since the early nineties. On denouncing the religion of peace by high profile politicians, the US still has some 20 years of catching up to do.

Problem 3)
History shows that multiculturalism wasn't at first recognized by the public as a vehicle for islamization, otherwise things might have played out a little sooner, as they do now. Holland was a former colonial power and it experienced a first (actually second) massive influx of real foreigners in the mid-seventies when Suriname became independent (formally). Before that, "racism" was not an issue in, say, Amsterdam politics, but that changed rapidly. This set us on the misleading track of foreigners vs. natives, handing to Islam a shield to hide behind.

Problem 4)
As soon as people in the Netherlands were offered the opportunity to vote for the anti-Islam ticket, they did, massively, from the nineties onwards (Bolkestein, Fortuyn, Wilders), in spite of the supposedly widespread and deeply engrained political PC MC. Is this a case then of "Dutch exceptionalism" or might there be some element in your scheme that resists application to day to day practice?

Problem 5)
Yes, in some well documented cases there actually is an influential part of the Dutch electorate that votes for the most Islamo-friendly, most politically PC MC party on offer. Elections are decided by it in the past decade. So that lot might confirm your thesis (shared by some over here, eager to blame decadent Europeans for choosing the wrong representatives). Only problem is: they're Muslims. And yes, enter the progressivist "cabals" who have noticed the electoral advantage of playing to the Muslim vote. So yes, in that sense the "Dutch" have voted for PC MC pro-Islam parties, but those "Dutch" with the power to tip entire elections, as has been the case in our most important cities (Rotterdam, Amsterdam, the Hague), are Muslims.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

EscapeVelocity said...

Ive got news for ianpepper, the "68er" Baby Boomers are Anti American, not pro American.

Anonymous said...

Sagunto: I will reply tomorrow. :)

sulber nick said...

Hesperado said...


I've been having computer problems in the last 24 hours, so I will only post this for now:

"I submit that the liberal welfare state is a totalitarian structure supported by all mainstream parties, and that the writings of de Tocqueville and many others can give insight into its remarkable genesis, or does your imagination allow nothing besides marching jackboots and gulags to fit the bill?"

I believe in applying extra caution when hypothesizing some kind of "real" crypto-tyranny underneath our putatively superficial, or infirm, democratic structures. Not only does it tend to slide contiguously toward conspiracy-theory and as a consequence presupposes, and nourishes, a quasi-Gnostic alienation from one's own cosmion of the West; it also seems too easy of an explanation: a machina ex Deo, as it were.

P.S.: Positioning De Tocqueville along that trajectory need not denigrate his talents. I have great admiration for many of the others on that trajectory as well. Indeed, with some exceptions (notably Marx, for example) it sometimes takes a greater thinker to botch the paradox worse and thereby contribute more damage.

Dymphna said...

One of our readers is not able to access her Blooger account and asked that her thoughts be posted by one of us.

Here is BL's contribution:

"Here's a link to a short, humorous YouTube video about multiculturalism:

Multiculturalism Explained

Andrew Klavan makes an interesting point about "faking" belief in cultural relativism. It's not a simple matter, however. It's not a simple matter of "pretending" to believe. As people used to say in the AA movement (maybe they still say it), denial is not a river in Egypt.

I agree that many well-meaning people think that support of multiculturalism is necessary if they are to be "good people" and if they are to maintain their good opinions of themselves. To do anything else would make themselves bigoted or racist in their own minds.

When contradictory information--or just simply reality--intrudes upon this belief, they shy away from it and refuse to acknowledge it. Because to admit the truth of such information means to them that they are racist and bigoted which will make them bad people or fascists.

The unconscious psychological defense mechanisms employed are denial, projection and reaction formation. People deny the realty of what they see and read. They project out onto others the "racism" and "bigotry" they see in themselves but will not admit--even to themselves or especially to themselves. This is why the PC MC crowd often are ready to call others "racists" or "bigots" at the drop of a hat.
While people deny the "racism" and "bigotry" in themselves, they may vehemently and publicly embrace PC MC so that they can maintain their opinions of themselves as good people. This is a defense mechanism known as reaction formation in depth psychology.

These psychological defense mechanisms are unconscious, by definition. By unconscious, I mean that people are unable to tell you that this is what they are doing and will it deny it--strongly or vehemently--if you tell them what they are doing.

This is why it is so difficult to change the views of many people. This is why PC MC views are held with such tenacity. Even those "mugged by reality" e.g., mugged by cultural enrichers, may still cling to their PC MC paradigm. Because, after all, they are such good and understanding people.

