Europe, R.I.P.

Intellectual Conservative ^ | 26 March 2004 | Nicholas Stix

[mrustow]

The vicious circle of weakness dominating European thought is countered by the virtuous circle of strength that George W. Bush has expressed.

I am not a European.

Lee Harris argued, "The world changed on Sunday," March 14, with the Spanish elections, but the real problem is that Europe failed to change.

If Europe cannot rouse itself to fight back, after it has been attacked on its own soil, we may conclude that the cowardice we saw after 9-11 was not merely the expression of anti-Americanism and opportunism, but of a deeper paralysis, which is now in its terminal stage. And so, I weep for Europe.

Europe's paralysis is best expressed in the combination of two seemingly contradictory statements, one by David Brooks and the other by Edward Luttwak.

"Now all European politicians will know that if they side with America on controversial security threats, and terrorists strike their nation, they might be blamed by their own voters." (Brooks)

"Any [European] politician who invokes Madrid to demand a withdrawal from Iraq will be inviting terrorist attacks to prove his point." (Luttwak)

Both statements may co-exist in the same universe of discourse, the universe of weakness, the universe of defeat. The vicious circle of weakness dominating European thought is countered by the virtuous circle of strength that George W. Bush has expressed: America takes the battle to al Qaeda & Co. We kill some of their members, and capture others, from whom we get the intelligence necessary to kill and capture other terrorists, and so on. That may seem simplistic, but in fact, a nation will either gain the advantage or steadily decline, in the war on terror; a stalemate is not an option.

(The "circles" are metaphors, rather than discrete, logical units. For we are talking about people and nations, not logic or geometry. In the real world, a strong man or even a strong people can be brought low through the collective cowardice or thuggery of others. And so it is, that al Qaeda seeks to beat America through chasing off her allies. And so, we can expect attacks on the United Kingdom, and on or just before our own November 2 presidential election.)

Western European nations increasingly embrace appeasement, while permitting themselves to be overwhelmed by hordes of their Muslim enemies, enemies who hold everything European in contempt, and who increasingly include violent gangs, whose idea of fun is to brutalize Jews and gang-rape Christian girls.

From 1945-1990, Western Europe lived under the shadow of the Soviet "Empire of Evil" (Ronald Reagan), and yet it was safe from being overrun, because we protected it. And so, while America spent billions on Europe's defense, Europe could spend billions on decadent welfare programs which further sapped its moral strength. The result was the same as it always is, with those who get used to getting a free ride. Rather than gratitude, Europeans felt resentful and superior towards us.

A classic case of a spoiled character feeling resentful and superior towards his betters is the Tom Cruise character (Lt. Daniel Kaffee) in the 1989 play and 1992 movie, A Few Good Men. Defense attorney Kaffee cross examines his nemesis, Lt. Col. Nathan Jessep (Jack Nicholson).

Jessep: You want answers?!

Kaffee: I want the truth!

Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? [To Kaffee's co-counsel.] You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall -- you need me on that wall.

The exchange could just as well have been between Europe and America over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

(Unfortunately, politically correct writer Aaron Sorkin and director Rob Reiner presented Nicholson as the heavy, and Cruise as the hero, but it is a tribute to Sorkin's writing skills, that his speech has become a credo for many members of the LAPD and the American military.)

The problem with most of Western Europe, is that it wants to be safe, but still won't guard itself, yet no longer wants America on "that wall." That means that Western Europe will be defeated by Islamism.

New York-based freelancer Nicholas Stix has written for Toogood Reports, Middle American News, the New York Post, Daily News, American Enterprise, Insight, Chronicles, Newsday and many other publications. His recent work is collected at The Critical Critic.

Email Nicholas Stix

Send this Article to a Friend

[Chuckster]

I predict an overland conventional invasion of Europe by Muslims in about 2050.

It won't require a conventional invasion and it will not take that long. The Islamists will simply immigrate in sufficient numbers to overwhelm the native population. It could happen in ten years or less.

[mrustow]

Nice.

[mrustow]

I agree with those posters who said a conventional invasion won't be necessary. The method will be a cross between the Mexican Reconquista already underway here and al Qaeda fifth column terrorism.

[mrustow]

Considering that the number of people going on welfare so dwarfed the number involved in interracial mixing, I'm sticking to my guns. (In NYC alone, from 1966-1973, the number of welfare clients went up from 538,000 to 1.16 million, at a time when there was very little interracial dating or marriage.)

While I personally have nothing against racial mixing -- and have mixed with non-white ladies for much of my adult life -- I am also aware that the white and black middle and working classes, the groups that are the moral backbone of each group, have traditionally been those most strongly opposed to racial mixing. Much of the mixing traditionally occurred among the trash of the very rich and the very poor. How things comport today, I couldn't say.

[mrustow]

It is amazing to think of the heros that Europe once produced and what Europe has turned into in today...

The welfare state aborts nascent heroes, in more ways than one.

[Rahmulus]

I just don't see Europe fighting back until it's too late. I guess when I think about it, I have noticed some anger directed towards the Muslims. But, it doesn't seem like it's an overriding concern, more of a back burner topic. What is always on the front burner is European insecurity which manifests itself as European superiority. To me, they have too much vested in their "system" to acknowledge its part of the problem.

There are an awful lot of 68's in Europe and they are not going to sit by if a small right wing majority gets control of the government. You are talking about all the things they believed in for 40 years, and to a certain extent, saw them succeed (not that they could be maintained). No way are you going to adjust Europe's resources to fight terror very easily. Ever try to take a socialist's confiscated money?

It's going to be: 1. Blame the US. 2. Blame the US. 3. Have a conference which will come to the conclusion that it's America's fault. 4. Make some very minor but tough adjustments with the understanding that they wouldn't have to go through all of this if it wasn't for those damn cowboys. 5. Blame the US for the failure of their reforms. Ect…ect…..

[Ohioan]

You must realize that we are arguing over different aspects of the same thing: The switch from the concept of individual responsibility for solving problems and personal accountability for ones actions, to dependence upon Government and ready made excuses for whatever one wanted to do. It is not the race mixing, per se, that I am talking about. It is the downgrading of pride in family, in lines of descent, that went with the movement, as they also went, indirectly, with the rationale for ADC and other Welfare programs.

Prior to the period of which I write--and the explosion in the welfare roles would reflect the same phenomenon, the abandonment of the restraints on irresponsible and anti-social conduct in passed on family values--girls, regardless of their particular heritage, were restrained by that heritage to measure up to certain standards. They sought to emulate certain role models, etc..

I cannot for example even recall all of the times when Negro parents have cried in my office, over their loss of control over their children, since the period in question. With the trivialization of race, heredity and lines of descent, there was an obvious trivialization of the family, and family standards, as well. And it is a genuine tragedy, when a family who has pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, with a sense of personal responsibility as well as self-respect, is undermined in passing their values on to their own children by a society that wants to substitute dependence upon Government, and membership in an undifferentiated humanity, for all of the cultural structures which once provided incentives to do the right things.

William Flax