Redstate

optimism regarding Europe.

I think we will need to drive our own train - and wait to see who buys tickets.

I believe you are correct about flickering moral compasses in Europe.  But, I also think it is worse, much worse than that.

I believe Euro societies are ( I REALLY hate this word) decadent to the core.  Culturaly, socially, politically, spiritually, economically, industrially - I genuinely believe much of Europe is rapidly achieving instability.

In fact, if it weren't for America for most all Euros to revile today - I suggest they would revert to the conduct they preferred over three millenia:  They would begin destroying each other - again.

More vitriol for your plate from Frontpagemag.com dated:September 1, 2003

By Stephen Brown

A sermon recorded at a mosque in Bavaria, outlined in an intelligence report, confirms the German agencies' findings. After first calling America and Britain "devils" and Israel "a bloodsucking vampire", its venomous contents continued as follows:

"The Europeans were once our slaves; today it is the Muslims. This must change. We must drive the unbelievers into deepest hell. We must stick together and hold our peace until the time comes. You can't see anything yet, but everything is being prepared in secret. You must hold yourself in readiness for the right moment. We must exploit democracy for our cause. We must cover Europe with mosques and schools."

It really is going to come down to US vs THEM if this is very widespread. I fervently hope Europe is visited by more Islamic violence, because it is the only thing that will snap them out of their daydreams.

Expatica News 2004 -- 24 November 2004

AMSTERDAM -- A Muslim preacher has provoked a storm of protest by admitting on Dutch television he wants parliamentarian Geert Wilders to die.

Wilders, an independent Conservative MP, plans to set up a party "to tackle Islamic extremism" in the Netherlands.

A smorgasbord of hate...

...living in Norway, I take great offense to this.  "Decadent to the core"??  

Look, you may disagree politically, spiritually, or culturally with Europeans, but I guarantee you if you spent a while with them you would find that most are hardly decadent.  The people of Norway overwhelmingly disagree with Bush's foreign policy.  That does not mean they do not have a great admiration for America.  Nor does it mean that they are on the side of terrorists, merely that, having lived through war again and again on their own soil, they have an aversion to war unless as a last resort.  Norway overwhelmingly supported the Afghan war, and continues to have some military and aid presence there.

I'm not being condescending or rude here, but I have a question.  Do you know many Europeans?  Or, have you spent any time in Europe?  While you may continue to disagree with (many) of their opinions, you may find that they are certainly not decadent to the core.

I don't believe Europe has ever recovered from the debacle of 1914.

They are approaching the Islamofascists with the same strategy they used to confront Hitler (my gosh, you'd thing the Germans of all people would recognize what's going on here).

They confronted the USSR with the same iron resolve. I can tell you that we were never really sure exactly what the Germans were going to do. The conventional wisdom in the war planning community was that we had to accept the high probability that, confronted with a Soviet ultimatum, West Germany would leave NATO and evict NATO forces rather than see another war on German soil.

Even though nuclear weapons were an integral part of the general defense plan for West Germany it was forbidden to simulate the use of nuclear weapons in exercises. Everything ended when the decision to go nuclear was made.

While they should read the entire speech, the two ending paragraphs are as true today, when Radical Islam is the enemy, as they were then.  

P.S. add the fact that our country produced men such Patrick Henry to my "what I'm thankful for" list!

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

(last two sections)

Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Amen.

Since you inquired.

I have lived in Germany (twice); Italy (twice); England (once).

I have traveled extensively in the Low Countries, Spain, Greece, Turkey and the Middle East.

I have business relationships (now) with Euro firms and in the Middle East.

So far as concerns your Norwegian friends (I don't wish to be disrespectful); but a Norwegian NATO official once saw fit to castigate me (as the ONLY American military officer at a NATO conference) for being 'arrogant'; a threat to world peace; and unwelcomed in Europe simply because U.S. Naval Ships (suspected of bearing nuclear weapons) DARED to dock in Norwegian ports.

He was upset when reminded him that he and his Norwegian countrymen chose to belong to NATO and live under the protection of the US nuclear umprella.  He didn't like hearing that Americans were expected to trade one or ore of their larger cities in defense of Norway - whose nonnuclear stance peotected them from attack at our expense.

