Puppet Sock reviews "While Europe Slept" by Bruce Bawer
Puppet_Sock
In the movie Jurassic Park, Jeff Golblum plays Ian Malcolm, a studier
of chaos
theories. Early in the movie, Malcolm predicts huge disaster. Then,
after being
repeatedly menaced by huge, loathsome, impressively toothy reptiles, he
remarks that he really hates being right all the time.
Bruce Bawer may learn the same feeling, if he has not already.
You can find his web site here.
http://www.brucebawer.com/
The book _While Europe Slept - How Radical Islam is Destorying the West
>From Within_ is a combination of Mr. Bawer's personal experience,
reports
gleaned from the news, his own analysis, and the analysis of others. It
spans
roughly 20 years ending with the present, and describes mostly western
Europe.
The good news: The book is well written, well constructed. The analysis
is
tight, though it is not intended to be a philosophy text book and is
not.
Bawer is a charming author, with talent and skill.
The bad news: The book will not make you happy. You will not enjoy
reading it. In fact, you may find yourself shouting at it, though at
the
things Bawer describes rather than Bawer.
But, you will keep turning the pages.
The major theme of the book is that Muslim immigrants to Europe
have remained almost entirely aloof from the countries they live in.
They have not learned the cultures, customs, or languages of the
countries they were apparently eager to move to. Second and third
generation immigrants do not speak a single word of the language of
their supposed new homes. Muslim sections of European towns
form enclaves of Islamic culture, imported nearly whole and pure
from the countries these people view as their true homes. Far from
becoming integrated and contributing to their new homes, their
interactions consist largely of collecting govt support, and agitating
for sharia rule. And, due to the usual European country policies
on immigration, and overt willingness to abuse and exploit these
policies, and an unusual fertility among this community, the size
of these groups is growing dramatically. Several Europeans countries
may be majority Muslim within 10 years, several more in 20.
And the typical attitude among these immigrants is utter contempt
for all things non-Muslim. They detest political freedom. They detest
democracy. They detest secular law. They detest homosexuals.
(This is where Mr. Bawer began seriously thinking about moving
back to New York City, ironically enough, to avoid gay bashing.)
They detest equality for women. They are eager to impose Islamic
law, replacing the existing law. And if they do this, the changes will
be drastic, fundamental, and extremely difficult to reverse.
And horrible. At least for anybody who does not want to be Muslim,
or minds being a second class citizen with few rights, living in the
constant fear that a Muslim will decide to punish them.
And the European media, politicians, and intelligentsia are studiously
looking the other way. A steady stream of announcements and
pronouncements, stories and presentations, have the very clear
purpose of keeping non-Muslim Europeans from doing anything
about it. In other words, the sleep here is largely induced by the
people who ought to be on guard for a society.
Indeed, the typical response to any Muslim acting out was to
twist it until either it was the fault of non-Muslim European racism,
or when it came to various acts of terrorism, to blame the USA.
Frequently such smears were pathetically transparent. But they
were essentially unopposed and everpresent in European media,
and so eventually became the only story to be heard.
So: Women are insulted, spat upon, assaulted, and raped. It is
because they have not respected Islamic notions of modest clothing.
A politician attempts to get immigration reform and is murdered.
This is twisted into a justified response to European racism. A film
maker makes a film critical of Islamic treatment of women and is
murdered in thes treet. This is twisted into a justified response to
European racism. Dozens of people are blown up by subway bombs
planted by Muslims. This is a justified response to the USA led
invasion of Iraq. And so on, and so on, and so dreary on.
Currently, to stretch the Jurassic Park analogy even further, Bawer is
at the point where he has made his warning, and been roughed up
by the first few reptiles, er, Muslim thugs, who approached him on
the street and beat him and his partner for being gay. He has watched
many other people be accosted, insulted, assaulted, or even murdered.
He has watched several other people attempt to sound the alarm only
to be shouted down, ignored, or in some cases actually killed.
The only real criticism of the book I can find to make is that it is
very
short on citations for data. He gives a few statistics, but does not
provide sources for them. Perhaps an appendix with some of these
statistics and their sources would be in order.
I do recommend that you read this one. Though I caution you that
you won't enjoy it.
