Europe is our first line of defense.

And yet---altering, slightly, some of the charged (if more than slightly shortsighted) political rhetoric in the months leading up to WWII---"Why should we Europeans fight just to defend the Americans?"

Being a german citizen living in the US for many years, I agree with your analysis. Europe has always been a dark place. Growing up during the aftermath of Hitler era, I can say this: The difference between the USA, and Europe regarding integrading other cultures is like day, and night. Europe does NOT allow integration, but rather demanded separation, while USA given everyone a choice. France has always demonstrated outright 'hate' towards other cultures, and it appears it finally has boiled over. France may attempt to correct, but it will fail because of the mindset of its population, and politicians.

cali_sun: "Europe has always been a dark place."

Well yes, Europe has always had bigotry, racism and prejudice. But isn't that true of every society? It seems to me that the nail that sticks up gets hammered down, everywhere.

Every place is not the same Phil Hunt. You may take that faux equality of cultures to the garbage dump. People are different genetically and they are different culturally. This rotted out multiculturalism that tries to equate all cultures is a product of children playing at philosophy.

Europe is our first line of defense, whether we like it or not.

For many Europeans, I'd imagine the counter is true - America is our first line of defense, whether we like it or not.

So, if either America or Europe suffers a defeat, the other will suffer its own defeat, like it or not.

Cicero said:

We've benefitted for years from a pacifist Europe. And now we want them to take up the sword -- or at least get some of that old time nationalism to help thwart this wave. But that comes at a price -- one that most Europeans are quite aware of, if we aren't. European wrath is legendary. It's not dead -- it's asleep. I appreciate their penchant for glossing it over. Europeans know what wrath they have wrought throughout history. They want to escape it. I can't blame them.

You've hit on why so many of us support fighting the War on Terror now while the threat is not immenint. You've hit on why many of us want Europe in the fight now rather then later. We want to get this over with before we are pushed into unleashing the deep, dark places of our souls.

It's wrong to think that Americans don't know what the Wrath of Europe is like. We've seen it through their history, and we've seen, far less of often but still there, in our own history. Europe tends to industrialize their Wrath. The US tends to do it wholesale.

If you want something to leave you chilled, imagine what Iraq would look like today if the US was pushed into deciding Islam as a whole is our enemy.

StargazerA5

Your discussion of multicultural vs multi civilization is a great and valid point; bluntly a real eye opener when though about. As someone whom has always agreed with the idea of multiculturalism the unspoken thought has been that the best of a culture was automatically that which meshed w/ the idea of Western Civilization and its underpinning democracy in its various forms. A example would be the recognization of the concept of zero in mathematics and crediting this concept to Islamic culture. Now comes the rethink of what mutliculturalism means for the future.
Thank you again for the opportunity to think about an issue.

Would true conservatives countenance the fiscal rape of their children and grandchildren?

One thing the Bush Administration clearly has been very good at is focusing the attention of the press (and by extension the American people) on issues that they want to highlight. This has had the effect of advancing the Bush agenda, but has had the added effect of deflecting focus away from things that the Administration does not want to highlight. One of those issues is clearly the rampant, runaway spending of your tax dollars by Bush and the Republican majority congress. At this point there can be no doubt that, as they try to focus your attention on issues like stem cells and Supreme Court nominations, Bush and the Republican Congress are spending us all into a hole from which it will take us, our children and our grandchildren years to recover.

You don’t need to take my word for this, nor the words of any democrat or Bush-hater. You need only to read what conservatives like George Will are saying, or the people at conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute recently completed a report on the spending habits of all US presidents during the last 40 years. If you’re interested in reading the report I’ve included a link at the end of this post.

If you want to continue to believe that Bush and Congressional Republicans are “on your side” or if you care only about saving stem cells and banning gay marriage perhaps you should read no further. But if you’re interested in the truth and are concerned about your financial well-being and that of your children, perhaps you should read on. Here’s some of what the Cato Institute report had to say about presidential spending over the last 40 years:

All presidents presided over net increases in spending. As it turns out George W. Bush is one of the biggest spenders of them all. In fact he is an even bigger spender than Lyndon B. Johnson in terms of discretionary spending.

