Why Europe Chooses Extinction
chet
> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/front_page/ED08Aa01.html
>
> Why Europe chooses extinction
> By Spengler
>
> Demographics is destiny. Never in recorded history have prosperous and
> peaceful nations chosen to disappear from the face of the earth. Yet that is
> what
> the Europeans have chosen to do. Back in 1348 Europe suffered the Black
> Death, a combination of bubonic plague and likely a form of mad cow disease,
> observes American Enterprise Institute scholar Ben Wattenberg. "The plague
> reduced the estimated European population by about a third. In the next 50
> years,
> Europe's population will relive - in slow motion - that plague demography,
> losing
> about a fifth of its population by 2050 and more as the decades roll on."
>
> In 200 years, French and German will be spoken exclusively in hell. What has
> brought about this collective suicide, which mocks all we thought we knew
> about
> the instinct for self-preservation? The chattering classes have nothing to
> say
> about the most unique and significant change in our times. Yet the great
> political
> and economic shifts of modern times are demographic in origin. Three
> examples
> suffice:
>
> 1) The great trans-Atlantic rift. Europeans are pacifists, not merely in the
> Persian
> Gulf, but on their own Balkans doorstep. If they cannot be bothered to
> reproduce, why should any European soldier sacrifice himself for future
> generations that never will be born?
>
> 2) The shift in global capital flows to the United States: old people lend
> money to
> young people. The aging populations of Europe and Japan lend money to
> younger
> people in the US.
>
> 3) The deflation danger. To illustrate, an economist of my acquaintance
> proposes
> a thought experiment. Suppose by a magic spell all the inhabitants of the
> United
> Kingdom instantaneously aged by 30 years. What would be the effect on the
> current account balance, the rate of interest, the price level and the
> exchange
> rate? (Answer at the end of this essay).
>
> Little enough has been said about the "how" but almost nothing about the
> "why"
> of Europe's demographic suicide. Suicidal behavior is common among (for
> example) stone-age tribes who have encountered the modern world. One can
> extend this example to Tamil or Arab suicide bombers (SeeLive and Let Die,
> Asia
> Times Online, April 13, 2002). But the Europeans are the modern world. Have
> the
> Europeans taken to heart existentialism's complaint that man is alone in a
> chaotic
> universe in which life has no ultimate meeting, and that man responds to the
> anxiety about death by embracing death?
>
> Detest as I might the whole existentialist tribe, there is a grain of truth
> here, and it
> bears on a parallel development, that is, the death of European
> Christianity.
> Fifty-three percent of Americans say that religion is very important in
> their lives,
> compared with 16 percent, 14 percent and 13 percent respectively of the
> British,
> French and Germans, according to a 1997 University of Michigan survey. Here
> I
> draw on the German-Jewish theologian Franz Rosenzweig (1886-1929), an
> existentialist of sorts. Few Asians (including Jews) can make sense of
> Christianity's core doctrine, namely, original sin, handed down to all
> humans from
> Adam and Eve. Original sin motivates God's self-sacrifice on the cross to
> remove
> this stain from mankind; without it, Jesus was just an itinerant preacher
> with a
> knack for anecdotes.
>
> All religion, Rosenzweig argued, responds to man's anxiety in the face of
> death
> (against which philosophy is like a child stuffing his fingers in his ears
> and
> shouting, "I can't hear you!"). The pagans of old faced death with the
> confidence
> that their race would continue. But tribes and nations anticipate their own
> extinction just as individuals anticipate their own death, he added: "The
> love of
> the nations for their own nationhood is sweet and pregnant with the
> presentiment of death." Each nation, he wrote, knows that some day other
> peoples will occupy their lands, and their language and culture will be
> interred in
> dusty books.
>
> The early Christian Church encountered a great extinction of peoples and
> their
> cultures through the rise and fall of the Alexandrine and Roman empires. Who
> now remembers the Lusitani, the Illyrians, the Sicani, the Quadians,
> Sarmatians,
> Alans, Gepidians, Herulians, Pannonians and a thousand other tribes of Roman
> times? As nations faced extinction, individuals within these nations came
> face to
> face with their own mortality. Christianity offered an answer: the Church
> called
> individuals out of the nations and offered them salvation in the form of a
> life
> beyond the grave. The Gentiles (as the Church called them) embraced original
> sin, which to them simply meant the sin of having been born Gentile, that
> is, to a
> culture doomed to extinction. (The Jews, who think of themselves as an
> eternal
> people, were having none of it).
>
> In one respect, Christianity was an enormous success. Its original heartland
> in
> the Near East, Asia Minor and Greece fell to Islam, but even while Arabs
> rode
> victorious over St Paul's missionary trail, the Church converted the
> barbarians of
> Europe. Christianity made possible the assimilation of thousands of doomed
> tribes
> into what became European nations. Something similar is at work in Africa,
> the
> only place in the world where Christianity enjoys rapid growth. Yet
> Christianity's
> weakness, Rosenzweig added, lay in the devil's bargain it made with the old
> paganism. Christianity's salvation lay beyond the grave, in the wispy ether
> of
> heavenly reward. Humans require something to hang on to this side of the
> grave.
> By providing the pagans with a humanized God (and a humanized mother of God
> and a host of saints), Christianity allowed the pagans to continue to
> worship their
> own image. Germans worship a blond Jesus, Spaniards worship a dark-haired
> Jesus, Mexicans worship the dark Virgin of Guadalupe, and so forth. The
> result,
> wrote Rosenzweig, is that Christians "are forever torn between Jesus and
> [the
> medieval pagan hero] Siegfried".
>
> At the political level, Christianity sought to suppress Siegfried in favor
> of Christ
> through the device of the universal empire, the suppression of nationality
> by the
> aristocracy and Church. The lid kept blowing off the pot. Just when the
> Habsburgs brought the universal empire to its peak of power in 1519 under
> Charles V, controlling Austria, Spain and the Netherlands, Germany revolted
> under the banner of Reformation. There followed a century and a half of
> religious
> wars, culminating in the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) that wiped out more
> than
> half the population of Central Europe. France under Cardinal Richilieu (See
> The
> Sacred Heart of Darkness, Asia Times Online, February 11, 2003) gave a fatal
> twist to the Christian idea. Instead of universal empire, the French nation
> would
> be the standard-bearer for Christendom, such that French national interests
> stood in place of divine providence.
>
> All Europe caught the French disease, substituting the warrior Siegfried for
> the
> crucified God. Christianity's inner pagan ran amok. A second Thirty Years
> War
> (1914-1944) gave unlimited vent to Europe's pagan impulses and drowned them
> in blood. The unfortunate Rosenzweig, who saw the faultlines in Christian
> civilization so clearly, died hoping that Europe still would embrace its
> Jewish
> population as a counterweight against its destructive pagan self. It never
> occurred to him that Europe would choose destruction and take its Jews with
> it.
> Siegfried triumphed over Christ during World War I. No shred of credibility
> was
> left in the Christian idea of souls called out of the nations for salvation
> beyond the
> grave. In 1914 Europe's soldiers still fought under the illusion of a God
> that
> favored their nation. Germany fought World War II under the banner of
> revived
> paganism.
>
> For today's Europeans, there is no consolation, neither the old pagan
> continuity
> of national culture, nor the Christian continuity into the hereafter. The
> French
> know that Victor Hugo, Gauloise cigarettes, Chateau Lafitte and
> Impressionist
> painters one day will become a matter of antiquarian curiosity. The Germans
> know that no one but bored schoolboys will read Goethe two centuries hence,
> like Pindar. They have no ambition but to die quietly, no concerns except
> for
> those amusements which might reduce boredom and anxiety en route to the
> grave. They have no passions except hatred born of envy. They hate America,
> a
> new kind of universality that succeeded where the old Christian empire
> failed.
> They hate Israel, which makes the Jewish people appear all the more eternal
> in
> stark contrast to Europe's morbid temporality. They will pass out of history
> unmourned even by themselves.
>
> [Solution to the thought-experiment above: if the entire population of the
> UK
> instantaneously ages 30 years, it will spend less and save more for
> retirement.
> That is, demand will shift from present goods to future goods, that is,
> securities.
> The price level of present goods falls. The price of future goods rises,
> that is, the
> compensation for waiting for the future declines, and the rate of interest
> falls.
> The suddenly-aged population trades surplus present goods for future goods,
> that is, exports goods and purchases securities with the proceeds, shifting
> the
> current account balance to surplus. The exchange rate will rise. In other
> words,
> we have Japan.]
>
> (©2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact
From a population 90% european in 1965 to today's 70% european America
is close behind. Christianized, Jewized, feminized; a hulk that awaits
eventual sinking.
But so what. The typical American is a bloated wimp who cares only
about the latest deal on an SUV and the on-field performance of tamed
negros playing sports.
Chet
Wild Colonial Boy
The Herulians are still there but the Roman Empire, which gave them
the name, doesn't still exist..they're now called Smallanders...
The Lusitani are still there but the Roman Empire, which gave them the
name, doesn't still exist..they're now called Potuguese...
I'm willing to bet that the others you mention are still there as
well...
What culture is it that threatens the existence of Germand and French?
Its English...
Pull your head in.
Nik
Scott Lowther
> What culture is it that threatens the existence of Germand and French?
The Germans and the French.
--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in message
news:405917...@ix.netcomARGH.com...
> Wild Colonial Boy wrote:
>
> > What culture is it that threatens the existence of Germand and French?
>
> The Germans and the French.
Better add the Spanish to your list of those who fail to kiss Bush ass.
FFF
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Scott Lowther
>
> "Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in message
> news:405917...@ix.netcomARGH.com...
> > Wild Colonial Boy wrote:
> >
> > > What culture is it that threatens the existence of Germand and French?
> >
> > The Germans and the French.
>
> Better add the Spanish to your list of those who fail to kiss Bush ass.
Not so much a matter of failing to kiss Bush's ass, but willingness to
kiss Osama's ass. The Spanish electorate just made life a lot harder for
the rest of Europe, come election time...
When has appeasement ever worked before? Especailly when the enemy's
avowed and religious purpose is to take back land they held 500+ years
ealier... which means *your* land?
JimC
Scott Lowther
> Not so much a matter of failing to kiss Bush's ass, but willingness to
> kiss Osama's ass. The Spanish electorate just made life a lot harder for
> the rest of Europe, come election time...
Sorry, guy. The U.S. has unleased a jihad of rage across the Muslim
world against itself and its allies. From the Muslim point of view,
the struggle has little to do with Osama bin Laden. Until recently,
bin Laden was as much despised by Muslims as he was by the
nations of the West. You might ask what changed.
I mean, after all, when searches for weapons of mass destruction, anthrax
stocks and nuclear weapons proved fruitless, at least we could say
we had liberated the Iraqis. Isn't that right? Our president tells
us so daily.
John Gilmer
> Until recently,
> bin Laden was as much despised by Muslims as he was by the
> nations of the West. You might ask what changed.
Really? How "recently?"
He wasn't despised by the muslims running Afghanistan.
AND: immediately after 911 when it became clear that bin Laden as the bad
guy I don't recall TV shots of muslim rent-a-mobs expressing their "hatred"
toward bin Laden.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in message
news:405931...@ix.netcomARGH.com...
> Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
> >
> > "Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in
message
> > news:405917...@ix.netcomARGH.com...
> > > Wild Colonial Boy wrote:
> > >
> > > > What culture is it that threatens the existence of Germand and
French?
> > >
> > > The Germans and the French.
> >
> > Better add the Spanish to your list of those who fail to kiss Bush ass.
>
> Not so much a matter of failing to kiss Bush's ass, but willingness to
> kiss Osama's ass. The Spanish electorate just made life a lot harder for
> the rest of Europe, come election time...
It's only harder for traitors like Blair who told us a pack of lies about
WMDs in order to get British troops to act as US mercenaries in Iraq.
No doubt you also consider Kerry a traitor for daring to oppose Bush.
> When has appeasement ever worked before? Especailly when the enemy's
> avowed and religious purpose is to take back land they held 500+ years
> ealier... which means *your* land?
So? they're just the equivalent of 'The Order' with brains and money.
We'll let the police deal with them.