Socks
Ken Gardner
>The only real criticism of the book I can find to make is that it is
>very short on citations for data. He gives a few statistics, but does not
>provide sources for them.
On the other hand, Google is great for this sort of thing. There are
countless online newspaper articles documenting countless acts of
Islamic barbarism. And from every country that has a significant
Muslim population, not just Iraq.
Very recently, a backlash against multiculturalism (an epistemological
cancer on civilization) has started to take hold in Great Britain. The
recently foiled plot to blow up all those airplanes over the Atlantic
has much too do with it. So did the subway bombings last year. It is
too early to see how far it will go, but you gotta start somewhere.
Ken
Mike
I have some personal experience about Sweden. I have a former
girlfriend who is Swedish and I have visited Stockholm, Lund, and Malmo
multiple times. Approximately 12% of their population is now Muslim.
A large portion of the Muslims are Kurds, who are relatively
non-virulent, but they have their share of more hardass Arab-type
Muslims also. As far as I can tell, their immigration policy works as
follows:
1) Accept any Muslim of any kind for any reason whatsoever.
2) Discriminate against them when it comes to employment and
opportunities to open small businesses so as to ensure that they are
all unemployed and useless and have nothing better to do with their
time than to study the Koran.
3) Give them generous welfare (Sweden is a nicy-nicy country that
would never let anyone suffer even mild poverty).
4) Then resent them for occupying your country and collecting so much
welfare.
The funny thing is that every Swede I have ever met seems to agree
that this is INSANE. I have never been a respecter of the rule that
one should not discuss politics or religion etc. in a bar and I had
lots of fun arguing with Swedes about the shortcomings of their foolish
socialist system. But I was completely unable to get into an argument
about their immigration policy. Every Swede instantly agreed with me
`"Yes, of course. Our immigration policies are extremely stupid." So
I would always ask the natural question: if so much consensus exists
that this immigration policy is stupid, then what mysterious force of
inertia prevents Sweden from changing it? The Swedes would shrug their
shoulders and confess that they did not understand this either.
My description of Sweden is quite apt also for Denmark, which I
also know fairly well, and Holland and probably many other European
countries. What the HELL do the Europeans have in mind with these
stupid policies? They are simply voluntarily undoing the victory of
Charles Marcel at the Battle of Tours. Why? It does not take
extraordinary powers of prophecy to predict that they are going to
have enormous social problems in the near future.
Robert J. Kolker
> non-virulent, but they have their share of more hardass Arab-type
> Muslims also. As far as I can tell, their immigration policy works as
> follows:
>
> 1) Accept any Muslim of any kind for any reason whatsoever.
>
> 2) Discriminate against them when it comes to employment and
> opportunities to open small businesses so as to ensure that they are
> all unemployed and useless and have nothing better to do with their
> time than to study the Koran.
>
> 3) Give them generous welfare (Sweden is a nicy-nicy country that
> would never let anyone suffer even mild poverty).
>
> 4) Then resent them for occupying your country and collecting so much
> welfare.
Fortunately for the U.S. our policy is not as above, except for item
three. Muslims, in the USA, tend to be small business owners. They have
a healthy urge to own and run their own businesses rather than suck on
the public teat. Muslims also tend to be an integral part of American
life. They do not stick to themselves exclusively (to a significant
degree) and except for some cities in Michigan and New Jersey there are
no Muslim ghettos. The major defect of the American Muslim community is
the infamous yes... but... . Islam has come as close to being
detoxified in the U.S. as it can. There is no serious push from
American Muslims to impose Shariah on the country as a whole. Muslims to
the extent they are religious use the Q'ran, Hadith and Shariah for
their own personal guidence. In that respect they are not all that
different from Orthodox Jews who have their own value system, but are
still part of the body politic. Muslim parents in the U.S. worry that
their kids are becoming -too- American. That is a good thing.
Bob Kolker
Mike
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> Muslim parents in the U.S. worry that
> their kids are becoming -too- American. That is a good thing.
