Replies

I quite agree with you about the European preference for a society subservient to a heavy-handed bureaucracy, but it's older than communism. That its opposite came into fruition through Europe's expatriots and rejects in the form of the United States is perhaps no surprise; that it was the latter, and not the former, that resulted in the sort of world power wielded by its President is ironic and breathtaking. But therein lie the seeds of a certain bitterness - many Europeans feel that through the hard test of time they possess the governmental model most adept at administering the sort of power they do not possess, and that those who do possess that power are incapable of doing justice to the privilege.

It's a point of view that seems odd to many Americans, who are neither cognizant of the power nor care a great deal for it. I think it is better for the world that we are remarkably inefficient administrators of an empire we don't really want - the world, by now, has had its fill of empires and imperial councils and is ready for something else. The problem is that we have no idea what that is; that we're feeling our way through this and making it up as we go along, and worst of all, we admit it. That offends certain European sensibilities, and perhaps it should, for it gives them the impression that their fate is in the hands of fools. I understand a certain resentment there.

But here we are - Europe will either succeed in forming an extranational entity or it will not, it will either solve its chronic demographic, economic, and military problems, or it will not, and it really is up to them. Freedom to succeed is also the freedom to starve - it's a scary old world out there.

The EU is on a suicide mission, they are inviiting a culture into their country that is diametrically opposed to their lifestyle. It's not like Muslims in Europe are adopting Western culture, for all the talk about their intellectual superiority they lack the most basic necessity for their own survial, common sense.