BTW, have you noticed that (AFAIK) none of the attacks in Europe have been
carried out by indigenous Moslems?
bnichols
He's also scrupulously honest & has the highest standards of ethics
& integrity. He told us so himself, in fact. Can you imagine the
amount of work the Democrats had to go to create the increasing-
daily mountain of evidence that he hasn't been able to deny?? I
mean, if it were just lies he could blow it all away with a stroke
& everybody would know it was just smoke & mirrors. The fact that
the smoking guns are actually *there*, on all sides, & he apparently
can't say they aren't, shows how much work must've had to be put
into inventing actual situations he's not responsible for.
If I were him I'd be mad as heck at my flunkies for allowing me to
put myself in a position where all the evidence was against me....
B
Alan
Alan
--
Windsurfing Club: http://www.ibscc.org
"John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote in message
news:4059b6d8$0$16...@dingus.crosslink.net...
Doug Freyburger
> Scott Lowther
>
> > Not so much a matter of failing to kiss Bush's ass, but willingness to
> > kiss Osama's ass. The Spanish electorate just made life a lot harder for
> > the rest of Europe, come election time...
Scot is always harsh but he has a point. When has giving in to an
attacking enemy ever worked? Tap, tap, tap. I'm waiting for an
example.
> The U.S. has unleased a jihad of rage across the Muslim
> world against itself and its allies.
What a load of obvious crap. Muslim fundies have been on a jihad
against the west for a millenium and they have done so with renewed
vigor ever since the Soviet Union attacked Afghanistan. The US did
not even *exist* when the jihad was started, and this phase is from
*helping* the fundies in Afghanistan.
> From the Muslim point of view,
> the struggle has little to do with Osama bin Laden.
From a fundie viewpoint it is purely a jihad of expansion. To the
extent the moderate Muslims hav joined the fundies, that is the
extent to which they have decided to become an enemy of civilization
when they should drop a dime on any terrorist neighbors.
> Until recently,
> bin Laden was as much despised by Muslims as he was by the
> nations of the West. You might ask what changed.
Some airplanes turned him into a hero, that's what. In America
the bad guy has often become a folk hero.
> I mean, after all, when searches for weapons of mass destruction, anthrax
> stocks and nuclear weapons proved fruitless, at least we could say
> we had liberated the Iraqis.
Anyone who thinks that a war only has one reason is a fool. If one
of many reasons turns out to be a mistake that's the way it goes.
But consider. The US and UK sold nerve gas to Hussein, so he had
some. When he used it on Iran and the Kurds he used less than he
had been sold, so he had some. Under the 1993 ceasefire he was
responible for having witnesses to its detruction and that never
happened, so he had some. If he destroyed the stuff in secret in
order to have an umbrella of protection from having a stockpile of
nerve gas, that was a gamble that lost badly. But it meant he
continued to give the appearance so it was a valid conclusion at
the time. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, become as
occupied nation. Crap, making a show of still having nerve gas
didn't work.
And that still ignores all of those other reasons for the attack.
Like 14 of the 19 suicide bombers being Saudi citizens. Saudi
Arabia is theoretically a US ally. Wanna bet things are *much*
worse off within Saudi borders right now? Just for having a US
leave, quite convenient. Oh look, there happens to be a storage
bin for those US troops right next door. And we can topple a
murderous dictator in the process. So Picard said make it so.
WMD as the only reason for the attack. What simple minded
idiocy. Politics doesn't work on only one level like that.
Did occupying Iraq weaken the jihad the fundies have been
waging? That's the interesting question to me. There is now a
huge US base of operations in what was the center of the
terrorist training camps Afghanistan. The flow of cash from
Iraq to other terrorist groups has stopped and there's another
huge US base there. Not many other sources from which to
attack with strength. So far the moment they bomb Spain and
Bali.
That's okay. It took them 10 years to build up from one
bombing in the US to the next, and plenty of places outside the
US got attacked in that 10 years. We are now 2.5 years in and
sure enough 2 significant attacks have occured outside of the
US. In 7.5 years we'll see if another two big US bases might
be established somewhere.
Keep at that cycle long enough and 60 years later some of these
nations will be then like Germany and Japan are now.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7960d3ee.04031...@posting.google.com...
> JimC wrote
> > Scott Lowther
> >
> > > Not so much a matter of failing to kiss Bush's ass, but willingness to
> > > kiss Osama's ass. The Spanish electorate just made life a lot harder
for
> > > the rest of Europe, come election time...
>
> Scot is always harsh but he has a point. When has giving in to an
> attacking enemy ever worked? Tap, tap, tap. I'm waiting for an
> example.
Giving in?
The Spanish kicked out the man who ignored the wishes of some 90% of the
population by signing Spain up for this unnecessary war.
That's not 'giving in' - that's democratic accountibility.
And when it's election time in Britain I hope Blair goes the same way.
bnichols
> JimC wrote
> > Scott Lowther
> >
> > > Not so much a matter of failing to kiss Bush's ass, but willingness to
> > > kiss Osama's ass. The Spanish electorate just made life a lot harder for
> > > the rest of Europe, come election time...
>
> Scot is always harsh but he has a point. When has giving in to an
> attacking enemy ever worked? Tap, tap, tap. I'm waiting for an
> example.
Gandhi -- you're welcome. :) I assume one gets extra points for
instantaneously kiboshing the overly-anticipated sarcasm, right?
<chuckle>
Bill
Scott Lowther
> It's only harder for traitors like Blair who told us a pack of lies about
> WMDs
Like your lies about how the Iraqi national museums had been more or
less wholly looted?
> > When has appeasement ever worked before? Especailly when the enemy's
> > avowed and religious purpose is to take back land they held 500+ years
> > ealier... which means *your* land?
>
> So? they're just the equivalent of 'The Order' with brains and money.
> We'll let the police deal with them.
The "police"? You think Scotland Yard is gonna hold off the Arab world?
> BTW, have you noticed that (AFAIK) none of the attacks in Europe have been
> carried out by indigenous Moslems?
Not yet.
Scott Lowther
>
> dfre...@yahoo.com (Doug Freyburger) wrote in message news:<7960d3ee.04031...@posting.google.com>...
> > JimC wrote
> > > Scott Lowther
> > >
> > > > Not so much a matter of failing to kiss Bush's ass, but willingness to
> > > > kiss Osama's ass. The Spanish electorate just made life a lot harder for
> > > > the rest of Europe, come election time...
> >
> > Scot is always harsh but he has a point. When has giving in to an
> > attacking enemy ever worked? Tap, tap, tap. I'm waiting for an
> > example.
>
> Gandhi -- you're welcome.
ERRR. Close, but no cigar. Gandhi was successful because the British
peopel were basically decent... and because they were a wanign power.
They were not "attacking enemies" in the same sense. Had the Brits lost
WWII, and Gandhi faced a triumphant Wermacht and SS rather than the
Brits...
Scott Lowther
> The Spanish kicked out the man who ignored the wishes of some 90% of the
> population by signing Spain up for this unnecessary war.
Just like WWII was unnecessary.
> That's not 'giving in' - that's democratic accountibility.
> And when it's election time in Britain I hope Blair goes the same way.
Maybe you can get Thatcher back in. Someone with balls in charge for a
change.
bowman
> Gandhi was successful because the British
> peopel were basically decent... and because they were a wanign power.
Ever hear of the Amritsar massacre? And I don't mean Indira Ghandi's little
fiasco; that took a lot of planning to attack the Harimandir Sahib when are
couple of your bodyguards are -- Sikhs. The Brits have a trademark on
'Bloody Sunday' and O'Dwyer was among the best.
You are right in the second part.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in message
news:405A6A...@ix.netcomARGH.com...
> Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
>
> > The Spanish kicked out the man who ignored the wishes of some 90% of the
> > population by signing Spain up for this unnecessary war.
>
> Just like WWII was unnecessary.
>
> > That's not 'giving in' - that's democratic accountibility.
> > And when it's election time in Britain I hope Blair goes the same way.
>
> Maybe you can get Thatcher back in. Someone with balls in charge for a
> change.
Someone with balls would have told Bush to fuck off.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in message
news:405A69...@ix.netcomARGH.com...
> Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
>
> > It's only harder for traitors like Blair who told us a pack of lies
about
> > WMDs
>
> Like your lies about how the Iraqi national museums had been more or
> less wholly looted?
Well, that's truly a lie to compare with the one told to launch the war,
kill tens of thousands and cost a billion dollars a week in ongoing
occupation costs isn't it?
> > > When has appeasement ever worked before? Especailly when the enemy's
> > > avowed and religious purpose is to take back land they held 500+ years
> > > ealier... which means *your* land?
> >
> > So? they're just the equivalent of 'The Order' with brains and money.
> > We'll let the police deal with them.
>
> The "police"? You think Scotland Yard is gonna hold off the Arab world?
Only the very tiny bit of it that wants to set off any bombs here.
The other European nations can take care of themselves in the same manner.
Ever wonder why we didn't invade Eire and bomb Dublin off the map during
'The Troubles'?
Scott Lowther
>
> "Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in message
> news:405A69...@ix.netcomARGH.com...
> > Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
> >
> > > It's only harder for traitors like Blair who told us a pack of lies
> about
> > > WMDs
> >
> > Like your lies about how the Iraqi national museums had been more or
> > less wholly looted?
>
> Well, that's truly a lie to compare with the one told to launch the war,
> kill tens of thousands
Don't you mean *save* tens of thousands? In the apst year alone, how
many tens fo thousands of Iraqis have lived who otherwise would ahve
died unde the Saddam/Chirac regime?
But you didn't answer the question. Who are *you* to complain about
"lies" when you've told some whoppers yourself?
> > > We'll let the police deal with them.
> >
> > The "police"? You think Scotland Yard is gonna hold off the Arab world?
>
> Only the very tiny bit of it that wants to set off any bombs here.
Yeah, like the FBI did such a good job of protecting the WTC after the
Islamists tried to bomb it.
This is NOT a police problem. This is war.
> Ever wonder why we didn't invade Eire and bomb Dublin off the map during
> 'The Troubles'?
Maybe because the IRA wasn't hell-bent on conquering you and converting
you to their religion and enslaving your women?
Scott Lowther
Oh, sure. The Brits have done some damned awful things. Spawning that
current crop of genetic defectives they call "Royals," for one. But
unlike amny peoples, the Brits at least *feel* *bad* when they do these
horrible things. That can be used against them.
Scott Lowther
>
> "Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in message
> news:405A6A...@ix.netcomARGH.com...
> > Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
> >
> > > The Spanish kicked out the man who ignored the wishes of some 90% of the
> > > population by signing Spain up for this unnecessary war.
> >
> > Just like WWII was unnecessary.
> >
> > > That's not 'giving in' - that's democratic accountibility.
> > > And when it's election time in Britain I hope Blair goes the same way.
> >
> > Maybe you can get Thatcher back in. Someone with balls in charge for a
> > change.
>
> Someone with balls would have told Bush to fuck off.
Balls but no brains, obviously. You ignore the problems of the world at
your peril.
DaRC
> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:7960d3ee.04031...@posting.google.com...
> > JimC wrote
> > > Scott Lowther
> > >
> > > > Not so much a matter of failing to kiss Bush's ass, but willingness to
> > > > kiss Osama's ass. The Spanish electorate just made life a lot harder
> for
> > > > the rest of Europe, come election time...
> >
> > Scot is always harsh but he has a point. When has giving in to an
> > attacking enemy ever worked? Tap, tap, tap. I'm waiting for an
> > example.
>
peace?
Just been reading the Agricola again. Tacitus has plenty to say of
relevance to our current time.
The model you suggest works well in a regular war situation. They
don't well work in a terrorist situation. Compare and contrast the
British approach to Communist terrorists in Burma with French/American
attitude in Vietnam and then decide which was the most successful.
The 'war against terrorists' (to be grammatically correct) is an
idealogical not a physical one.
> Giving in?
> The Spanish kicked out the man who ignored the wishes of some 90% of the
> population by signing Spain up for this unnecessary war.
> That's not 'giving in' - that's democratic accountibility.
> And when it's election time in Britain I hope Blair goes the same way.
>
> FFF
> Dirk
Absolutely I'm with you on that Dirk.
Cheers, Dave.
Wild Colonial Boy
<di...@neopax.com> wrote:
>"Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in message
>news:405917...@ix.netcomARGH.com...
>> Wild Colonial Boy wrote:
>>
>> > What culture is it that threatens the existence of Germand and French?