Yes. And that is why I do not agree with your idea of rounding up all
American Muslims as we did the Japanese in WWII (at least at this point
in time). The vast majority of our Muslims are pretty much detoxified
and harmless. Though I do think we should immediately stop accepting
additional ones, at least for the forseeable future, and we should keep
a very close eye on all the mosques and know what is going on. But
Europe seems simply determined to commit suicide.
Ken Gardner
[...]
> My description of Sweden is quite apt also for Denmark, which I
>also know fairly well, and Holland and probably many other European
>countries. What the HELL do the Europeans have in mind with these
>stupid policies? They are simply voluntarily undoing the victory of
>Charles Marcel at the Battle of Tours. Why? It does not take
>extraordinary powers of prophecy to predict that they are going to
>have enormous social problems in the near future.
In Europe, there seems to be more of a disconnect between their
political leadership and the voters than there is here. It is
probably a vestige of centuries of aristocracy. And being more
well-educated, they are decidedly more screwed up philosophically. The
result is that the leadership is decidedly more "blue state" than the
populace.
But reality has a way of making payback a bitch. Great Britain, at
least, is beginning to wake up to the unmitigated disaster that is
multiculturalism. The problem is probably worse there than in any
other Western European country. France likewise got their wakeup call
last year with the Paris riots. So did Holland with the Muslim
cartoon mess and the murder of the movie guy for making a film
critical of Muslims. The Italians have always been awake to the
problem, and perhaps the Germans as well. Spain went back to sleep
about three days after the Madrid bombings.
Ken
fred...@papertig.com
> ... Denmark, which I also know fairly well, ...
Ah, good, finally someone I can ask.
Why is Denmark so pro-America? It appears to be long-standing, too, not
just a recent development. They didn't even blink an eye to help us in
Iraq, for example. It seems to manifest in other ways, too.
Fred Weiss
Matt Barrow
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:l9i8f2ldhf68si957...@4ax.com...
> Mike wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> My description of Sweden is quite apt also for Denmark, which I
>
> political leadership and the voters than there is here.
Victor D. Hansen has remarked in a few of his essays how Europe's leaders
are elected democratically, but they pretty much do whatever they damn well
want to, and hold their constituents in contempt.
> It is
> probably a vestige of centuries of aristocracy.
Europe is still the rulers and the peasants. Take a look at the voting on
the EU and its constitution.
> And being more
> well-educated, they are decidedly more screwed up philosophically. The
> result is that the leadership is decidedly more "blue state" than the
> populace.
I thought American schools were appalling until I saw Europe's. They do
teach fundamentals better, but their "yutes" are far more indoctrinated than
American kids. Hard, if not impossible to believe, huh?
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)
John Alway
Mike wrote:
> I have some personal experience about Sweden. I have a former girlfrien
> d who is
> Swedish and I have visited Stockholm, Lund, and Malmo multiple times.
Swedish girlfriend? I'll bet she was a babe.
[...]
> My description of Sweden is quite apt also for Denmark, which I
> also know fairly well, and Holland and probably many other European
> countries. What the HELL do the Europeans have in mind with these
> stupid policies? They are simply voluntarily undoing the victory of
> Charles Marcel at the Battle of Tours. Why? It does not take
> extraordinary powers of prophecy to predict that they are going to
> have enormous social problems in the near future.
Postmodernism. Remember, postmodernism is an anti-Western,
anti-man philosophy, which is much more strident and virulent in Europe
than America. These people are not on our side. You have to realize
that. To concretize this, from a multiculturalist perspective,
America and the West are guilty of terrible crimes against other
cultures the world over, and we have to pay the price. We are
capitalist exploiters. We should feel guilty for "our" past actions,
and we're getting our comeuppance.
It is my belief that this problem we're having with Muslims today,
this war, was made possible by leftist intellectuals, and most
especially postmodernists. They who claim to be anti-War, have brought
this war upon us. We never defend ourselves against these terrorists,
and this is how they have become the problem they are. We never
defend ourselves because of left wing intellectuals.
I recall a program from a Swedish library where they had something
like "Take a muslim home" day. The whole idea was to see how nice
these people are and to get rid of our irrational prejudices against
them.
I brought up the network show "Survivor" in another thread, because
I believe it ties in with the war on terror. It is multiculturalism
that is responsible for that episode of the show, and it's
multiculturalism that is responsible for this war.