The increase in discretionary spending in Bush’s first term was 48.5% in nominal terms. That’s more than twice as large as the increase in discretionary spending during Clinton’s entire 2 terms (21.6%) and higher than Lyndon B. Johnson’s entire discretionary spending spree (48.3%).

Adjusting the budget trends for inflation Bush looks even worse; his spending rate is much higher then Lyndon Johnson’s. In other words, Bush expanded federal non-entitlement programs in his first term almost twice as fast each year as Lyndon Johnson did during his entire presidency.

George W. Bush is the biggest spending president of the last 40 years in both the defense and discretionary spending categories by a long shot. He beats Johnson by almost 4% in defense spending growth and more than 3% in domestic discretionary spending growth.

And conservative columnist George Will points out that in his column today that federal spending has grown twice as fast under President Bush and congressional Republicans as under President Clinton. And with respect to the argument that this profligacy is related to 9/11 and homeland security, Will and the conservative think tanks have noted that over 65 percent of the spending increase is unrelated to national security.
Will further reports that Congressional Republicans (who achieved their majority by promising fiscal discipline) have presided over an orgy of pork spending with your tax dollars the likes of which have never been seen before. In 1991, the 546 pork projects in the 13 appropriation bills cost $3.1 billion. In 2005, the 13,997 pork projects cost $27.3 billion.

You may support Bush and the congressional Republicans because of some vague promise of “progress” on social issues with which you and the Republicans agree. In that case perhaps you are entitled to refer to yourself as a “social conservative.” But nobody who calls themselves a fiscal conservative could support Bush and the Republican Congress who are spending your tax dollars in an orgy of profligacy the likes of which has not been experienced in our lifetimes. You can continue to deny yourself this truth, but be assured that true conservatives know the truth. Bush and the Republican Congress are asking you to mortgage their futures and the futures of their children and grandchildren in exchange for soft “promises” on social issues. You are justifying the fiscal rape of your children and grandchildren perpetrated by your “moral” leaders in exchange for a vague promise of gains on social issues. Do yourself and your kids a favor; look them in the eye and explain to them why you have chosen to saddle them with these financial burdens, explain to them your reasoning. Then look in the mirror and explain to yourself how you can continue to support the people who you know in your heart are screwing you and to your kids. Is that morality? Is that conservatism?

Read the whole Cato article here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf

Read the Will column here:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/will/cst-edt-geo17.html

Phil: I don't think you'll find anyone here that defends Bush's fiscal policy. This is one of the reasons why I'm always infuriated when people claim that I or the conservatives in general blindly follow Bush. We are extremely upset with Bush's fiscal policy, but until recently the opposition party has ignored Bush's fiscal irresponcibility and only attack Bush for things we agreed with. If a Dem had run on a platform of fiscal responcibility, he'd likely be in office today.

But you are threadjacking, and in my opinion your post should be removed. It does not relate to the subject at hand in any fashion.

the immigrants were being isolated in the Cites when multiculturalism was barely a gleam in Derridas eye. Multiculturalism has never been particularly the policy of the French state (go ask some Breton language activists if you dont beleive me)

Theres much wrong with France, and conservatives have some good points about it - especially about the need for a more vigorous capitalism to create jobs. But theres alot of projection going on, and blaming the riots on things that arent really there.

...it's about Sharia versus liberal democracy.

Actually about fundamentalist, extreme-Wahhabi, intolerant, nihilistic Sharia versus liberal democracy. Don't forget that there are many Islam, despite what the terror-mongers would have you believe.

Otherwise an excellent article, Sir. As always.

(but of course regarding which of the many Islam is the true one... is a debate I'm too incompetent to participate in)

#8 Phil,

Your post is way off topic. This is not a discussion about President Bush's fiscal policies, of which I have little affinity for either.

This post is about the demise of Europe. It's about the possibility that Europe's weakness will ultimately imperil the US.

I have no problems with discussions regarding fiscal issues. There's plenty of posts on this blog for you to debate your ideas on fiscal matters. But not this one.