>>
>> The Germans and the French.
>
>Better add the Spanish to your list of those who fail to kiss Bush ass.
New Zealand doesn't. We don't allow American Nuclear weapons or naval
vessels carrying nuclear weapons here in New Zealand.
Its part of whats great to be a New Zealander...we don't have any
nukes...
Nik
Wild Colonial Boy
In fairness, you already know that Osama is a Sunni...do that sets him
apart from the Shi'ia to start with.
Nik
Scott Lowther
> Its part of whats great to be a New Zealander...we don't have any
> nukes...
How is it great to be Luddites? How is it great to disallow the cleanest
form of power on the planet? That's jsut silly.
Doug Freyburger
>
> BTW, have you noticed that (AFAIK) none of the attacks in Europe
> have been carried out by indigenous Moslems?
That's the interesting part because it's true or very close to true in
Afghanistan and Iraq as well. The the Bathist party reminants are
mopped up, more and more of the bombings are by foreigners in Iraq.
And the so-called "Afghannis" who ousted the Soviets and are still
active in Afghanistan use it as a base not consider it their native
land.
Funny how the locals hesitate to blow up their own neighborhoods with
car bombs, duh. The problem is the rest of the fundie Muslim world
puts such little value on their distant neighbors that folks from other
nations are happy to blow up someone else's neighborhoods with car bombs.
The fact that Norse raiders were willing to raid either Norse or
foreign villages while out Viking was one of the reasons the Vikings
were viewed as barbarians who were the enemy of southern civilization.
Yet they went home and worked at the forge or whatever in the off
season. Much like fundie terrorists go around blowing up neighborhoods
two nations away from where they grew up, and then use a cellphone to
report the success or failure of the attack.
So what about the fun question: How many of those in Afghanistan or
Iraq that have perpetrated attacks came from Europe? In the US a fair
number of folks from the US and Europe have been identified as terrorist
supporters, arrested, and held as enemy combatants. But none of the
bombers were US citizens. Trouble smashing there own neighborhoods so
some foreigners were called in to do it.
And that leads to the parallel question in Spain: When those involved
in the train bombings are tracked down and caught, I bet those directly
involved are not Spanish citizens and the support they received from
Spanish citizens was indirect and generally unknowing.
Cr...@nospam.com
<scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote:
>Wild Colonial Boy wrote:
>
>> Its part of whats great to be a New Zealander...we don't have any
>> nukes...
>
>How is it great to be Luddites? How is it great to disallow the cleanest
>form of power on the planet? That's jsut silly.
Cleanest form of power?????????
Tell me, engineer... do you know of any spot on the planet
that has remained geologically stable for the length of time it will
be necessary to store the spent fuel rods and other radioactive waste
from nuke plants before they become non-lethal?
Here's a hint: There aren't any. No matter where we put we are
simply making our grandchildren or their grandchildren a gift of a
hideously toxic mess. And that's if we are lucky. When we aren't...
how many people have died so far as a result of Chernobyl?
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in message
news:405A80...@ix.netcomARGH.com...
All the major European nations have dealt with terrorism for decades.
Now it's your turn you're just lashing out in blind panic.
Gistak
> Sorry, guy. The U.S. has unleased a jihad of rage across the Muslim
> world against itself and its allies.
I agree that the US has had a lot to do with causing Muslim hatred.
But it also has to do with certain Islamic governments pushing,
shaping, encouraging, and fostering that hate.
This isn't as simple as, Muslims hate us 'cause we did a lot of bad
stuff.
> From the Muslim point of view,
> the struggle has little to do with Osama bin Laden.
Which struggle? Different Muslims have different struggles.
> Until recently,
> bin Laden was as much despised by Muslims as he was by the
> nations of the West. You might ask what changed.
I might ask whether that's true and to what extent. But even if it's
true completely, it doesn't mean that the causes are what you say they
are. At least not completely.
>
> I mean, after all, when searches for weapons of mass destruction, anthrax
> stocks and nuclear weapons proved fruitless, at least we could say
> we had liberated the Iraqis. Isn't that right? Our president tells
> us so daily.
Is it reasonable for Muslims the world over to hate the US for wrongly
invading a Muslim country? Would it be reasonable for Christian
nations to hate the US for wrongly invading a Christian nation?
I'm not sure.
Let's say that Morocco accused Spain of firing rockets south, so
invaded. OOPS, they were wrong (and didn't admit it and were generally
idiots about it).
I do NOT think that it would be reasonable for Christians throughout
the world to speak of Morocco as being anti-Christian. To hate Morocco
with the kind of ferocity that we're talking about.
I think that right-thinking people would be saying, "hey now, what
they did was wrong, but let's not make this a religious thing."
But somehow, it seems to be ok that certain Muslims hate the US and
use this war as an excuse. I don't think so.
P
JimC
Gistak writes:
> [I wrote in response to another poster:]
>
> > Sorry, guy. The U.S. has unleased a jihad of rage across the Muslim
> > world against itself and its allies.
>
> I agree that the US has had a lot to do with causing Muslim hatred.
> But it also has to do with certain Islamic governments pushing,
> shaping, encouraging, and fostering that hate.
>
> This isn't as simple as, Muslims hate us 'cause we did a lot of bad
> stuff.
>
> > From the Muslim point of view,
> > the struggle has little to do with Osama bin Laden.
>
> Which struggle? Different Muslims have different struggles.
That's my point. The bombings in Spain aren't the direct work
of al-Qaeda. They are Moroccans reacting to the American
invasion of Iraq. Therefore, they are symptomatic of a much
worse trend. Only a few moribund men are willing to blow up their
own sweet arses in order to meet a harem of celestial
virgins. But angry Muslims live everywhere in the 8,000-mile
crescent from Morocco to Indonesia. The terrorism in Spain
is a very, very bad development.
The president has just made a national speech (on the occasion
of one year since the invasion of Iraq) in which he listed the members
of a shaky international coalition that can only fool Americans.
Nobody abroad is fooled. I mean, all you have to do is
cross the Niagara River, and nobody is fooled. This
circled wagon frenzy is physically confined to the United States.
Most galling of all, he said, "*We* will capture those responsible
for the bombings in Madrid," when in fact, they were arrested by
Spanish police 24 hours after the event, an event that wouldn't
have occurred if we hadn't invaded a nation that had nothing to
do with September 11.
You gotta love this guy for having the balls to act so stupid
in front of the whole world. And you gotta hope Kerry
has the balls to *call* him stupid in front of the whole world.
George Bush wrapping himself in his flag no longer has
any effect abroad except to cause revulsion. Because of
Iraq, we've used up our sympathy for September 11.
[...]
> I do NOT think that it would be reasonable for Christians throughout
> the world to speak of Morocco as being anti-Christian. To hate Morocco
> with the kind of ferocity that we're talking about.
Morocco the nation isn't responsible for March 11. Invididual Morrocans
were responsible.
Alan
Alan
--
Windsurfing Club: http://www.ibscc.org
"JimC" <ji...@yabba-dabba-doo.com> wrote in message
news:OYF6c.12257$Ty6...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
bnichols
> bnichols wrote:
> >
> > dfre...@yahoo.com (Doug Freyburger) wrote in message news:<7960d3ee.04031...@posting.google.com>...
> > > JimC wrote
> > > > Scott Lowther
> > > >
> > > > > Not so much a matter of failing to kiss Bush's ass, but willingness to
> > > > > kiss Osama's ass. The Spanish electorate just made life a lot harder for
> > > > > the rest of Europe, come election time...
> > >
> > > Scot is always harsh but he has a point. When has giving in to an
> > > attacking enemy ever worked? Tap, tap, tap. I'm waiting for an
> > > example.
> >
> > Gandhi -- you're welcome.
>
> ERRR. Close, but no cigar. Gandhi was successful because the British
> peopel were basically decent... and because they were a wanign power.
> They were not "attacking enemies" in the same sense. Had the Brits lost
> WWII, and Gandhi faced a triumphant Wermacht and SS rather than the
> Brits...
Sorry, skipper, "can't tell the players without a scorecard." };)
Always be careful of assuminh too much. ;) I was referring to his
time in South Africa. <eg>
Bill
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"JimC" <ji...@yabba-dabba-doo.com> wrote in message
news:OYF6c.12257$Ty6...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Gistak writes:
>
> > [I wrote in response to another poster:]
> >
> > > Sorry, guy. The U.S. has unleased a jihad of rage across the Muslim
> > > world against itself and its allies.
> >
> > I agree that the US has had a lot to do with causing Muslim hatred.
> > But it also has to do with certain Islamic governments pushing,
> > shaping, encouraging, and fostering that hate.
> >
> > This isn't as simple as, Muslims hate us 'cause we did a lot of bad
> > stuff.
> >
> > > From the Muslim point of view,
> > > the struggle has little to do with Osama bin Laden.
> >
> > Which struggle? Different Muslims have different struggles.
>
> That's my point. The bombings in Spain aren't the direct work
> of al-Qaeda. They are Moroccans reacting to the American
> invasion of Iraq. Therefore, they are symptomatic of a much
> worse trend. Only a few moribund men are willing to blow up their
The 'trend' is quite simple.
AQ has been 'franchised' - it is now an idea and a methodology.
While AQ *might* once have existed as a unified org, that probably ended
when the US invaded Afghanistan.
Now all the cells are effectively independent and the wannabees are climbing
aboard.
It will not now make any difference whatsoever if OBL or any 'top AQ' people
are captured. The time when it would have made a difference is long gone.
The downside is that there is nobody to negotiate with, and AQ no longer has
a negotiating position (as it once did with OBL in charge).
In N Ireland the Brits never made the mistake of wiping out all the leading
figures of the PIRA for just this reason, even though they were well known
to the authorities.
Mike Walton
Bush knows how to incite terrorists and how to breed them.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Mike Walton" <mikewa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d2701d5a.04031...@posting.google.com...
> The only people who knew how to fight terrrorism were Clinton and Rabin:
>
> Bush knows how to incite terrorists and how to breed them.
You forgot his Israeli counterpart, the Butcher of Beirut.
Gistak
OYF6c.12257$Ty6...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com, "JimC"
<ji...@yabba-dabba-doo.com> wrote:
>
>> I do NOT think that it would be reasonable for Christians throughout
>> the world to speak of Morocco as being anti-Christian. To hate Morocco
>> with the kind of ferocity that we're talking about.
>
> Morocco the nation isn't responsible for March 11. Invididual Morrocans
> were responsible.
>
I'm guessing that you didn't read my post at all. I wasn't talking about
Morocco having anything to do with Spain. Please read (and don't snip) the
paragraph directly above the one you responded to.
P
bowman
> But
> unlike amny peoples, the Brits at least feel bad when they do these
> horrible things. That can be used against them.
For a country, remorse is the beginning of the end.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"bowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
news:c3g8pv$189bc8$1...@ID-159066.news.uni-berlin.de...
In which case the good news is that most people don't care.
Scott Lowther
>
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:16:55 GMT, Scott Lowther
> <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote:
>
> >Wild Colonial Boy wrote:
> >
> >> Its part of whats great to be a New Zealander...we don't have any
> >> nukes...
> >
> >How is it great to be Luddites? How is it great to disallow the cleanest
> >form of power on the planet? That's jsut silly.
>
> Cleanest form of power?????????
Yup.
> Tell me, engineer... do you know of any spot on the planet
> that has remained geologically stable for the length of time it will
> be necessary to store the spent fuel rods and other radioactive waste
> from nuke plants before they become non-lethal?
Non sequitur. Use breeder reactors. *Use* the "waste." If it's
radioactive... it's a power source.
> how many people have died so far as a result of Chernobyl?
Several dozen. But then, that's hardly relevant; Chernobyl's awful
Socialist-designed reactor has no more relvance to future reactor safety
than a pile of burnign tires has to the future of clean-burning natural
gas plants.
Scott Lowther
> All the major European nations have dealt with terrorism for decades.
And see just how successful they are at it.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in message
news:405BBF...@ix.netcomARGH.com...
> Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
>
> > All the major European nations have dealt with terrorism for decades.
>
> And see just how successful they are at it.
Very successful.
It has been kept to a level that barely affects the average person and is
pretty much lost in the 'noise' of general crime.
Only the Americans are running round like headless chickens shooting at
everything that moves.