I'm going to keep emphasizing this connection until people see it,
because I think it's the heart of the matter.
...John
John Alway
fred...@papertig.com wrote:
> Mike wrote:
They are also, from what I understand, hard workers. I know a guy
who works with lots of Danes, and they are serious about their work and
doing a good job. They also have no problem mincing words about the
muslims in their country, whom they do not like.
...John
John Alway
Let's keep some perspective here, there were a couple of kids who
bought several hundred cell phones, allegedly to be used as bomb
detonators, and they were from Dearborn Michigan. One of them was a
fan of Osama Bin Laden, and equated them with the Founding Fathers.
Remember also, there were protests there against Israel and for the
Hezbollah.
I hope that they do and are becoming Americanized, but clearly not
all of them are.
...John
Puppet_Sock
> Fortunately for the U.S. our policy is not as above, except for item
> three.
Indeed. Bawer mentions this. He notes that the typical person who
is Muslim and has any willingness to integrate into the society he
is moving to, does not move to Europe. He moves to New York City.
(Possibly he moves again once he is in NYC, as he may find that
stories of the weather in other cities may be more attractive.)
This has a curious effect of filtering out the want-to-integrate
potential
immigrants to Europe. And, unsurprisingly, is one more item in the
dreary litany of why it is all the fault of the USA. Because they suck
away all the "good" Muslims.
Socks
Robert J. Kolker
>
> This has a curious effect of filtering out the want-to-integrate
> potential
> immigrants to Europe. And, unsurprisingly, is one more item in the
> dreary litany of why it is all the fault of the USA. Because they suck
> away all the "good" Muslims.
Everything is America's fault. From ants at your picnic to weeds in the
garden. I suspect the Eurotrash hate us because we remind them was
pussies and deweebs they have become. It is a long way down. At one time
Europe ruled the world and was mighty. Now they can't get it up.
Bob Kolker
John Alway
John Alway wrote:
[...]
> ....One of them was a
> fan of Osama Bin Laden, and equated them with the Founding Fathers.
Correction: That should read "equated him".
...John
Mike
I'm not sure I have any great insights to offer here. As a rule, all
of the Scandinavian countries lack the knee-jerk anti-Americanism that
many other European countries have. It is partly the size thing;
large powerful countries like France and Germany (with historical
"greatness" and delusions of national destiny) resent us for being
larger and so much more vastly powerful, but Sweden and Denmark never
kidded themselves that they were large consequential countries with
some kind of natural leadership role in world affairs. They are small
relatively unimportant countries and they know it, so they do not
resent America for being big; to them most countries are big and
powerful. For the most part, Scandinavians thing that America is a
great country for all the obvious logical reasons that one might think
that. Not that they are the least bit hesitant to criticize us, but
they do so in a more reasoned, less visceral way than, say the French
or Germans. Danes are more actively pro-American. Swedes are
sympathetic to America, but they are more aloof with their historical
neutrality and all that. I haven't met too many Norwegians, so I can't
comment on them. The Finns are like the Danes, but perhaps slightly
less pro-American.
I was in Lund and Copenhagen in January 2003 with the Iraq war looming.
I met a couple of pompous French assholes who had the predictable
attitude "Oh, you arrogant Americans will screw this up. Who do you
think you are to go invade a sovereign nation ...?" Every Swede or
Dane who expressed qualms or, indeed definite disagreement, with the
Iraq war expressed himself very differently: "I think our American
friends are making a bad decision. Here's why ..." Only the French,
and to a lesser extent the Germans, were so anti-American that they
were literally rooting for Saddam's thugs.
By the way, the Scandinavians also think that the French are pompous
assholes.
Mike
John Alway wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > I have some personal experience about Sweden. I have a former girlfrien
> > d who is
> > Swedish and I have visited Stockholm, Lund, and Malmo multiple times.
>
> Swedish girlfriend? I'll bet she was a babe.
>
> [...]