Consider this a warning. Off-topic posts are not permitted.

Marcus Cicero
AKA
'Marshal Quiet Man'

There is an additional flaw in Europe's imigration model: the distinction between nation and state. Non-European immigrants may become (through administrative process or by birth) Citizen of a European State. This is a mere legal status; a passport, educational rights, welfare payments. This is not an identity. Muslim immigrants cannot become members of a European Nation. This is the big difference with the US. For Americans the State and the Nation are synomomous. For Europeans the State, a particular set of institutions, is separate from the Nation, an etho-liguistic group.

All the States on the Continent have come into being since 1945. Some people alive today have been citizens of 2 or 3 or more States without ever having left the city of their birth. Yet they are and have always been members of the same Nation. For Europeans, States are transitory but Nations last.

How can Muslims from north Africa become members of the French nation? How does one convert to French-ness? We do not expect this from, say, Japan. One does not become Japanese. You are born into this distinct ethnic-religious-linguistic-cultural group or you aren't. End of story, as my in-laws remind me.

The European elites, in a fit of wishful thinking and good intensions, have tried to deny something that is essential to European history and to reform the very nature of European nations by letting in millions of non-European, non-Christian immigrants. This was supposed to reduce Europe's latent nationalism and ethnic chauvinism. In the end, like all such attempts at social engineering, it will produce the opposite effect.

I think it's a mistake to characterize the past weeks' riots as the result of French multiculturalism. Their ideology has been unicultural: France (like the US) is a "proposition nation," and anyone can join by buying into liberte-fraternite-equalite. Thus, by law, statistical information can't be gathered by ethnicity. The French state has not subscribed to affirmative action or a similar ethnic-quota system for higher education or jobs. Schools (etc.) in the cités are named after figures from French history, not those from African (etc.) history.

So the problem laid bare by the riots is that French uniculturalism, as practiced, isn't working. If, in theory, The State sees France-born blacks, Arabs, Muslims as citoyens: does it in practice? Do other (white, Christian) French citizens see them that way? The answer, as seen from both sides of the divide, seems to be "non."

Which leads to an even more disquieting question: what proportion of the membership of Afro-French/Arab/nominally Muslim communities want to be accepted as French? Certainly, there have been successful integrations (the riots that don't happen). But some large numbers of alienated young Muslim men and some larger numbers of their sympathetic families and neighbors are answering this question quite firmly.

To the extent the riots are about vision (as opposed to, say, young men having fun), they are a call for separateness. For cités that are beyond the reach of the police, where activists among the residents will decide on implementing the hijab and Sharia, and how to handle grey and black market economies, the drug trade, and petty crime.

P.M. de Villepin is calling for the sorts of multiculti measures that the US has embraced as a partial solution to the problem of the cités.

A "melting pot" or "salad bowl" analogy presupposes that immigants and their descendants want to play the parts of cheese or lettuce leaves. At base, both American (multiculturalist) and French (French) versions of integration envision new citizens enriching the broader communities with their diversity of cultural practices: cooking, holidays, languages, festivals, religions, sports, and music. And leaving behind forced marriages, ethnic and religious hatreds, polygamy, female genital mutilation, extralegal violence in settling disputes, and other practices that are equally "cultural" in the societies where they exist. (These are extreme examples of bad traditions--I'm not implying that these are widely practiced in the cités.)

How do "we" welcome the one part of diversity, while insisting on conformance with the dominant cultures mores and laws when it comes to the second part--while giving a fair shake to immigrants and their offspring? France doesn't have a good answer, but no schadenfreude here. I can't point to another country that does.

Having spent lots of time in France I agree with most of what AMac says.

But I disagree with this statement "France doesn't have a good answer, but no schadenfreude here. I can't point to another country that does."

The policies of integration and affirmative action as practiced in the United States have been a much better "answer" than the segregation and acceptance of discrimination common in France. Although French segregation of immigrants is not enshrined in law, physical and practical segregation is an obvious result of the isolated suburban cites. France has long operated by a network of family and educational connections which can be impossible for immigrants to break into and discrimination in employment is acknowledged by almost everyone.