Scott Lowther
>
> "Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in message
> news:405BBF...@ix.netcomARGH.com...
> > Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
> >
> > > All the major European nations have dealt with terrorism for decades.
> >
> > And see just how successful they are at it.
>
> Very successful.
Indeed. Behold the success that is Madrid.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in message
news:405BDF...@ix.netcomARGH.com...
> Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
> >
> > "Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in
message
> > news:405BBF...@ix.netcomARGH.com...
> > > Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
> > >
> > > > All the major European nations have dealt with terrorism for
decades.
> > >
> > > And see just how successful they are at it.
> >
> > Very successful.
>
> Indeed. Behold the success that is Madrid.
I see you selecetively edited my reply in order to make your point.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:c3hbpq$26kr7m$1...@ID-120108.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> "Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in message
> news:405BDF...@ix.netcomARGH.com...
> > Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
> > >
> > > "Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in
> message
> > > news:405BBF...@ix.netcomARGH.com...
> > > > Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > All the major European nations have dealt with terrorism for
> decades.
> > > >
> > > > And see just how successful they are at it.
> > >
> > > Very successful.
> >
> > Indeed. Behold the success that is Madrid.
>
> I see you selecetively edited my reply in order to make your point.
http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html
1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.
Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it typical
of counterrevolutionary Catholic thought after the French revolution, but is
was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical Greek
rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most
of the faiths indulgently accepted by the Roman pantheon) started dreaming
of a revelation received at the dawn of human history. This revelation,
according to the traditionalist mystique, had remained for a long time
concealed under the veil of forgotten languages -- in Egyptian hieroglyphs,
in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little-known religions of Asia.
This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the
dictionary says, "the combination of different forms of belief or practice;"
such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original
messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and although they seem to say
different or incompatible things, they all are nevertheless alluding,
allegorically, to the same primeval truth.
As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has
been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its
obscure message.
If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled New
Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine, who, as far as I know, was not
a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge -- that is a symptom
of Ur-Fascism.
2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.
Both Fascists and Nazis worshipped technology, while traditionalist thinkers
usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However,
even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of
modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon blood and earth
(Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a
rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life. The Enlightenment, the Age of
Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense
Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.
3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.
Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without,
reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect
insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the
intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann
Goering's fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play ("When I hear the
word 'culture' I reach for my gun") to the frequent use of such expressions
as "degenerate intellectuals," "eggheads," "effete snobs," and "universities
are nests of reds." The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged
in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having
betrayed traditional values.
4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of
modernism.
In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to
improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.
5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.
Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the
natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely
fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is
racist by definition.
6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.
That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was
the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic
crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure
of lower social groups. In our time, when the old "proletarians" are
becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the
political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new
majority.
7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says
that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same
country.
This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an
identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist
psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international
one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is
the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews
are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the
same time inside and outside. In the United States, a prominent instance of
the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson's The New World Order,
but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.
8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force
of their enemies.
When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal
people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are
rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However,
the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm
the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies
are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are
condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of
objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.
9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived
for struggle.
Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is
permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since
enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the
movement will have control of the world. But such "final solutions" implies
a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of
permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this
predicament.
10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it
is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism
cruelly implies contempt for the weak.
Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the
best people in the world, the members or the party are the best among the
citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But
there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing
that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by
force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses;
they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler.
11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.
In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist
ideology heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with
the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Spanish
Falangists was Viva la Muerte ("Long Live Death!"). In nonfascist societies,
the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with
dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a
supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic
death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero
is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other
people to death.
12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the
Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.
This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and
intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to
homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist
hero tends to play with weapons -- doing so becomes an ersatz phallic
exercise.
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism,
one might say.
In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in
their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of
view -- one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however,
individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a
quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large
quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be
their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not
act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People
is only a theatrical fiction. There is in our future a TV or Internet
populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens
can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
Because of its qualitative populism, Ur-Fascism must be against "rotten"
parliamentary governments. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the
legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the
People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.
14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.
Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, as the official
language of what he called Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of
Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or
Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an
elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and
critical reasoning. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of
Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk
show.
--
Wild Colonial Boy
>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:16:55 GMT, Scott Lowther
><scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote:
>
>>Wild Colonial Boy wrote:
>>
>>> Its part of whats great to be a New Zealander...we don't have any
>>> nukes...
>>
>>How is it great to be Luddites? How is it great to disallow the cleanest
>>form of power on the planet? That's jsut silly.
>
> Cleanest form of power?????????
>
> Tell me, engineer... do you know of any spot on the planet
>that has remained geologically stable for the length of time it will
>be necessary to store the spent fuel rods and other radioactive waste
>from nuke plants before they become non-lethal?
> Here's a hint: There aren't any. No matter where we put we are
>simply making our grandchildren or their grandchildren a gift of a
>hideously toxic mess. And that's if we are lucky. When we aren't...
>how many people have died so far as a result of Chernobyl?
My issue with Nuclear power is indeed how the spent fuel is stored. As
the poster above has pointed out there is no safe place on earth to
store it.
With respect to being a luddite I'm looking forward very much to
fusion power and hyrdrogen fuel cells becoming cost effective.
Luddite...<laughter>...yeah right.
Nik
Scott Lowther
>
> "Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in message
> news:405BDF...@ix.netcomARGH.com...
> > Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
> > >
> > > "Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in
> message
> > > news:405BBF...@ix.netcomARGH.com...
> > > > Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > All the major European nations have dealt with terrorism for
> decades.
> > > >
> > > > And see just how successful they are at it.
> > >
> > > Very successful.
> >
> > Indeed. Behold the success that is Madrid.
>
> I see you selecetively edited my reply in order to make your point.
Yes... because the rest of your post was utter gibberish. "Only the
Americans are running round like headless chickens shooting at
everything that moves." That's pure bullshit.
Even more gibberish was your Ur-fascism addendum, and even less worthy
of response.
Scott Lowther
> My issue with Nuclear power is indeed how the spent fuel is stored. As
> the poster above has pointed out there is no safe place on earth to
> store it.
As has been pointed out to you before, at some length, this is not an
issue. Even if one was such an unutterable idiot as to not try and
re-use such "waste," disposal by dispersal within concrete blocks would
be a snap.
> With respect to being a luddite I'm looking forward very much to
> fusion power and hyrdrogen fuel cells becoming cost effective.
Fusion is only ten years away... and it's been only ten years away for
decades.
Hydrogen fuel cells are silly, especially when hydrocarbon fuels such as
octane and methanol are relatively easily created from garbage and
electrical power (see: thermal depolymerization). Use nukes for the
electricity, and you're set.
JimC
"Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in message
> > how many people have died so far as a result of Chernobyl?
>
> Several dozen. But then, that's hardly relevant; Chernobyl's awful
> Socialist-designed reactor has no more relvance to future reactor safety
> than a pile of burnign tires has to the future of clean-burning natural
> gas plants.
About 100,000 died from radiation effects in the six months
following the explosion. It is probably the prime nexus in the
collapse of the Soviet economy which was in pretty bad
shape without Chernobyl.
Scott Lowther
>
> "Scott Lowther" <scottlowth...@ix.netcomARGH.com> wrote in message
>
> > > how many people have died so far as a result of Chernobyl?
> >
> > Several dozen. But then, that's hardly relevant; Chernobyl's awful
> > Socialist-designed reactor has no more relvance to future reactor safety
> > than a pile of burnign tires has to the future of clean-burning natural
> > gas plants.
>
> About 100,000 died from radiation effects in the six months
> following the explosion.
And you can back that up with actual facts, and not Green Party
hysterics, yes?
bowman
>
> About 100,000 died from radiation effects in the six months
> following the explosion. It is probably the prime nexus in the
> collapse of the Soviet economy which was in pretty bad
> shape without Chernobyl.
So, you disagree with UNSCEARS's (United Nations Scientific Committee on the
Effects of Atomic Radiation) 2000 report?
http://www.unscear.org/reports/2000_1.html
Do you have any citations to support your claims?
The toll at Bhopal, accurately documented and not the wishful thinking of
alarmists, was much higher. Should any chemical plant producing potentially
hazardous chemicals be shut down? A few things may then be missing from
your life, from your computer to the cyanoacrylate fillings in your mouth.
The Soviet economy collapsed when the smoke dissipated and the mirrors
broke.
JimC
"Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7960d3ee.04031...@posting.google.com...
> JimC wrote
> > Scott Lowther
> >
> > > Not so much a matter of failing to kiss Bush's ass, but willingness to
> > > kiss Osama's ass. The Spanish electorate just made life a lot harder for
> > > the rest of Europe, come election time...
> Scot is always harsh but he has a point. When has giving in to an
> attacking enemy ever worked? Tap, tap, tap. I'm waiting for an
> example.
It doesn't. That's why sympathizers of Iraq, the "enemy" who
hadn't attacked us now commit terrorism against allies whom we
cajoled into supporting our otherwise unilateral invasion.
Snookered, if you prefer.an earthier word than cajoled.
The only reason Spain sent troops to Iraq, which its population
overwhelmingly opposed, was to make us look good and
multilateral. For her trouble, Spain was attacked at home.
Spanish police promptly arrested the terrorists while
George Bush announced that we would track
down the terrorists that were already in custody.
The new premier said in effect, thanks, senor,
but please don't "help" us any more. Please! He
even pledged his government's support through the end
of June thus keeping a commitment that neither he nor
most of the population support, and would still
keep troops on if the U.N. voted its
support of George Bush, which is about as
likely as a white Christmas in Honolulu.
> > The U.S. has unleased a jihad of rage across the Muslim
> > world against itself and its allies.
>
> What a load of obvious crap.
I can see you're on top of the news.
Scott Lowther
> > > The U.S. has unleased a jihad of rage across the Muslim
> > > world against itself and its allies.
> >
> > What a load of obvious crap.
>
> I can see you're on top of the news.
What, the US is somehow responsible for Muslim rage for having lost
Spain in 1492?
Gistak
OYF6c.12257$Ty6...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com, "JimC"
<ji...@yabba-dabba-doo.com> wrote:
>
> Gistak writes:
>
>> [I wrote in response to another poster:]
>>
>>> Sorry, guy. The U.S. has unleased a jihad of rage across the Muslim
>>> world against itself and its allies.
>>
>> I agree that the US has had a lot to do with causing Muslim hatred.
>> But it also has to do with certain Islamic governments pushing,
>> shaping, encouraging, and fostering that hate.
>>
>> This isn't as simple as, Muslims hate us 'cause we did a lot of bad
>> stuff.
>>
>>> From the Muslim point of view,
>>> the struggle has little to do with Osama bin Laden.
>>
>> Which struggle? Different Muslims have different struggles.
>
> That's my point. The bombings in Spain aren't the direct work
> of al-Qaeda. They are Moroccans reacting to the American
> invasion of Iraq. Therefore, they are symptomatic of a much
> worse trend. Only a few moribund men are willing to blow up their
> own sweet arses in order to meet a harem of celestial
> virgins. But angry Muslims live everywhere in the 8,000-mile
> crescent from Morocco to Indonesia. The terrorism in Spain
> is a very, very bad development.
>
Ok.
They're angry. But you and I may disagree about WHY they're angry and
whether they're RIGHT to be angry to the degree in which they are.
If your point is that different Muslims have different struggles, and I
agree, then I think it's possible that this common hatred of the US is
something coming from WITHIN their community. Being fostered BY their
community. The struggles are different, but somehow the entity they're
struggling against and hate always seems to be the US.
Again, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be ill-feeling. I'm not saying
that there's no reason for many Muslims to be angry.
> The president has just made a national speech (on the occasion
> of one year since the invasion of Iraq) in which he listed the members
> of a shaky international coalition that can only fool Americans.
> Nobody abroad is fooled. I mean, all you have to do is
> cross the Niagara River, and nobody is fooled. This
> circled wagon frenzy is physically confined to the United States.
>
I don't know anyone who is fooled in my personal life (outside of Usenet).
> Most galling of all, he said, "*We* will capture those responsible
> for the bombings in Madrid," when in fact, they were arrested by
> Spanish police 24 hours after the event, an event that wouldn't
> have occurred if we hadn't invaded a nation that had nothing to
> do with September 11.