I have been spat upon, bricks thrown through my car windows; my family threatened and insulted in several locales in the Euro socialist paradise - all because I am an American.

Yeah.  I know Europe and many, many Europeans.  I know them socially (I belong to an exclusive London Club with many continental members, as well).

I have lived among them. Worked with them and still have business there. And I am personally fond of almost all I know - for my own reasons.

However, the vast Euro lumpen prolitariate (in my opinion)have had it too well for too long at America's expense. Former Eastern Euros and former Warsaw Pact members MIGHT prove to be the exception as well as the future for a continent too long under the influence of its own corrosive character.

So.  To reiterate:  If the Euros didn't have America to (safely) castigate, they would, in my opinion, revert to form - and begin slaughtering each other. I can not wait until the EU gains irreversible power there - and watch the pogroms begin.  

Already strident racism and anti-semitism are gaining on anti-Americanism on that blighted continent.

In my opinion the best, most civilized Europeans are Turks. Italians are next with Brits a distant second.  The remainder are simply the detritus of Caeser's Gaullic Wars. As far as concerns your Norwegians, you may recall they gave us the term "Quisling'not too long ago. They did that so as not to suffer over-much in a war where the entire Euro continent consumed itself and half the world.

I could care less what Norwegians think of President Bush, his policies, his country, his fellow Americans.  So far as concerns their anti-war stance - see my comments above.

Enjoy you sojourn among them.

Erick -

Do you see equality and liberty as being incompatible?

Do you believe that a preference for one must come at the expense of the other?

Can you explain what you mean by this:

    "Equality breeds moral relativism"

Thanks -

... on this one.  A majority of Europeans have lost their moral compass.  This infection has spread throughout European society and threatens the entire spectrum of that society - family, culture, religion, politics and economics.

Political correctness and a zealous quest for multiculturalism have effectively silenced those that should have spoken out against the rampant anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism that permeates the whole of their society.  Multiculturalism, tolerance and diversity have become the de facto religion of the European socialists.  European society as a whole has suffered enormously because of this dangerous embrace of these socialist policies and attitudes.

Blinded by their devotion to multiculturalism and tolerance, they are unable to see the danger that unchecked immigration poses to their society.  Millions of radical Islamists have been allowed to immigrate and migrate throughout the entire European continent.  Political correctness has rendered them unwilling to force the assimilation of these new immigrants into European society.  This cancer, known to many Americans as radical Islam, has been allowed to metastasize and has now reached the boiling point.

Many have said that the brutal murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh is the Netherlands' equivalent of our September 11th.  I'm unable to concede that one murder equates to the fiery death of 3,000 Americans and billions of dollars in economic damage, but that incident has incited a raging anger against radical Islam across Europe.  It has also caused some to take a second look at the effects of multiculturalism on their society.

I fear that this awakening may have come too late.  The distinct cultural identity that made each European country unique is dying, and I mean that literally.  Birthrates in the core population across Europe currently range from 1.5 to about 1.9 children per household.  A birthrate of less than 2.1 children per household will result in a decline in the core population.  In effect, what has been called `old' Europe is dying a slow death.

The effort by the current group of European politicians to consolidate their power under the umbrella of the European Union only serves to compound these problems.  Their nihilistic view of the world all but ensures that the necessary changes to European society will prove unlikely.

Many of these problems can be addressed at the ballot box and some can be solved by rejecting secularism.  The core population problem will take at least two generations to stabilize, provided the birthrate is doubled from its current rate.  Time is running out on European society and the status quo is simply unacceptable.  At this point, I'm not very optimistic they will succeed.  They most assuredly will not seek our help.

to you.  The extreme egalitarianism being preached today can only come by the most intrusive exigencies of the government, i.e. at the cost of liberty.

  Another quote from one of our founders might illuminate the idea for you:

"Men who would willingly sacrifice freedom for safety and security deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin

How does this square with the opening statement of the Declaration of Independence?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal..."

Thanks -

When Erick is talking about "equality" is he talking about equality before the law?