Extrapolating France's economic and social problems to a "collapse" of Europe is hysterical over-reaction.
Multiculturalism (the conservative current buzzword) is a much larger part of US culture than French. It is hard to imagine schools in the US banning students from wearing religious symbols, Islamic or otherwise, unlike France.
The technology companies (where I work) in the US are great examples of successful multiculturalism, with people from more ethnicities/religious beliefs than I can count cooperating to give their best, without relinquishing their cultural identities.

US success with multiculturalism should be a source of national pride and misunderstanding the French situation should not be used as an excuse to reverse successful policies.

Finally, the facile equation that French rioters equal Islamic jihad is not supported by any evidence. African immigrants are some of the most alienated populations in France, yet most are not Muslim. Christian Eastern Europeans also form a big chunk of France's underclass. Rioters have not exhibited any clear political/religious demands but instead an incoherent rejection of the status quo (understandably so).

Strange then that the first negotiators called upon were local Imams.

Excellent article, Cicero

From my perspective, Islamic fascism and social democracy are temporarily symbiotic. But the long view of their symbiosis is that social democracy is a tool of the Islamicist's arsenal, not visa versa.

As it was likely an alliance between Al Qaeda and Saddam, so it is now one between Islamists and left radicals. That is, the extreme left and the Social state may seek help from Islam to survive. This, that might have already occurred in Spain, is the most dangerous problem for Europe in the years to come.

cali_sun (#2)

Europe has always been a dark place.

It was not during the Roman Empire, it was not during the Renaissance, it was not during the Enlightment. Europe is the place where the man evolved into a central position in thinking. Not bad.

Europe does NOT allow integration

For the good and the bad things, neither France nor Germany are all Europe.

Rant Wraith (#13)

For Europeans the State, a particular set of institutions, is separate from the Nation, an etho-liguistic group.

What nation if your boss is Portuguese, you source your materials in France and have your accounts in a bank from the Netherlands and the homecity of your company is in the country with less corporate taxes?

It is not a problem of integration, in America anyone has to integrate because the State does not grant you an income. You must play in order to survive, so you have to get involved to know the rules. In Europe you simply have to riot in order to get more money from Father-State. That is, the more brutal you go, the more you get. Nice game.

The problem is not multiculturalism, the problem is that the European Socialist model does not work anymore, on the contrary, not only it causes economic problems, but also severe social ones, especially with Muslims, but also enhances regional Nationalism.

In America, with a market-driven economy and much less socialized government, the only outcome for them is integration.

Do not be deceived, what they rioters seek is not better acceptance, they don't have to be accepted by the much lower Christians with their culture, whose prophet came well before Mohamed, being clearly inferior; but to directly manage all the money the French State gives them, that is, to have an Islamic State inside France.

Strange then that the first negotiators called upon were local Imams.

The Social State (and the left radicals) will negotiate with the Muslim extremists, and the devil, if needed; in order to survive.

Robert M says: "A example would be the recognization of the concept of zero in mathematics and crediting this concept to Islamic culture."

But this is not true. Zero and quite a lot of mathematics that are being credited to Islamic culture, did not in fact originate there. They were invented in Hindu India and were incorporated into the Islamic culture when India was overrun and destroyed by Islamic jihad.

Man, those melting pot and cobb salad analogies have got my tum-tum rumblin'! It should be pointed out that developing a society is very much like developing a sandwich. Any miscalculation in ratio will throw the sandwich-system violently off kilter, resulting in, for instance, mayo-saturation or the black olive quotient crashing through its asymptotes and exploding outwards with the force of pi*r^2. Europe will be left with a disgusting multicultural panini, its once fresh bread soggy and textured with wet rot, its salami forcibly replaced with extrinsic cultural meats more capable of surviving and reproducing behind the deli counter because they were not so narrow minded as to think you could promise customers pastrami and give them pre-sliced pepperoni. In as much as this is a clash of cultures, it is a clash of sandwiches and the revisionist combos manifest in Islamofascist pursuits have challenged America's hamburger hegemony. When Uncle Sam is eating bocaburgers, what hope have Europe's baguettes?