>
And here's where you lose me. To say that this event wouldn't have happened
if we hadn't invaded Iraq may be true, but isn't good enough and it doesn't
do anything to say that we were WRONG to invade (which, of course, we were).
This ALSO may never have happened if there weren't key Islamic leaders
calling for religious war. It probably wouldn't have happened if a LOT of
things had gone differently.
> You gotta love this guy for having the balls to act so stupid
> in front of the whole world. And you gotta hope Kerry
> has the balls to *call* him stupid in front of the whole world.
> George Bush wrapping himself in his flag no longer has
> any effect abroad except to cause revulsion. Because of
> Iraq, we've used up our sympathy for September 11.
>
> [...]
>
I think this [...] means that you snipped what I said. But then you
responded to the last paragraph of it, which had nothing to do with what you
seem to think it did.
So I'll repost it:
Let's say that Morocco accused Spain of firing rockets south, so
invaded. OOPS, they were wrong (and didn't admit it and were generally
idiots about it).
I do NOT think that it would be reasonable for Christians throughout
the world to speak of Morocco as being anti-Christian. To hate Morocco
with the kind of ferocity that we're talking about.
I think that right-thinking people would be saying, "hey now, what
Doug Freyburger
>
> Cleanest form of power?????????
> how many people have died so far as a result of Chernobyl?
What does Chernobyl have to do with nuclear power anywhere in
the world other than the former Soviet Union? Do try to avoid
being an idiot in your answer. It's a design that would have
been given an F in any nuclear power program at any university
in the west. Chernobyl serves to tell the fools from the
knowledgible in any discussion of nuclear power. It's the
best red herring available. Do keep up.
Doug Freyburger
> Gistak writes:
>
> > But it also has to do with certain Islamic governments pushing,
> > shaping, encouraging, and fostering that hate.
Failure to address this point fails to grasp the issue. The day they
stop the war begins to run down.
> Only a few moribund men are willing to blow up their
> own sweet arses in order to meet a harem of celestial
> virgins. But angry Muslims live everywhere in the 8,000-mile
> crescent from Morocco to Indonesia. The terrorism in Spain
> is a very, very bad development.
That means Spain's efforts to locate and arrest terrorists were
insufficient. At least they made the attempt.
> Morocco the nation isn't responsible for March 11. Invididual Morrocans
> were responsible.
It was an act of war, so it wasn't an individual event. It was done by
Moccocan citizens therefor Morroco was responible for preventing them
from committing the act. Maybe Morroco now finds itself in a war with
Spain or its allies. Maybe they trained in some other nation and that
nation now finds itself at war with Spain and its allies. Maybe it will
be treated as a crime and as such it will happen again and again and
again with fresh pawns each time.
Never take a knife to a gun fight. Never take the police to a war.
Both are loasing strategies.
Gistak
> > Morocco the nation isn't responsible for March 11. Invididual Morrocans
> > were responsible.
>
> It was an act of war, so it wasn't an individual event. It was done by
> Moccocan citizens therefor Morroco was responible for preventing them
> from committing the act.
Whoa. Are we talking about the train bombing here?
I don't think we want to hold Morocco responsible for what her
citizens in Spain have done, unless there's proof that the government
was involved (which includes knowing about it). I certainly don't want
the US to be held responsible for what US citizens in other countries
do.
P
Wild Colonial Boy
wrote:
Indeed Chernobyl is a bad example of Soviet era cost cutting in their
engineering.
However, all the actual power plant engineering aside there remains
the problem of what to do with the spent fuel rods/radioactive
waste...
Roll on Fusion power I say.
Nik
Cr...@nospam.com
Yup. He completely ducks the issue of the tons upon tons of
highly toxic radioactive waste piling up right here in the good ol' U
S of A (and every other country using nuclear power) and the fact that
not only has no good plan been devised to safely store the shit, but
no good plan CAN be devised since even the planet itself is incapable
of remaining geologically stable for the length of time it would take
for much of to reach half-life.
In fact, Doug snipped the 90% of what I posted that
specifically addressed that issue and latched on to the only one he
thought he could refute - nuclear accidents. The Chernobyl design may
well have been terrible, but accidents can and will happen even here.
Three Mile Island came very close and there have been other close
calls. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. Play on the
train tracks long enough and sooner or later you WILL get hit by a
train... and this particular train is a monster.
But never mind that. With any luck we'll all be long in our
graves by then and it'll be somebody else's problem to deal with.
Here's another prediction for you: In a few hundred years, the
reverence for ancestors which has been a part of human religious and
philosophical traditions throughout recorded history will be a thing
of the past, replaced by a nearly universal loathing of them.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7960d3ee.04032...@posting.google.com...
Except that Spain appears to have tracked down and arrested the perps, which
is more than the US has done.
Seen anything of OBL lately?
And wasn't his No2 supposed to be 'surrounded' in Pakistan?
All done without invading any nation and without killing tens of thousands
of civilians.
FFF
bnichols
> > Gistak writes:
> >
> > > But it also has to do with certain Islamic governments pushing,
> > > shaping, encouraging, and fostering that hate.
>
> Failure to address this point fails to grasp the issue. The day they
> stop the war begins to run down.
>
> > Only a few moribund men are willing to blow up their
> > own sweet arses in order to meet a harem of celestial
> > virgins. But angry Muslims live everywhere in the 8,000-mile
> > crescent from Morocco to Indonesia. The terrorism in Spain
> > is a very, very bad development.
>
> That means Spain's efforts to locate and arrest terrorists were
> insufficient. At least they made the attempt.
>
> > Morocco the nation isn't responsible for March 11. Invididual Morrocans
> > were responsible.
>
> It was an act of war, so it wasn't an individual event. It was done by
> Moccocan citizens therefor Morroco was responible for preventing them
By which logic one should then also make the case that Saudi Arabia
is therefore directly responsible for 9/11 because they didn't
prevent their citizens from "committing the act," right? :)
Nationality isn't automatically perforce an issue when dealing
with al Qaeda, nor should one do as Bush did & make a totally
unconnected attack on a country just because a totally separate
entity with 0 ideological links to that country attacked us. The
argument could easily be made that Bush is responsible for both
an act of war (attacking a country that had not attackee us) & an
act of treason (concomitant failure to press attacks to the maximum
against the entity that *did*). I wouldn't make such arguments
myself, but there are certainly grounds for both.
Bill
Doug Freyburger
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> > > Morocco the nation isn't responsible for March 11. Invididual
> > > Morrocans were responsible.
>
> > It was an act of war, so it wasn't an individual event. It was done by
> > Moccocan citizens therefor Morroco was responible for preventing them
> > from committing the act.
>
> Whoa. Are we talking about the train bombing here?
Yes. It was an act of war.
> I don't think we want to hold Morocco responsible for what her
> citizens in Spain have done, unless there's proof that the government
> was involved (which includes knowing about it).
Excellent point. When the planes hit the WTC this is why the US
conquered Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia even though 14 of the
19 suicide bombers were Saudi citizens.
Find out where they were trained, what government knew, what government
was negligent in allowing terrorist training camps on their soil.
One of the rules of Rome was that if you lived near their borders it
was your job to prevent any invasion into Roman territory. It didn't
matter in the least if you disagreed or that you lived outside of
Roman jurisdiction for most Roman laws. The Roman Republic had the
power and policy to back it up with enforcement and they did so on
numerous occasions. National soveriegnty is a touchy-feely idea
that includes the actions of a nations citizens abroad as well as
the citizens of nearby nations.
Spain isn't *required* to declare war on Morroco, but they now have
legal cause. They are now *allowed* to do so if they decide it is
the correct response. Their recent elections predict whether they
will do so. Time will tell how that comes out.
On your point, if American citizens commit acts of terrorism aka acts
of war in some nation, and those Americans were trained in the US
(say CIA training perhaps) then the nation where the act occured does
have legal cause to declare war on the US. Any nation that choses to
do so, good luck. They'll need it.
I suspect there are a fair number of acts of war that are accidental
(coast guard rescues folks during a crisis but home nation wanted them
left out to die to get rid of problem colony, or whatever) that are
handled with diplomatic channels, some number that are real invasions
(I suspect US drug busts sometimes happen outside) that are handled
with diplomatic channels with payment of money of trade advantages,
and some that the attacked nation decides against escallation (the
1993 WTC bombing and what I expect Spain to do with Morroco now).
Like any major world power, the US has been involved in plenty of
international problems. But compare the US against any other world
power of remotely the same strength throughout history. Soviet Union,
United Kingdom, Napoleonic France, Alexandrian Greece, Ghengis
Mongolia, and more. The US fairs better in history than any of them.
The US is not perfect. Such is life.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7960d3ee.04032...@posting.google.com...
> Gistak wrote:
> > Doug Freyburger wrote:
> >
> > > > Morocco the nation isn't responsible for March 11. Invididual
> > > > Morrocans were responsible.
> >
> > > It was an act of war, so it wasn't an individual event. It was done
by
> > > Moccocan citizens therefor Morroco was responible for preventing them
> > > from committing the act.
> >
> > Whoa. Are we talking about the train bombing here?
>
> Yes. It was an act of war.
Contras?
Gistak
7960d3ee.04032...@posting.google.com, "Doug Freyburger"
<dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gistak wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>
>>>> Morocco the nation isn't responsible for March 11. Invididual
>>>> Morrocans were responsible.
>>
>>> It was an act of war, so it wasn't an individual event. It was done by
>>> Moccocan citizens therefor Morroco was responible for preventing them
>>> from committing the act.
>>
>> Whoa. Are we talking about the train bombing here?
>
> Yes. It was an act of war.
>
>> I don't think we want to hold Morocco responsible for what her
>> citizens in Spain have done, unless there's proof that the government
>> was involved (which includes knowing about it).
>
> Excellent point. When the planes hit the WTC this is why the US
> conquered Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia even though 14 of the
> 19 suicide bombers were Saudi citizens.
>
Not how I remember it. The US asked that Afghanistan turn over the known
terrorists and disband terrorist cells. Afghanistan did not and THAT's why
they were invaded.
IIRC, no one in power ever said that the bombing was an act of war from
Afghanistan.
> Find out where they were trained, what government knew, what government
> was negligent in allowing terrorist training camps on their soil.
>
> One of the rules of Rome was that if you lived near their borders it
> was your job to prevent any invasion into Roman territory. It didn't
> matter in the least if you disagreed or that you lived outside of
> Roman jurisdiction for most Roman laws. The Roman Republic had the
> power and policy to back it up with enforcement and they did so on
> numerous occasions.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that the US should emulate
the position of Rome?
> National soveriegnty is a touchy-feely idea
> that includes the actions of a nations citizens abroad as well as
> the citizens of nearby nations.
>
> Spain isn't *required* to declare war on Morroco, but they now have
> legal cause.
I don't think so. Not until it's clear that the government had anything to
do with it. I think that you're wrong about the "legalities" of war.
P
Scott Lowther
> However, all the actual power plant engineering aside there remains
> the problem of what to do with the spent fuel rods/radioactive
> waste...
Use it.
Barring that... do waht I suggested months ago, and cast one-cubic meter
block of concrete witha few grams of "waste" dispersed within, and use
these millions of block to rebuild important civil infrastructure. hell,
build convenient islands
> Roll on Fusion power I say.
We've had fusion power since the early 1950's. Set off an H-bomb and
collect the energy released.
Wes
> > Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
> >
> > > population by signing Spain up for this unnecessary war.
> >
> > Just like WWII was unnecessary.
> >
> > > That's not 'giving in' - that's democratic accountibility.
> > > And when it's election time in Britain I hope Blair goes the same way.
> >
> > Maybe you can get Thatcher back in. Someone with balls in charge for a
> > change.
>
> Someone with balls would have told Bush to fuck off.
Good rejoinder.
Wes
> >
>
> ERRR. Close, but no cigar. Gandhi was successful because the British
> peopel were basically decent... and because they were a wanign power.
Baloney-- the Brits could be just as ruthless an imperial power as the
Germans, Japs, or Belgians. The terror bombing of Iraq and Sudan
civilian populations in the 1920s, the forced famines in India in the
late 1800s, the useless sack of Kabul after Britain's disastrous
defeat in Afghanistan in 1842, the brutal treatment and deliberate
attacks against the Australian aborigines and Maoris in New Zealand,
the whole litany of atrocities against the Irish. The British helped
many countries with the spread of parliamentary democracy and the
railroad systems, but it's a fantasy to think that they were more
benign imperialists that their colleagues; they could get bloody if
the natives became restless. See e.g. Maria Misra's article at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,761626,00.html for a
full discussion.