I think that the only way to possibly avoid much bloodshed in the future in Europe (and it may already be too late because of the demographic weapon) is to attack the intellectual basis for PC MC.

People need to understand that they can oppose excessive immigration and love their own culture and want to preserve it--while still being good people.

Intellectual leaders such as Thilo Sarrazin in Germany are invaluable in this kind of endeavor.

Much of this may be obvious to GoV readers, but I assure you it is not obvious to many in our Western countries."

-- BL

BTW, Klavan had a short story in a recent edition of City Journal. It wasn't bad -- short stories are a difficult genre. I don't think I've seen fiction in CJ before...

-- Dymphna

Anonymous said...

Hi Sagunto, Hesperado, and BL:

I have so much to say about all of your comments on this thread - and a more recent related thread where Hesperado also commented. BUT, I have major surgery in the morning that will take me offline for a while so I will be very brief here and expand at a later time.

Sagunto: You are right. The evil of Islam has been actively hidden from the West up to and until the present day. Westerners did NOT vote for massive immigration. It has been foisted upon them by all Western political parties for the political and economic benefit of Western societal rulers - whether politicians or businessmen. Once Westerners realized the threat of massive immigration to employment, societal bankruptcy, and crime, Westerners attempted to address the problem by voting, but voting results are easily manipulated in a wide variety of ways by Western societal rulers.

Anonymous said...

Hesperado: You are right, too. The overwhelming majority of Westerners are fundamentally good-hearted and well-intentioned people who support a Western culture that is worth saving over other less altruistic cultures.

However, the absolute fact that the majority of Westerners are good people exists with the parallel reality that truly evil people also exist in the West - and elsewhere - who actively exploit the inherent weakness of Western goodness which is the inability to comprehend and address true evil BEFORE a great catastrophe. Just as there will always be poor, there will always be evil - until the end of time.

BL: Interesting comment. You are right that a lot of Western people are in denial about PC MC policies.

But why? BECAUSE, admitting that PC MC policies - specifically in regard to Islam - create and support an existential threat would require a rather dramatic response to the PC MC policies. Even good Western people would prefer to avoid extreme actions and float along in their busy comfortable lives. After all, at this far gone point, a "fighting war" with PC MC policies and Islam would require very real sacrifice of belongings and relatives - with the opposite of comfortable lives.

The specter of sacrifice is the reason that people always tell me that any discussion of Islam is "depressing" - and then quickly instruct me to STOP telling them about Islam via conversation or email. When Western people are aware of Islam, then Westerners quickly realize the full scope of the problem and realize the extent of the sacrifice - of Westerners and Muslims - that will be required to solve the problem. Thus, the majority of Westerners actively fight to stay unaware of Islam.

Of course, Westerners who live with Islam on a daily basis are fully aware - and thoroughly confused and helpless - about how to reconcile their being good Westerners with their need to address - and overcome - their intensely personal experience of the fundamental existential threat of Islam present as a colonizing and conquering power in the West.

on-my-own-in-berkeley said...


I wish you well with your surgery and hope to see you online again soon.

Re your comments to BL. I think that you are both correct; each one of you addresses a different aspect of the PC MC belief problem.

There are the unconscious mechanisms blocking awareness of the problem and then there is the more conscious disinclination to face the problem because then something might need to be done to address it.

You might consider that people do not want to take action to address a problem when they believe, axiomatically as Hesperado might put it, that this call to action might involve them in behavior that is fascistic, behavior that would make them "bad" people.

There are numbers of strands to the intellectual skein supporting PC MC.

Anonymous said...

I think a lot of Westerners are aware PC MC isn't working, and they'll even admit online that they prefer their own people and culture, until a far left self-appointed monitor comes in and invokes Nazis and such and gets the thread closed down. This has become an everyday part of my life. The resistance is there until the crackdown.

So people who want to open up the conversation should have a plan for neutralizing the monitors, who know what they're doing as well as I do, and who always get the last word. How do you empower the people who want to speak freely, but still can be bullied because they're afraid of certain words?

I'm not afraid of being called a racist, because it's true, and I'm okay with it. That's the fulcrum of this whole thing, where the power is. If you can get people to stop cringing and just admit it, the monitors and politicians will disappear. I still haven't figured out how to do this quickly, but one way to make some progress is to make a slightly provocative statement, which gives people permission to tell their stories. Over time, if enough people do that, that will create a public space where monitors can't intimidate people.

Zenster said...

Dear Egghead,

Please know that your continued good health is foremost among my personal wishes. May you recover swiftly and soon so that we might all benefit from your continued participation here at Gates of Vienna.

Warmest Regards,


Sagunto said...

Egghead, others -

So little time, will reply tomorrow.