If so, how is that in conflict with liberty?

If so, how does it breed moral relativism?

Erick has not chosen to reply, replies from anyone on this question are welcome.

Thanks -

  the tyranny of the minority.  The idea that any personal whim trumps the greater good.  It starts with seemingly innocuous concessions, like including a broader range of female writers in the cannon and ends up with replacing Shakespeare with Rigoberta Menchu.  It starts with equal opportunity for gays and ends up with demands for homosexual scoutmasters.  It begins with a recognition that many religions are represented in the population and ends up with attacks on religion in general and banning Christianity from the public square in particular.  It begins with tolerant co-existence with many religions and ends with restricting secondary searches at airports to only two middle-eastern men per flight.  (God help you if there's three of them.)

  People become more and more willing to kvetch (equivocate) when it comes to the delineation of right and wrong.  If one cult member believes in sacrificing small animals for its' religion, who are we to judge?  If another group thinks it's O.K. for men to have sex with boys, who's to object?  Thus, you can begin to see the triumph of "equality" over liberty.  Suddenly, a law is needed to reign in the more outrageous manifestations of "equality", then another, and another, until liberty is sacrificed for everyone.

   And more to the point, it starts with teaching different cultural perspectives in school and ends with saying that all cultures are morally equivalent.  Well, we would probably all agree that beheading women for committing adultery is wrong.  So, is a culture which does believe and practice that morally equivalent to our own?  No, my friend, at some point, even the most "non-judgemental" among us will have to take a stand.  

This is clearly what's going on with the Democratic party.  In order to be "inclusive", read, "equality trumps all other considerations," every extreme position, from PETA to gay marriage must be accomodated and any voice to the contrary silenced.  They must do it to keep their constituent base.  Here again, any individual's idea of equality triumphs over the liberty of the rest.

   Like most liberal conventions, it makes great sense theoretically.  In reality, however, it becomes oppression of the worst sort.  When it has been tried, e.g. the French Revolution, the Bolshevik(sp?) Revolution, Cuba, etc., it has been a miserable and bloody failure. Yes, citizens should indeed enjoy equality of opportunity and equality under the law.  Yet, equality of outcomes is a fool's game.

  Earlier, I mentioned mostly examples of moral relativism.  However, the utopian condition of total "equality" cannot help but redound to a fatuous sort of economic commonality as well, which is probably what Erick had in mind, even if he did not realize it.  In any event, it necessarily encompasses economic considerations.

   Laboring under the specious silliness of uberegalitarianism, since everyone must be "equal", everyone must have the same things.  In order to even approach such a condition in the real world, capitalism must be trashed and countries beggared.  Kind of like modern day Europe, the realities of which include stifled growth, huge unemployment, rationed healthcare, and so on.  

   Until they listened to secretly recorded threats and thrash talk in a Mosque, Germans had enthusiastically embraced the moral relativism of "equality", as had natives of the Low Countries, until the man Van Gough was brutally murdered.  And now, guess what?  They find that their liberty has been curtailed.  Short of a bloodbath, they now must live as "equals" with the enemy amongst them, at great cost to their own freedom.

As much as I like the Europeans (I traveled in Europe extensively in the service), I'm not really as concerned with their loss of liberty as with ours.  We are slowly losing ours in pursuit of a chimeric egalitarianism which soon becomes a predatory monster.  With the next big terrorist attack on the U.S., will we no longer go to malls?  No longer gather in church?  Be afraid to speak our minds?  Shuffle off to our jobs in muted silence, armed to the teeth, and keeping our head down?  The Israelis are lving with this very reality right now, largely due to our insistence that they "accept" the "equality" of Paletinian terrorists.

  It starts with repecting a woman's right to choose and ends with the grizzly reality of partial birth abortion.  It starts with accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc., ad nauseum, and ends with risking your life to get on an airplane because some Mohamed Atta wannabe's "equality" might be inconvenienced for 20 minutes.    But always, at some point, the line of freedom is crossed and the tyrannical Janus of "equality at any cost" becomes the new standard.