#17 J Aguilar - Where you buy your materials and where you have your bank account are not sources of identity. I may drive a Japanese car, own stock in Sony, eat sushi and watch animie but I am not Japanese. Economics is not culture.

I agree with you that the Muslims who rioted in France do not want to integrate. But increased prosperity through a better economic model will not solve the problem. Europe's poor economic performance exacerbates the problems of immigration but better economies will not solve them.

What Europe faces is not a material problem. There is no material solution. Most people do not sell their identities or the identities of their children. This is the inevitable friction between two identities: a European identity based on nation and ethnicity and a Muslim identity based on religion.

Islam has no experience as a minority religion. It proposes a two-tier ranked system where Muslims occupy the top rank and dhimmis the lower. Economics will not change this. Only a profound revolution in relgious thinking will (and this is unlikely anytime soon).

Europe faces 3 choices:
1. Europeans change what it means to be European. They accept Islam (as it currently exists) as a European religion in the same sense that Christianity is (was) a European religion. This means slowly but surely accepting their status as dhimmis or converting. The European culture will be effaced by Islam and forgotten in its homeland.
2. Islam changes to accept the classic liberal values of freedom of religion, speech, etc. Islam becomes European and secular. This means the assimilation of Muslims into a individualistic, consumer society with equality for women, gay rights, pornography, pork, alcohol, and mockery of the faith. Islam would become another greeting card holiday.
3. Islam and Europe part ways, either voluntarily or by force.

The Europe of da Vinci, Shakespeare and Kant cannot co-exist with the faith of Muhammad. Europe can have one but not both.

Rant Wraith,
While your 3 choices are indeed likely scenarios, the statement that "Islam has no experience as a minority religion." is simply false. For example,...from google
"
Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs provides a forum for frank but responsible discussion of issues relating to the life of Muslims in non-Muslim societies. The Journal has become increasingly influential as the subject of Muslim minorities has acquired added significance. About 400 million Muslims, fully one third of the world Muslim population of 1.2 billion live as minorities in 149 countries around the globe."

I know this sounds simple, but I think that if one observes a society where some of the inhabitants have "foreign" names and cling to a "foreign" language, there will not be assimilation into the second and third generations. you can also add manner of dress.

If a portion of society self identifies with a foreign culture they will always be foreigners
in the nation in which they reside.

Look at the history of Americanization. Franz became Frank, Guillermo became Bill, etc. Last names were changed and anglicized. The immigrants or their children wanted to identify with the homeland of their choice. Unless that election is freely made, a separate and probably unequal minority will perpetuate itself.

Lemi-Ferdi --

Islam as a civilization has failed totally. The international marketplace is a ruthless arena for success and failure. States and nations and cultures which we Americans often deride are successful there, and nations which we admire often fail, due to their ability to marshal resources and provide products and services which are world class.

Fairly socialist Sweden produces Ericsson, Ikea, and Saab. South Korea, new on the scene, has Samsung (the mobile phone tech leader) along with Hyundai and Kia. Japan of course has Sony, Honda, and Toyota. Even France has Alcatel, a telecom leader.

Muslm countries have ... oil. That's IT. They have zero, zilch, nada companies that provide even a notable product or service. This is why even the most "tolerant" Islam say Mali's is still pretty pathetic. Islam is simply incompatible with commercial success in the modern world, which is the key to the modern good life.

Europe STILL has world-class companies; from Germany's auto groups (Daimler-Chrysler, BMW, Porsche, Audi, etc); Siemens; small arms Heckler-Koch; etc. to Italy's motorcycle manufacturers (Ducati, Aprilia, etc). THAT is I would submit a measure of their true strength and suggestive.

In that when the commercial viability of the companies is threatened by Muslim uprisings the State will, backed by the various structures of commercial enterprises, be quite ruthless in simply deporting every Muslim to a Muslim country. A situation like Malmo's no-go zones where Swedish law does not apply is incompatible with the continued existence of IKEA or Ericsson, and though capital is mobile, the companies themselves depend on the infrastructure and culture of the native countries.