>
> Postmodernism. Remember, postmodernism is an anti-Western,
> anti-man philosophy, which is much more strident and virulent in Europe
> than America. These people are not on our side. You have to realize
> that. To concretize this, from a multiculturalist perspective,
> America and the West are guilty of terrible crimes against other
> cultures the world over, and we have to pay the price. We are
> capitalist exploiters. We should feel guilty for "our" past actions,
> and we're getting our comeuppance.
There is a very strange disconnect between the postmodern zeitgeist
that dominates the government and the media and what the Swedes
actually think. Politics in Sweden is rather more purely idiological
than it is in America (hard to believe, but true). Either one is a
Social Democrat, in which case one has an exactly proscribed
perspective and set of opinions, or one is "Conservative" with a
different exactly proscribed perspective and checklist of positions.
Facts are completely irrelevant in Swedish political arguments. I was
in Stockholm in January 2000. At the time Sweden was having a national
debate about whether they should toughen their criminal penalties for
crimes of various categories (as you might guess, any given category of
crime gets you a shorter jail sentence in Sweden then you would get in
neighboring countries). I found myself in a discussion with some
political science students about this question and, sure enough, they
were divided into two teams A and B and the members of each "team"
seemed to be exact intellectual clones of each other. I interrupted
their complicated idiological arguments with what seemed to me like an
obvious practical question. I asked "does Sweden have higher rates of
recidivism than neighboring countries". I opined that, if not then
they might as well continue their lenient policies, but if yes then
they should toughen their criminal code. Nobody could tell me and,
moreover, they all seemed to think that my question was completely
irrelevant. But these were poli sci students. Normal Swedes have even
more irritation with this kind of crap than Americans do.
> It is my belief that this problem we're having with Muslims today,
> this war, was made possible by leftist intellectuals, and most
> especially postmodernists. They who claim to be anti-War, have brought
> this war upon us. We never defend ourselves against these terrorists,
> and this is how they have become the problem they are. We never
> defend ourselves because of left wing intellectuals.
>
> I recall a program from a Swedish library where they had something
> like "Take a muslim home" day. The whole idea was to see how nice
> these people are and to get rid of our irrational prejudices against
> them.
Oh yes. The Swedish media is incredible when it comes to this PC crap.
> I brought up the network show "Survivor" in another thread, because
> I believe it ties in with the war on terror. It is multiculturalism
> that is responsible for that episode of the show, and it's
> multiculturalism that is responsible for this war.
OK but at least "Survivor" does not have pretensions to being anything
more than idiocy for those who find it entertaining.
Mike
Be fair and do not include all Eurotrash in this generality. The
Scandinavians do not feel this way and neither do the new democracies
of eastern Europe. You are talking about France and Germany and the
countries within their cultural nimbus.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I'm not sure I have any great insights to offer here. As a rule, all
> of the Scandinavian countries lack the knee-jerk anti-Americanism that
> many other European countries have. It is partly the size thing;
> large powerful countries like France and Germany (with historical
> "greatness" and delusions of national destiny) resent us for being
> larger and so much more vastly powerful, but Sweden and Denmark never
> kidded themselves that they were large consequential countries with
> some kind of natural leadership role in world affairs. They are small
> relatively unimportant countries and they know it, so they do not
> resent America for being big; to them most countries are big and
> powerful. For the most part, Scandinavians thing that America is a
> great country for all the obvious logical reasons that one might think
> that. Not that they are the least bit hesitant to criticize us, but
> they do so in a more reasoned, less visceral way than, say the French
> or Germans. Danes are more actively pro-American. Swedes are
The Danes are also a nation of -mensches-. When the Nazis ordered Jews
to wear the yellow star, King Christian of Denmark put on a yellow star.
Thousands of non-Jewish Danes followed suit. It was Danish fisherman who
spirited most of the Jews away from Denmark in their diesel boats and
brought them to Sweden. Can you see the French doing that? I bet you
can't. The French are a miserable lot, they truly are. They are ungood.
> sympathetic to America, but they are more aloof with their historical
> neutrality and all that. I haven't met too many Norwegians, so I can't
> comment on them. The Finns are like the Danes, but perhaps slightly
> less pro-American.
>
> I was in Lund and Copenhagen in January 2003 with the Iraq war looming.