  You know I, and millions like me, were willing to have our liberty dimished for a while (even forfeited altogether in death) to ensure the equality of opportunity for American citizens.  In order to function as a military unit, we all gave up our individual freedom to become interchangeable ("equal") units, cogs in a wheel.  I sincerely hope this does not become necessary for the citizenry as a whole, as I fear it might if we continue to parse terms like equality and end up with something more akin to license.    

Warrior-

Thanks for the reply.

You're not talking about equality, you're talking about political correctness run amok.  These are not the same thing.

I will grant that the latter is often presented under color of the former, but why buy into that?

Why quibble about a word?  Because equality is actually a good and important thing.  I'm not willing to trade equality for liberty, or vice versa, and reject that such a choice is necessary.  You should do the same.

This:

"The veil of multiculturalism has been lifted, revealing parallel societies where the law of the state does not apply"

is also part of the problem, not only in Europe but here in the US, and IMO has more to do with irrational immigration policy than with a cult of equality.  People from undeveloped countries are flooding into developed countries because they can make a living, and sometimes also to escape oppressive governments.  The developed countries accept them, but aren't successful in integrating them into their (the developed countries) own culture and political institutions.  

Some of this failure is, indeed, due to an exaggerated sense of deference to their native culture flying under cover of "tolerance" etc.  To the degree that that's true, I agree that it's a mistake.

I'd submit, however, that a large motivation for the immigration policies is that these immigrants represent cheap labor.  Americans and western Europeans don't want to pick vegetables, clean toilets, empty trashcans, and mow lawns for a living anymore.  No money in it.  So, we import our unskilled labor, overtly or by default.  It's a problem.

Cheers -

I've just re-read Erick's original post as well as your posts.

I understand the point you are both making about "equality" leading to "moral relativism", although as noted above I don't think it's equality that's the question.

What I still don't get from either of you is how liberty is compromised.  I.e., in the "choosing equality over liberty" formulation, what's the liberty part?  I don't see it.

Thanks -

at it this way.  In our country, we already have equality for law-abiding citizens.  Everyone is free to do whatever anyone else does, assuming equality of intangibles, i.e. exertion, tenacity, and so forth.  However, no equality of result can occur, because folks don't have equal amounts of intrinsic qualities, like intelligence, perspicacity, etc., or even of the intangibles mentioned before.  (And we won't even discuss inequalities of time, place, and luck, or fate, if you prefer.)

In order to ensure equality of result, under the guise of a sort of general "equality", the government steps in and makes it happen: can't get into college on your own merits?  The gummint will make it happen.  Don't get that job or promotion?  Gummint to the rescue.  Didn't scrimp and save for your retirement?  Not to worry, a "program" has been put into place.  Want your employer to pony up off-time so you can have a baby? Gummint sponsored family leave is here to grant your wish.  No education or experience? Not a problem mon, the gummint will jack up wages, jut for you!  And on, and on, and on, and on, and on.

Can you not see where one person's "equality" is slowly destroying everyone's freedom?  Deserving students are kept out of med school. 1.) The patients they might have healed or helped lose.  The cost of malpractice goes up.  Your choices for truly qualified doctors goes down.  A possible scientific breakthrough is lost.  2.) The best man didn't get the job.  The product or service is of lesser quality.  The price of decent goods or services goes up.  Product liability and negligence suits go up, in turn raising the price of ALL goods and services.  Work force morale goes down.  3.) The guy who worked his whatsis off to pay for retirement is now forced to subsidize those who didn't.  His children see this and so are less inclined to follow his example.  More people, in turn, fall back on the gummint, causing taxes to go up and further robbing people of their fairly earned wage.  4.) The same liberal chorus that lobbied ferociously for the Family Leave Act now whine loudly about "outsourcing".  Surprise, India doesn't have a Family leave Act.  Hello.  5.) Ted Kennedy & Co. have been raising the minimum wage for years until, guess what?  Businesses can barely afford to hire skilled labor, much less high school drop-outs with no experience, i.e. for entry level, unskilled jobs.  At the same time, the compassion crowd tries to make up the difference with - you guessed it - gummint make-work jobs.  The ones that don't get even this tiny (to them) tax-sponsored crust do what?  They commit CRIME!  Costing us all money, peace of mind and freedom.  We're all equal, right? so every gray-haired grandmother and blond-haired, bue-eyed child is groped at the airport by TSA agents trained in the art of "equality."  If anyone puts up a fuss, or even a mild sigh, they get snatched out of line for further humiliation, miss their flight, and waste their time.  Meanwhile, the third, young, middle-eastern man in the boarding line,  since he must be considered "equal", glides through without so much as a by-your-leave and subsequently hi-jacks the plane, blows up a building, and kills a lot of people - all "equals" by the way.  All of which does what?  It costs us all MONEY and OPPORTUNITY and FREEDOM.   This stuff is not rocket science.  When we sacrifice common sense for some abstract idea of "equality" we lose a geometrically, or even exponentially, increasing amout of freedom.