Tom -- the experience of India, Thailand, China (Muslim terrorist separatism), Chechnya, the Balkans, France, West Africa, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, the Philippines, and every country where Muslims are the minority suggests that there is no way for Islam as currently constructed to live peacefully without dominating other religions. This is because Islam is NOT a religion of inner faith and belief, but a complete SYSTEM of political, legal, cultural, and religious thought all together.

It is as predictable as the calendar that Islam will try to force Europeans to a life like you'd find in Egypt or Yemen, and as predictable that they will be expelled for their trouble. The only question is how much blood will be shed and when it will happen.

#23 TedM -

The statistics you cite, while true, are quite recent events due to colonization and immigrantion. Individual Muslims can and do live peacefully as minorities amid infidels. But theologically, culturally Islam as a civilization lacks both the conceptual tools and the historical experience of a minority group and the necessary compromises that involves.

Since Muslim theologians espouse the concept of tawhid, the unity of religion, politics and culture, Islam as an historically victorious belief system lacks concepts for accepting its status as a minority or even as one group among other equal groups.

Moreover, tawhid means that any political defeat or cultural failure means theological defeat for Islam. To live as one religion among many as equals would mean undermine Islam in a profound way, since Islam sees itself as the end of all human religious (and hence political and cultural) development.

Only a complete revolution in Islamic thinking will allow Islam to adapt itself to a minority status in infidel societies.

Rant,

we are not in disagreement. I merely cited the symptoms. You diagnose the disease.

In any discussion there are always exceptions. And most of us know some of the "silent minority" of muslims who integrate and go about their business quietly.

TedM - Yes, indeed we all do know those quiet exceptions. And I have deep sympathy for their untenable position. They are much more likely to directly suffer than I am.

Where you buy your materials and where you have your bank account are not sources of identity.

What I meant (sorry, my mother language is not English) is that the old conception of Nation that still pervives in America is weakening in Europe. When Renault, a French auto maker, won the Formula one world championship, it wasn't a French team the winners, but an English branch building the vehicle, a French on the mechanics, Italians on the top managing and a Spanish pilot. Regarding economy, Europe is loosing its borders. This affects the old Nation-concept, that might be dying, and one of the problems could be that there is nothing yet to fill that vacuum. I think Muslims in France have acknowledged it and they are trying to see what they can get from all this mess.

I agree with you that the Muslims who rioted in France do not want to integrate. But increased prosperity through a better economic model will not solve the problem. Europe's poor economic performance exacerbates the problems of immigration but better economies will not solve them.

It is not a matter of prosperity indeed. The point is to build a system, such as the American, where in order to survive you need to integrate.

This has been quite clear in businesses. In order to survive in the broadened European market, companies had to explore, evaluate, understand the necessities and adapt their products to consumers from all around Europe.

Most people do not sell their identities or the identities of their children.

No, they got married with a foreigner or emigrate to the milder weather southern countries with long beaches and blue skies.

This is the inevitable friction between two identities: a European identity based on nation and ethnicity and a Muslim identity based on religion.

I don't think there is a strong nation identity. I think in today's European market it is weakening. Forget about the old Nations, this is part of the problem, an European identity is not being built, on the contrary, some common cultural points among Europeans are being attacked, such as Christianism, the Catholic Church, classic Liberalism in politics... mainly by left wing parties. The infamous European Constitution endorsed none of them.

Europe faces no choice. An Islamic political model simply cannot sustain its population. What we will find out is how many lifes and how much blood and money it costs.

And finally we must recognize that there was at least one Muslim leader with vision enough to build a kingdom based, among other things, on consensus. This man was Abd-el-Rahman I. Sadly, his example was not followed by his people.

One must differentiate between political multiculturalism and individual multiculturalism.

Europe has the political form without the integrationists impulse from individuals.

So you get equality under the laws but no one hires "those people". Or invites them to dinner.

Political integration, individual separation.

It leaves a void.

And that void will be filled by.......