Wes Ulm
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Wes" <wes55...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a9eaf6a2.04032...@posting.google.com...
The killings, though, were never on the scale of (say) the Belgians in
Africa nor were they so systematic or prolonged.
The Irish famine arose out of the 'free market' philosophy and neglect.
Not deliberate genocidal policy.
--
John Gilmer
>
> Baloney-- the Brits could be just as ruthless an imperial power as the
> Germans, Japs, or Belgians.
Well, then, the Brits made a BIG mistake in not putting the Indians back
into their place after WWII.
Clearly, there were no morality issues involved.
Right?
Doug Freyburger
>
> By which logic one should then also make the case that Saudi Arabia
> is therefore directly responsible for 9/11 because they didn't
> prevent their citizens from "committing the act," right? :)
If they did not support the actors, right. If they'd pulled
Saudi citizenship of anyone attending a terrorist camp they
would have been in the free and clear. The fact that the
camps were outside of Saudi jurisdiction got them not invaded.
So it's a mixed bag.
> Nationality isn't automatically perforce an issue when dealing
> with al Qaeda
New ground for international law with Al Qaeda in the lead.
Actually in US history the case of the Barbary Coast works. A
non-national force acting like a nation gets treated as a nation.
Al Qaeda is liking like a nation. The Knights of Malta offer
citizenship without nation as another case in US history. Al
Qeada training camps churn out Al Qeada citizens in some legal
precedence based sense. And the nations where Al Qeada works
unopposed map into occupied nations sorta.
> The
> argument could easily be made that Bush is responsible for both
> an act of war (attacking a country that had not attackee us)
Except for that ceasefire treaty in breach thing. Iraq had had
an open invitation for US invasion ever since it breached the
ceasefire. They set themselves up like dominoes and they had no
idea their trail of dominoes could be knocked over by outside
forces. But that's what happened. War on terrorism happened.
Base needed. Say look here a nation with an open invitation for
invasion by breached ceasefire agreement. Whack. Welcome to
new base.
Iraq attacked Kuwait. Kuwait and several other local nations
invited the US in. Ceasefire agreement left US on open invitation
to invade. Funny how people forget that when it's inconvenient
for them. Wars have a long list of causes some matters of open
public record some unstated.
> & an act of treason (concomitant failure to press attacks to the
> maximum against the entity that *did.
But is that enemy Al Qeada (yes IMO), Afghanistan (yes as an
occupied nation IMO), Saidi Arabia (partially since they never
pulled citizenship IMO). How much will invading Iraq help in the
war? Only time will tell. I consider it a mistake, but I
consider it a tactical mistake for strategy ends, so I get a long
list of reasons why it was done. I do think it would have been
better for the US to seriously occupy Afghanistan (and fail to
learn an example from UK and USSR!) and also pour more troops
into Saudi to make US occupation go from "invited" status to
"you can't kick us out any more" status. But that too is a
tactical mistake for strategic reasons.
Doug Freyburger
>
> > > > Moccocan citizens therefor Morroco was responible for preventing them
> > > > from committing the act.
>
> > > Whoa. Are we talking about the train bombing here?
>
> > Yes. It was an act of war.
>
> Contras?
Certainly. I doubt there's a nation in Latin America that lacks legal
cause for war against the US at this point. Yet none of them attack.
Maybe because US influence over time has been less onerous than the
influence of other powerful nations? Sometimes people chose between
the lesser of two evils because doing so is both in their own interests
and unpleasant at the same time.
Wes
Well, I see your point; the potato famine in Ireland and the famines
in India during the late 1800s were more a product of malign or inept
neglect than, say, a deliberate razing of crops or blocking of food
shipments. I've read articles on the potato famine in the 1840s and
the accusation I've usually heard lobbed against the British officials
is "criminal neglect" rather than "deliberate sabotage of the potato
crop" or its shipment. While there were many cases like the Amritsar
massacre and the terror bombing of Iraq and Sudan in the 1920s,
nothing approaches the Leopoldian horror in the Congo, at least as far
as deliberate butchery of the native populace; the Empire in the 1800s
was quite restrained in comparison to Leopold's forces.
However, in Ireland at least, there was one case of a more deliberate
propensity on the part of English officials to massacre civilians and
intentionally provoke famine during the 1590s, around the time of the
Hugh O' Neill rebellion. Lord Mountjoy, one of Elizabeth I's
generals, wanted to cow support in the countryside for O'Neill and his
allies, so he intentionally scorched fields all throughout the plains
to occasion a famine, while slaughtering local families and
perpetrating Lidice-style atrocities in the towns and hamlets. Now
*that* was an ugly war, and Richard Berleth (The Twilight Lords) among
others estimates that perhaps 1/3 or more of the Irish were killed by
the famine and massacres, which were deliberate in every respect (and
which, as we all know, ultimately enraged the population so much that
Ireland was never truly pacified). That would probably qualify as a
genocide in anybody's book. The caveat here, of course, is that this
was still in pre-British Empire days, before even Jamestown saw John
Smith's tents go up on the coast, and the Thirty Years' War in
Continental Europe featured a similar humanitarian catastrophe during
the 1600s in the German states.
The British colonial policy of the 1600s and 1700s vis-a-vis the
African slaves of the Caribbean sugar plantations (chiefly Jamaica)
was also pretty horrific (Hugh Thomas's book on the history of slavery
is difficult to stomach in these sections), and the slaves suffered
greatly; but British participation in the slave trade was overall much
less than the other European maritime nations. And the British were
among the first to push for abolition in the early 1800s.
I guess where the argument probably rages most fervently is in the
case of Australia/New Zealand. There clearly *was* a massive
population replacement here of the aboriginal peoples, but IIRC this
was attributable chiefly to infectious diseases among the settlers; I
don't recall any particular policy in which British settlers/military
officials were instructed to deliberately slaughter Maoris or
aborigines in Australia proper or Tasmania. Anthony Trollope, the
Victorian author, once sickeningly boasted that it was the aborigines'
destiny (and the concomitant benefit of civilization in his eyes) to
die in large numbers so that the superior Anglo-Saxons could take hold
in Australia. A comment so repugnant that I'd have pinned it on Josef
Mengele if I hadn't known otherwise. But despite Trollope's foul
utterance, I don't think that mass killing of the aboriginal peoples
(as occurred in the Congo) was ever a policy in Oceania.
I suppose one could make the case that in comparison to their European
contemporaries, the British were more restrained in their policies
toward the native populations. With the exception of Elizabethan
Ireland, I can't think of cases when the British deliberately sought
to wipe out or massacre a large fraction of a native population. (I'm
aware of the accusation that smallpox-laden blankets were supposedly
given by British soldiers to native Americans during the French and
Indian War, though I'm not sure this particular claim has been proven
beyond a reasonable doubt.) But there was still a laundry list of
British atrocities and brutalities in many imperial places (as Misra's
article notes), if not on the scale of the Congo (to pick an extreme
example).
Wes Ulm
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Not to mention the Germans in Namibia.
As for Amritsar, it is remembered because it is exceptional.
> However, in Ireland at least, there was one case of a more deliberate
> propensity on the part of English officials to massacre civilians and
> intentionally provoke famine during the 1590s, around the time of the
Well, if we are going back that far I can equally claim there was no British
empire and no Britain.
Britain lay more than 100 years in the future.
> Hugh O' Neill rebellion. Lord Mountjoy, one of Elizabeth I's
> generals, wanted to cow support in the countryside for O'Neill and his
> allies, so he intentionally scorched fields all throughout the plains
> to occasion a famine, while slaughtering local families and
> perpetrating Lidice-style atrocities in the towns and hamlets. Now
> *that* was an ugly war, and Richard Berleth (The Twilight Lords) among
> others estimates that perhaps 1/3 or more of the Irish were killed by
> the famine and massacres, which were deliberate in every respect (and
> which, as we all know, ultimately enraged the population so much that
> Ireland was never truly pacified). That would probably qualify as a
> genocide in anybody's book. The caveat here, of course, is that this
> was still in pre-British Empire days, before even Jamestown saw John
> Smith's tents go up on the coast, and the Thirty Years' War in
> Continental Europe featured a similar humanitarian catastrophe during
> the 1600s in the German states.
It was a pretty common result of war in that era.
> The British colonial policy of the 1600s and 1700s vis-a-vis the
> African slaves of the Caribbean sugar plantations (chiefly Jamaica)
> was also pretty horrific (Hugh Thomas's book on the history of slavery
> is difficult to stomach in these sections), and the slaves suffered
> greatly; but British participation in the slave trade was overall much
> less than the other European maritime nations. And the British were
> among the first to push for abolition in the early 1800s.
Also another point to mention wth regard to slavery.
The aim was not to kill, obviously.
> I guess where the argument probably rages most fervently is in the
> case of Australia/New Zealand. There clearly *was* a massive
> population replacement here of the aboriginal peoples, but IIRC this
> was attributable chiefly to infectious diseases among the settlers; I
Which occurred in the Americas as well.
It's typical of what happens to populations isolated from diseases common to
the newcomers.
> don't recall any particular policy in which British settlers/military
> officials were instructed to deliberately slaughter Maoris or
> aborigines in Australia proper or Tasmania. Anthony Trollope, the
> Victorian author, once sickeningly boasted that it was the aborigines'
> destiny (and the concomitant benefit of civilization in his eyes) to
> die in large numbers so that the superior Anglo-Saxons could take hold
> in Australia. A comment so repugnant that I'd have pinned it on Josef
> Mengele if I hadn't known otherwise. But despite Trollope's foul
> utterance, I don't think that mass killing of the aboriginal peoples
> (as occurred in the Congo) was ever a policy in Oceania.
The Tasmanians were totally wiped out.
Again to a large extent due to govt *inaction*
> I suppose one could make the case that in comparison to their European
> contemporaries, the British were more restrained in their policies
> toward the native populations. With the exception of Elizabethan
> Ireland, I can't think of cases when the British deliberately sought
> to wipe out or massacre a large fraction of a native population. (I'm
Much of what happened in the Empire can be put down to govts *not*
'interfering' with 'private enterprise'.
> aware of the accusation that smallpox-laden blankets were supposedly
> given by British soldiers to native Americans during the French and
> Indian War, though I'm not sure this particular claim has been proven
> beyond a reasonable doubt.) But there was still a laundry list of
> British atrocities and brutalities in many imperial places (as Misra's
> article notes), if not on the scale of the Congo (to pick an extreme
> example).
How many Iraqis killed by British bombing in the 1920s compared with Iraqis
killed in the past couple of years?
And why is it worse for the British Empire to bomb Iraqi civilians than the
US now?
FFF
Wild Colonial Boy
I beg to differ with you on that one Dirk.
Nik
Wild Colonial Boy
Parihaka.
I have to say though, I think that the Australian Aborignes had it
worse than Maori.
Nik
Wild Colonial Boy
"England" will do for this bit...
>> Hugh O' Neill rebellion. Lord Mountjoy, one of Elizabeth I's
>> generals, wanted to cow support in the countryside for O'Neill and his
>> allies, so he intentionally scorched fields all throughout the plains
>> to occasion a famine, while slaughtering local families and
>> perpetrating Lidice-style atrocities in the towns and hamlets. Now
>> *that* was an ugly war, and Richard Berleth (The Twilight Lords) among
>> others estimates that perhaps 1/3 or more of the Irish were killed by
>> the famine and massacres, which were deliberate in every respect (and
>> which, as we all know, ultimately enraged the population so much that
>> Ireland was never truly pacified). That would probably qualify as a
>> genocide in anybody's book. The caveat here, of course, is that this
>> was still in pre-British Empire days, before even Jamestown saw John
>> Smith's tents go up on the coast, and the Thirty Years' War in
>> Continental Europe featured a similar humanitarian catastrophe during
>> the 1600s in the German states.
>
>It was a pretty common result of war in that era.
It doesn't justify it though and furthermore, explains why Ireland has
never been pacified and won't be until the bias of the British
Security forces has been either nullified or removed.
No, due to Tasmania based white men shooting them like animals...