 And you may call it anything you like.  Semantics only cloud the issue.  But a choice IS required.  Eventually, if we continue down the treacherous road of Holy Equality, we will all be equal.  Much as the former denizens of the old Soviet Union, we will all be equals in our poverty and our misery.  Don't worry though, Slick and Billary will be living large and "educating" us as to exactly how we should conduct ourselve in our oh-so-equal society.

And I can't speak for Der Spiegel, but what I imagine they're are saying is that multiculturism gives minorities and immigrants special dispensations with regards to the law (I mentioned a few examples above, from this country.)

"Irrational immigration policy" is not necessarily distinct from the cult of "equality", insofar as anyone who opposes open-borders is shouted down as a "racist, xenophobe," or some such.  Nevertheless, as far as immigrants taking jobs Americans won't do, there are many reasons for it.  IMHO, it's a combination of a.) our native population is declining to non-replacements levels (it's worse in Europe) because of abortion and the cost of raising children, b.) even entry-level American job-seekers are not willing to accept third-world living conditions in their own country (they don't want to be equal them), and c.) why should they work when they qualify for every foodstamp and rent-subsidy out there? (BTW, there are far more whites on welfare than any other race, creed, or nationality.)

  Concisely speaking, the ubiquitous monster of a welfare mentality rears its' ugly head again, robbing so many Americans of that old-fashioned, Judeo-Chritian concept - dare I say it? - the work ethic.  And how did this come about you ask?  Misguided compassion?  Perhaps, but certainly a kernel of the "why should these people have what those people don't?" variety was present in the thinking (aside from any of LBJ's calculated political considerations.)  In other words: "It's not fair for people to have unequal portions of wealth."  Are you beginning to detect a pattern here?

Warrior -

I take your point.  Trying to guarantee equality of result is not useful.  I'm not sure all of the examples you cite amount to an attempt to guarantee equality of result, but I agree with the principle that it's not part of the state's charter to insure that everyone gets the same goodies in the end.

My issue with Erick's post is this:

Language is significant.  The words you use in analyzing and understanding an issue are important.

If the problem is that we have too much equality, the solution is -- obviously -- to have less.

I don't think that's a solution we want.

Equality under the law is part of what makes liberty available to us.  Ask anyone who lives somewhere where equality under the law is not part of the mix.  

I'm not trading either equality for liberty, or vice versa, and I doubt you'd actually want to either.

Cheers -

took so long to get back.  The net was down at work today and I was busy anyway.  

I don't think it's the quantity of equality we're talking about, i.e. "too much equality".

I think it's the quality of equality at issue.

We already have equality of opportunity and equality under the law.  Anything else is from the PC, multicultural, diversity devil.

If we give it any more weight than that, we will be trading freedom for it, IMHO.

Warrior -

Thanks for the reply.  I think we're on the same page.

Cheers -

     Good post. The willingness to "bite the hand" will never cease to confound and astonish me. I eagerly await the identification of the gene which causes this phenomena so it can be isolated and eradicated.

     It's bad enough when a stranger spits in your soup while your head's turned, but it REALLY sucks when the spitter is the guy whose bowlful you just generously bought!

I can [roughly] paraphrase Mark Twain who commented in his own inimical manner:  The difference between a man and a dog is that the dog will not bite the hand that feeds it - or something very close to that effect.