> I met a couple of pompous French assholes who had the predictable
> attitude "Oh, you arrogant Americans will screw this up. Who do you
> think you are to go invade a sovereign nation ...?" Every Swede or
> Dane who expressed qualms or, indeed definite disagreement, with the
> Iraq war expressed himself very differently: "I think our American
> friends are making a bad decision. Here's why ..." Only the French,
> and to a lesser extent the Germans, were so anti-American that they
> were literally rooting for Saddam's thugs.
>
> By the way, the Scandinavians also think that the French are pompous
> assholes.
Showing their basic good sense. May Scandinavia live long and prosper.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> Be fair and do not include all Eurotrash in this generality. The
> Scandinavians do not feel this way and neither do the new democracies
> of eastern Europe. You are talking about France and Germany and the
> countries within their cultural nimbus.
Indeed and I sit corrected. Thank you. I let my Franco-phobia lead me
astray.
However the Danes were once the Terror of the Northern World. There is
an old English prayer: Oh God save us from the plagues and the Danes
(Northmen). At some point the Danes stopped being Oden's Boys and
settled down to being the decent solid folk they are today. Strange to
say, that Something was Christianity.
Bob Kolker
Reggie Perrin
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> [...]
> The Danes are also a nation of -mensches-. When the Nazis ordered Jews
> to wear the yellow star, King Christian of Denmark put on a yellow star.
> Thousands of non-Jewish Danes followed suit. It was Danish fisherman who
> spirited most of the Jews away from Denmark in their diesel boats and
> brought them to Sweden. Can you see the French doing that? I bet you
> can't. The French are a miserable lot, they truly are. They are ungood.
Denmark signed a non-agression pact with Nazi Germany, was occupied in
1940 and did not begin to resist until 1943. France declared war on
Germany in defence of Poland and lost 130,000 men before surrendering.
In the aftermath of the occupation, a campaign of resistance was
immediately launched both from within France and from outside her
borders by de Gaulle's Free French Forces. Yet the French are cowards
and the Danes are mensches? [*is confused*]
Robert J. Kolker
The French couldn't turn over their Jews fast enough to the Nazis. The
Danes did not such thing.
> and the Danes are mensches? [*is confused*]
It is one thing for a small nation to sign an non-agression pact with a
Power that can squash it in a week, it is another thing for a large
nation to surrender. The French folded and Marshall Pettaine formed a
government that actively assisted the Nazis in rounding up Jews and
providing French labor for the Nazi factories. In short the Vichy sold
their own blood to the Nazis. The Danes never did that. Of course the
bravest of the Northmen were the Norwegians who resisted the Nazis when
the Nazis occupied their country and they fought the Quislings. To
them, many kudai.
The Danes reached a point where they would no long tolerate the Nazis so
they acted well. As for the Free French the only people who resisted the
Nazis from the git-go were Jewish radicals. The Commies held off until
Uncle Joe pronounced the Nazis Ungood. Then they went into action. The
people who are neither Jewish nor aligned with the left did not go into
action until 1944 (the Maqi). Better late than never. French Manhood
perished under Napoleon's tyranny. Napolean took the cream of France and
squandered it in his many campaigns. What were left were the dwarves.
Bob Kolker
Mike
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> Reggie Perrin wrote:
> > Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> >
> >>[...]
> >>The Danes are also a nation of -mensches-. When the Nazis ordered Jews
> >>to wear the yellow star, King Christian of Denmark put on a yellow star.
> >>Thousands of non-Jewish Danes followed suit. It was Danish fisherman who
> >>spirited most of the Jews away from Denmark in their diesel boats and
> >>brought them to Sweden. Can you see the French doing that? I bet you
> >>can't. The French are a miserable lot, they truly are. They are ungood.
Doubleplusungood.
> >
> > Denmark signed a non-agression pact with Nazi Germany, was occupied in
> > 1940 and did not begin to resist until 1943. France declared war on
> > Germany in defence of Poland and lost 130,000 men before surrendering.
> > In the aftermath of the occupation, a campaign of resistance was
> > immediately launched both from within France and from outside her
> > borders by de Gaulle's Free French Forces. Yet the French are cowards
>
> The French couldn't turn over their Jews fast enough to the Nazis. The
> Danes did not such thing.