>> I suppose one could make the case that in comparison to their European
>> contemporaries, the British were more restrained in their policies
>> toward the native populations. With the exception of Elizabethan
>> Ireland, I can't think of cases when the British deliberately sought
>> to wipe out or massacre a large fraction of a native population. (I'm
>
>Much of what happened in the Empire can be put down to govts *not*
>'interfering' with 'private enterprise'.
Its not entirely the story and even if it was it wouldn't morally
justify it.
>> aware of the accusation that smallpox-laden blankets were supposedly
>> given by British soldiers to native Americans during the French and
>> Indian War, though I'm not sure this particular claim has been proven
>> beyond a reasonable doubt.) But there was still a laundry list of
>> British atrocities and brutalities in many imperial places (as Misra's
>> article notes), if not on the scale of the Congo (to pick an extreme
>> example).
>
>How many Iraqis killed by British bombing in the 1920s compared with Iraqis
>killed in the past couple of years?
>And why is it worse for the British Empire to bomb Iraqi civilians than the
>US now?
Its on TV now...
Nik
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Wild Colonial Boy" <someth...@iconz.co.nz> wrote in message
news:mrn3605r26erin8ro...@4ax.com...
Evidence?
FFF
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Wild Colonial Boy" <someth...@iconz.co.nz> wrote in message
news:tun360t67i19j4es9...@4ax.com...
As an American once commented to me - the English only respect those who can
give them a good thrashing.
Hence we respect Japanese, Germans, Zulus, Maoris and look down on Italians
and most Africans.
Also, over here 'Red Indians' get a lot more respect than they do in the US
partly because of that.
FFF
Scott Lowther
>
> news:mrn3605r26erin8ro...@4ax.com...
> > >The Irish famine arose out of the 'free market' philosophy and neglect.
> > >Not deliberate genocidal policy.
> >
> > I beg to differ with you on that one Dirk.
>
> Evidence?
Didn't you know? It was George W. Bush's fault.
Sheesh. Keep up with the ANSWER International talking points, will ya?
Wes
>
> As an American once commented to me - the English only respect those who can
> give them a good thrashing.
> Hence we respect Japanese, Germans, Zulus, Maoris and look down on Italians
> and most Africans.
> Also, over here 'Red Indians' get a lot more respect than they do in the US
> partly because of that.
IIRC the very worst military thrashing the English (British) ever
received, in the past five centuries at least, was at the hands of
Afghan tribesmen in the First Anglo-Afghan War in 1842. 15-20,000 in
the British camp under poor General Elphinstone (which included many
camp followers, of course), with only one, a certain Dr. Brydon,
surviving the retreat from Kabul amidst what must have felt like
hundreds of crafty Pashtun ambushes.
(A few POW's were also released later;
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/5443/af4.htm has a good
summary.)
Hence Kipling's famous lamentation for those poor sods who were
shipped out to the place:
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."
The disaster was so awful that the British press withheld disclosing
it for a while, at least until the soldiers' families began inquiring
about what happened to young Nigel and Johnny out in Central Asia. It
also pretty much singlehandedly put the kibosh on any plans to annex
Afghanistan into British India.
There were some other thumpings (against the Argentines 1806-7, the
Dutch 1666-7, against the Spanish in a whole series of land and naval
battles post-Armada, 1590s), but the Afghan War was a bona fide
ass-whuppin'. And you're right, the Afghans were accorded a heaping
portion of respect after that experience. (The Soviet Union obviously
missed out on the vicarious experience when they lined up for their
own fiasco in 1979.)
Wes Ulm
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~ulm/history/index.html
Wes
only for a few select exemplary debunkings. Typical of the Asia Times
in which this piece initially appeared; in the midst of a number of
admittedly perspicacious articles, they always need to dope a bit of
pure, unvarnished inanity into the mix.
agitp...@yahoo.com (chet) wrote in message news:<1d4f0da4.04031...@posting.google.com>...
> <T...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<tPQ5c.44126$aT1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >
> > 1) The great trans-Atlantic rift. Europeans are pacifists, not merely in the
> > Persian
> > Gulf, but on their own Balkans doorstep. If they cannot be bothered to
> > reproduce, why should any European soldier sacrifice himself for future
> > generations that never will be born?
The population density of most European countries (esp. those with the
lowest birthrates) is vastly, vastly higher than in the US or most
other nations, and thus it's little surprising that they may be
witnessing a drop below the replacement level that's likely temporary
and engendering a sort of stabilization.
> >
> > 2) The shift in global capital flows to the United States: old people lend
> > money to
> > young people. The aging populations of Europe and Japan lend money to
> > younger
> > people in the US.
Bzzt. The US is aging just like Europe and Japan; it just has a
different immigrant stream.
> > that is, the death of European
> > Christianity.
"The reports of its death are greatly exaggerated." There may be a
greater trend toward European secularism and decreasing church
attendance, but most branches of the Anglican, Lutheran, et al. Church
are still doing just fine.
> > [Rosenzweig's comments] The pagans of old faced death with the
> > confidence
> > that their race would continue. But tribes and nations anticipate their own
> > extinction just as individuals anticipate their own death, he added: "The
> > love of
> > the nations for their own nationhood is sweet and pregnant with the
> > presentiment of death." Each nation, he wrote, knows that some day other
> > peoples will occupy their lands, and their language and culture will be
> > interred in
> > dusty books.
Absolute, utter crap. Nations and cultures are constantly modifying
themselves and evolving, sometimes changing names and some cardinal
features but retaining the basics as well. Places like India and Laos
have retained their basic cultures for thousands of years, while the
borders and cultural characteristics of post-Roman European nations
(like France) and, e.g., the Arab world (following the Arab conquests
in the 600s) have remained essentially consistent for nearly 1,500
years. Rosenzweig like many others blunders into the common error of
mixing up individual survival with group survival; nations and
cultures don't evince a "life cycle" at all, vary enormously in their
individual experiences, and differ radically from descriptions applied
to individual organisms.
> >
> > The early Christian Church encountered a great extinction of peoples and
> > their
> > cultures through the rise and fall of the Alexandrine and Roman empires. Who
> > now remembers the Lusitani, the Illyrians, the Sicani, the Quadians,
> > Sarmatians,
> > Alans, Gepidians, Herulians, Pannonians and a thousand other tribes of Roman
> > times?
This statement, alone, qualifies the essay for the Journalistic Hall
of Unintentionally Hilarious Stupidity. All of the tribal names above
were simply Roman designations for peoples who subsequently (after the
5th century A.D.) acquired the foundations of their own nation-states,
either separately or in conjunction with other tribes with whom they
intermarried and partially assimilated. The Lusitani are simply the
Portuguese (countries in which Portuguese is spoken are still called
"Lusophone nations"). The Illyrians are the modern Albanians. The
Sicani are the modern Sicilians. (That's where the name of the island
derives from!) The Quadians were a Germanic tribe partly assimilated
by the Huns and settled in Eastern Europe, partly migrated to Spain
where they were assimilated with many other Germanic tribes and the
Romano-Celtiberians already there. The Sarmatians were a Central
Asian tribe also assimilated by the Hunnish invaders. The Gepids and
Herulians were both Germanic tribes who settled in the Carpathian
Mountain region and Hungarian plain, respectively, and were soon
assimilated by the local Slavic tribes. The Pannonians were simply
the ancestors of the modern Hungarians.
> > Its [Christianity's] original heartland
> > in
> > the Near East, Asia Minor and Greece fell to Islam, but even while Arabs
> > rode
> > victorious over St Paul's missionary trail, the Church converted the
> > barbarians of
> > Europe.
Bzzzt. Most of Asia Minor was not conquered by the Arabs in the 7th
and 8th centuries. Constantinople and its environs were not overtaken
by Muslim forces until the later Turkish invasions, chiefly the
Ottoman Turkish conquest of Constantinople in 1453.
> > Christianity made possible the assimilation of thousands of doomed
> > tribes
> > into what became European nations. Something similar is at work in Africa,
> > the
> > only place in the world where Christianity enjoys rapid growth.
No, the modern African nations were already created by the arbitrary
cartography of European mapmakers in the 1800s and 1900s; the rise of
Christianity and Islam in Africa is a separate phenomenon and has
squat to do with the nations themselves (which often contain adherents
of different creeds at war with each other).
> >
> > At the political level, Christianity sought to suppress Siegfried in favor
> > of Christ
> > through the device of the universal empire, the suppression of nationality
> > by the
> > aristocracy and Church. The lid kept blowing off the pot. Just when the
> > Habsburgs brought the universal empire to its peak of power in 1519 under
> > Charles V, controlling Austria, Spain and the Netherlands, Germany revolted
> > under the banner of Reformation. There followed a century and a half of
> > religious
> > wars, culminating in the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) that wiped out more
> > than
> > half the population of Central Europe.
Nationalistic movements and wars had been rife throughout Europe well
before Charles V's ascension and the Thirty Years' War. The
"universal empire" notion was a convenient device but Christian
nations regularly made war on each other: Witness all the battles
among the Christianized Franks for control in Gaul; the struggles for
power within Central European Holy Roman Empire; the battles of Alfred
the Great against the Danes in England; the wars among the Poles,
Lithuanians, and Russians to the east during the medieval period; the
Norman Conquest; the Hundred Years' War; and so on. The notion of
"suppressed nationality" was a convenient fantasy; the Europeans would
unite (sort of) under the banner of common Christendom for the
Crusades and the Spanish Reconquista (which featured plenty of quite
worldly motivations as well), but they fought amongst each other on a
regular basis well before 1519. And did this author stop to think
that maybe, just maybe, the Thirty Years' War might have been induced
in large part *because* of doctrinal conflicts regarding the Christian
faith among disparate sects, and not just nationalism?
>> France under Cardinal Richilieu (See
> > The
> > Sacred Heart of Darkness, Asia Times Online, February 11, 2003) gave a fatal
> > twist to the Christian idea. Instead of universal empire, the French nation
> > would
> > be the standard-bearer for Christendom, such that French national interests
> > stood in place of divine providence.
Ooh, that bad guy Richelieu—- he was such a meanie in The Three
Musketeers after all, and he had that really ugly dude down in the
dungeon who terrified Porthos so much… Oh, wow, this about takes the
cake. Richelieu as Bad Guy #1? European leaders (including many
clerical figures) from Charlemagne onward had regularly declared
themselves and their states as the standard-bearers for Christendom
for many centuries.
> >
> > All Europe caught the French disease, substituting the warrior Siegfried for
> > the
> > crucified God. Christianity's inner pagan ran amok. A second Thirty Years
> > War
> > (1914-1944)
He forgot 1945.
> > In 1914 Europe's soldiers still fought under the illusion of a God
> > that
> > favored their nation.
Why is this unusual? They had always done that. Witness European
conflicts from the Ostrogothic Wars to the Napoleonic Wars, and you'll
see regular invocations by officers and political officials to that
effect.
> > Germany fought World War II under the banner of
> > revived
> > paganism.
Bullshit. The Indo-Aryan crap bubbled to the surface from time to
time and aided in the choice of the reverse swastika as a symbol, but
the Nazi leaders imbued their political philosophies with plenty of
Christian millennialist symbolism, and made convenient alliances with
both Protestant and Catholic leaders (while being opposed by many
others).
> >
> > For today's Europeans, there is no consolation, neither the old pagan
> > continuity
> > of national culture, nor the Christian continuity into the hereafter. The
> > French
> > know that Victor Hugo, Gauloise cigarettes, Chateau Lafitte and
> > Impressionist
> > painters one day will become a matter of antiquarian curiosity. The Germans
> > know that no one but bored schoolboys will read Goethe two centuries hence,
> > like Pindar.
If the idiot who originally scribed this piece had actually ever read
Hugo or Goethe, or viewed an Impressionist painting at a museum rather
than jerking off to Internet porn, he'd recognize that their central
appeal is the universality and comprehensiveness of their creative
reach, something that makes them as timeless as a poem by Virgil or a
speech by Cicero from 2,000 years ago.
> > They have no ambition but to die quietly, no concerns except
> > for
> > those amusements which might reduce boredom and anxiety en route to the
> > grave. They have no passions except hatred born of envy. They hate America,
> > a
> > new kind of universality that succeeded where the old Christian empire
> > failed.
No, they hate Bush; they do not hate America. I am a proud American
but this sort of pseudo-intellectual Europe-bashing is risible. I
encounter Europeans on a constant basis and, while they often disagree
with our current foreign policy, they consistently advance compliments
about the American people themselves. There are obviously some
exceptions and lingering bitterness in some cases that spills over,
but Europeans in general are quite careful to parse their feelings
about America and Americans vis-à-vis their government. And this
author is not even internally consistent; he excoriates Europeans for
their own state-based approach to universal empire yet excuses the US
for the same. It's not that either type of state empire is better or
worse, but he trips over his own logic.
> > They hate Israel, which makes the Jewish people appear all the more eternal
> > in
> > stark contrast to Europe's morbid temporality.
Bullshit. There have been many criticisms in recent years because of
events in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but Europeans traditionally
were strong supporters of Israel (even more than the US in many
decades), and despite the anti-Semitism that crops up on both sides of
the Atlantic sometimes, Europeans again are able to differentiate the
innocents on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides from the often
corrupt leadership in both cases.
> > They will pass out of history
> > unmourned even by themselves.
This author certainly will, but not his subjects. And the extinction
of his idiotic ideas or, better yet, their retention as an exercise in
transparent sophistry, will be more than welcome.
>
> From a population 90% european in 1965 to today's 70% european America
> is close behind. Christianized, Jewized, feminized; a hulk that awaits
> eventual sinking.
> But so what. The typical American is a bloated wimp who cares only
> about the latest deal on an SUV and the on-field performance of tamed
> negros playing sports.
>
> Chet
Tamed negros, huh? Been too long away from the plantation?
bowman
>
> There were some other thumpings (against the Argentines 1806-7, the
> Dutch 1666-7, against the Spanish in a whole series of land and naval
> battles post-Armada, 1590s), but the Afghan War was a bona fide
> ass-whuppin'.
There was also Gallipoli, although Churchill mostly lost ANZAC troops. Does
that count?
Wild Colonial Boy
Heh heh...cool.
Nik
Rex Curry
> <T...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<tPQ5c.44126$aT1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >
> > Why Europe chooses extinction
> > By Spengler
> >
> > Demographics is destiny. Never in recorded history have prosperous and
> > peaceful nations chosen to disappear from the face of the earth. Yet that is
> > what
> > the Europeans have chosen to do. Back in 1348 Europe suffered the Black
> > Death, a combination of bubonic plague and likely a form of mad cow disease,
> > observes American Enterprise Institute scholar Ben Wattenberg. "The plague
> > reduced the estimated European population by about a third. In the next 50
> > years,
> > Europe's population will relive - in slow motion - that plague demography,
> > losing
> > about a fifth of its population by 2050 and more as the decades roll on."
> >
> > In 200 years, French and German will be spoken exclusively in hell. What has
> > brought about this collective suicide, which mocks all we thought we knew
> > about
> > the instinct for self-preservation? The chattering classes have nothing to
> > say
> > about the most unique and significant change in our times. Yet the great
> > political
> > and economic shifts of modern times are demographic in origin. Three
> > examples
> > suffice:
> > 1) The great trans-Atlantic rift. Europeans are pacifists, not merely in the
> > Persian
> > Gulf, but on their own Balkans doorstep. If they cannot be bothered to
> > reproduce, why should any European soldier sacrifice himself for future
> > generations that never will be born?
> >
> > money to
> > young people. The aging populations of Europe and Japan lend money to
> > younger
> > people in the US.
> >
> > proposes
> > a thought experiment. Suppose by a magic spell all the inhabitants of the
> > United
> > Kingdom instantaneously aged by 30 years. What would be the effect on the
> > current account balance, the rate of interest, the price level and the
> > exchange
> > rate? (Answer at the end of this essay).
> >
> > Little enough has been said about the "how" but almost nothing about the
> > "why"
> > of Europe's demographic suicide. Suicidal behavior is common among (for
> > example) stone-age tribes who have encountered the modern world. One can
> > extend this example to Tamil or Arab suicide bombers (SeeLive and Let Die,
> > Asia
> > Times Online, April 13, 2002). But the Europeans are the modern world. Have
> > the
> > Europeans taken to heart existentialism's complaint that man is alone in a
> > chaotic
> > universe in which life has no ultimate meeting, and that man responds to the
> > anxiety about death by embracing death?
> >
> > Detest as I might the whole existentialist tribe, there is a grain of truth
> > here, and it
> > bears on a parallel development, that is, the death of European
> > Christianity.
> > Fifty-three percent of Americans say that religion is very important in
> > their lives,
> > compared with 16 percent, 14 percent and 13 percent respectively of the
> > British,
> > French and Germans, according to a 1997 University of Michigan survey. Here
> > I
> > draw on the German-Jewish theologian Franz Rosenzweig (1886-1929), an
> > existentialist of sorts. Few Asians (including Jews) can make sense of
> > Christianity's core doctrine, namely, original sin, handed down to all
> > humans from
> > Adam and Eve. Original sin motivates God's self-sacrifice on the cross to
> > remove
> > this stain from mankind; without it, Jesus was just an itinerant preacher
> > with a
> > knack for anecdotes.
> >
> > All religion, Rosenzweig argued, responds to man's anxiety in the face of
> > death
> > (against which philosophy is like a child stuffing his fingers in his ears
> > and
> > shouting, "I can't hear you!"). The pagans of old faced death with the
> > that their race would continue. But tribes and nations anticipate their own
> > extinction just as individuals anticipate their own death, he added: "The
> > love of
> > the nations for their own nationhood is sweet and pregnant with the
> > presentiment of death." Each nation, he wrote, knows that some day other
> > peoples will occupy their lands, and their language and culture will be
> > interred in
> > dusty books.
> >
> > their
> > cultures through the rise and fall of the Alexandrine and Roman empires. Who
> > now remembers the Lusitani, the Illyrians, the Sicani, the Quadians,
> > Sarmatians,
> > Alans, Gepidians, Herulians, Pannonians and a thousand other tribes of Roman
> > face to
> > face with their own mortality. Christianity offered an answer: the Church
> > called
> > individuals out of the nations and offered them salvation in the form of a
> > life
> > beyond the grave. The Gentiles (as the Church called them) embraced original
> > sin, which to them simply meant the sin of having been born Gentile, that
> > is, to a
> > culture doomed to extinction. (The Jews, who think of themselves as an
> > eternal
> > people, were having none of it).
> >
> > In one respect, Christianity was an enormous success. Its original heartland
> > the Near East, Asia Minor and Greece fell to Islam, but even while Arabs
> > rode
> > victorious over St Paul's missionary trail, the Church converted the
> > barbarians of
> > into what became European nations. Something similar is at work in Africa,
> > the
> > Christianity's
> > weakness, Rosenzweig added, lay in the devil's bargain it made with the old
> > paganism. Christianity's salvation lay beyond the grave, in the wispy ether
> > of
> > heavenly reward. Humans require something to hang on to this side of the
> > grave.
> > By providing the pagans with a humanized God (and a humanized mother of God
> > and a host of saints), Christianity allowed the pagans to continue to
> > worship their
> > own image. Germans worship a blond Jesus, Spaniards worship a dark-haired
> > Jesus, Mexicans worship the dark Virgin of Guadalupe, and so forth. The
> > result,
> > wrote Rosenzweig, is that Christians "are forever torn between Jesus and
> > [the
> > medieval pagan hero] Siegfried".
> > At the political level, Christianity sought to suppress Siegfried in favor
> > of Christ
> > through the device of the universal empire, the suppression of nationality
> > by the
> > aristocracy and Church. The lid kept blowing off the pot. Just when the
> > Habsburgs brought the universal empire to its peak of power in 1519 under
> > Charles V, controlling Austria, Spain and the Netherlands, Germany revolted
> > under the banner of Reformation. There followed a century and a half of
> > religious
> > wars, culminating in the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) that wiped out more
> > than
> > Sacred Heart of Darkness, Asia Times Online, February 11, 2003) gave a fatal
> > twist to the Christian idea. Instead of universal empire, the French nation
> > would
> > be the standard-bearer for Christendom, such that French national interests
> > stood in place of divine providence.
> >
> > the
> > crucified God. Christianity's inner pagan ran amok. A second Thirty Years
> > War
> > in blood. The unfortunate Rosenzweig, who saw the faultlines in Christian
> > civilization so clearly, died hoping that Europe still would embrace its
> > Jewish
> > population as a counterweight against its destructive pagan self. It never
> > occurred to him that Europe would choose destruction and take its Jews with
> > it.
> > Siegfried triumphed over Christ during World War I. No shred of credibility
> > was
> > left in the Christian idea of souls called out of the nations for salvation
> > beyond the
> > grave. In 1914 Europe's soldiers still fought under the illusion of a God
> > that
> > favored their nation. Germany fought World War II under the banner of
> > revived
> > paganism.
> >
> > continuity
> > of national culture, nor the Christian continuity into the hereafter. The
> > French
> > know that Victor Hugo, Gauloise cigarettes, Chateau Lafitte and
> > Impressionist
> > painters one day will become a matter of antiquarian curiosity. The Germans
> > know that no one but bored schoolboys will read Goethe two centuries hence,
> > those amusements which might reduce boredom and anxiety en route to the
> > grave. They have no passions except hatred born of envy. They hate America,
> > a
> > new kind of universality that succeeded where the old Christian empire
> > failed.
> > in
> > unmourned even by themselves.
> >
> > [Solution to the thought-experiment above: if the entire population of the
> > UK
> > instantaneously ages 30 years, it will spend less and save more for
> > retirement.
> > That is, demand will shift from present goods to future goods, that is,
> > securities.
> > The price level of present goods falls. The price of future goods rises,
> > that is, the
> > compensation for waiting for the future declines, and the rate of interest
> > falls.
> > The suddenly-aged population trades surplus present goods for future goods,
> > that is, exports goods and purchases securities with the proceeds, shifting
> > the
> > current account balance to surplus. The exchange rate will rise. In other
> > words,
> > we have Japan.]
> >
> > (©2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact
> is close behind. Christianized, Jewized, feminized; a hulk that awaits
> eventual sinking.
> But so what. The typical American is a bloated wimp who cares only
> about the latest deal on an SUV and the on-field performance of tamed
> negros playing sports.
> Chet
1. He talks and writes a lot about “Fascism.” (e.g. “Ur-Fascism” and “How to Spot a Fascist”).
2. He doesn’t point out similarities between Socialism and Fascism, despite ubiquitous opportunities presented in his descriptions of “Fascism.”
3. In his “Fascism” comments, he never admits nor states that he is a Socialist.
4. He never admits anywhere that he is a Socialist.
5. He just goes on and on about how bad “Fascists” are.
6. When he writes about Mussolini, he seems ignorant that Mussolini was a long-time Socialist leader. Or is he just being intellectually dishonest?
7. He appears to be ignorant in his writings that Fascism was created by a Socialist (Mussolini).
8. He mentions “Nazis” an awful lot.
9. He seems ignorant that “Nazis” didn’t call themselves “Nazis.”
10. He seems ignorant that “Nazis” self-identified as “Socialists.” He mentions Mein Kampf and appears ignorant that “Nazi” is not within it; that “Fascist” is not within it as a self-identifier by Hitler; that “Socialism” and “Socialist” ARE in it throughout as self-identifiers; Eco has nothing to say.
11. He needs his readers to be ignorant about “Nazis” so that they will continue to pay money for his benighted comments on “Fascism.” Eco relies on his echo chamber of ignoramuses.
12. He seems embarrassed that he self-identifies the same as Hitler: SOCIALIST. So, he never says anything about that.
13. His ignorant tunnel vision prevented him from discovering that Hitler used the swastika to represent “S”-letter shapes for “Socialism” (the discovery by the libertarian historian Dr. Rex Curry).
14. Now that he knows about Dr. Curry’s discovery concerning the swastika, he will never mention it (nor any of the above) to his fans anywhere. He will never inform his readers. Ever. He will gladly go to his grave without ever saying anything about it. He prays every day that the widespread ignorance will never end.
Bonus common feature: Eco is hopelessly brainwashed by the absurd Left-Right political spectrum that is taught in government schools (socialist schools). He assumes that everyone else is brainwashed in the same way too. Curb Ur Socialism.