>
> > and the Danes are mensches? [*is confused*]
>
> It is one thing for a small nation to sign an non-agression pact with a
> Power that can squash it in a week, it is another thing for a large
> nation to surrender. The French folded and Marshall Pettaine formed a
> government that actively assisted the Nazis in rounding up Jews and
> providing French labor for the Nazi factories. In short the Vichy sold
> their own blood to the Nazis. The Danes never did that. Of course the
> bravest of the Northmen were the Norwegians
Many Swedes feel ashamed that they maintained their neutrality during
WWII. Public opinion at the time in Sweden was extremely divided, but
the government prevailed in the policy of maintaining neutrality.
Sweden did, however, ignore repeated tdemands from Hitler to stop
giving refuge to Jewish escapees. There were fair numbers of Swedes
who crossed the border into Norway and volunteered to help the
Norwegian resistance. I met an 80 year old one armed man in Stockholm
who had gotten his arm shot off by Germans in Norway. After 1941 the
Swedes felt unsure whether to hate more the Nazis for their invasions
of Denmark and Norway or to more hate the Russkies for their
persecution of Finland.
>who resisted the Nazis when
> the Nazis occupied their country and they fought the Quislings. To
> them, many kudai.
The French resistance fighters were as brave as anyone in the world,
but their numbers were very small for a country as large as France. If
France, supposedly a large powerful country, had had the balls to fight
they would have made life much easier for everyone else. If tiny
Norway and other small countries (Serbs in Yugoslavia and the Greeks
come to mind) could resist so bravely, what the hell was wrong with the
French?
Robert J. Kolker
>
> The French resistance fighters were as brave as anyone in the world,
> but their numbers were very small for a country as large as France. If
> France, supposedly a large powerful country, had had the balls to fight
> they would have made life much easier for everyone else. If tiny
> Norway and other small countries (Serbs in Yugoslavia and the Greeks
> come to mind) could resist so bravely, what the hell was wrong with the
> French?
Napoleon, the Corsican.
See below.
John Alway
Mike wrote:
> John Alway wrote:
> > Mike wrote:
> > > I have some personal experience about Sweden. I have a former girlfrien
> > > d who is
> > > Swedish and I have visited Stockholm, Lund, and Malmo multiple times.
> > Swedish girlfriend? I'll bet she was a babe.
> Yup.
Good for you.
> > [...]
> > Postmodernism. Remember, postmodernism is an anti-Western,
> > anti-man philosophy, which is much more strident and virulent in Europe
> > than America. These people are not on our side. You have to realize
> > that. To concretize this, from a multiculturalist perspective,
> > America and the West are guilty of terrible crimes against other
> > cultures the world over, and we have to pay the price. We are
> > capitalist exploiters. We should feel guilty for "our" past actions,
> > and we're getting our comeuppance.
> There is a very strange disconnect between the postmodern zeitgeist
> that dominates the government and the media and what the Swedes
> actually think. Politics in Sweden is rather more purely idiological
> than it is in America (hard to believe, but true).
Keep in mind that the German philosophers had a very strong effect
on Europe in the 1800s, so Europe has been softened up for a long time.
>....Either one is a
> Social Democrat, in which case one has an exactly proscribed
> perspective and set of opinions, or one is "Conservative" with a
> different exactly proscribed perspective and checklist of positions.
> Facts are completely irrelevant in Swedish political arguments.
Yes, this is what I hear. This is what allows them to discuss
topics without any concern about consequences. This may be a bit too
deep, but I think it gets back to the Kantian emphasis of form over
content. They're more interested in the form of discussions, than the
object of discussions. This is a primacy of consciousness view. The
problem with this approach is that it is the content that must dictate
the form, not the other way around.
Or, to put it in other words, reality to be commanded, must be
obeyed.
>... I was
> in Stockholm in January 2000. At the time Sweden was having a national
> debate about whether they should toughen their criminal penalties for
> crimes of various categories (as you might guess, any given category of
> crime gets you a shorter jail sentence in Sweden then you would get in
> neighboring countries). I found myself in a discussion with some
> political science students about this question and, sure enough, they
> were divided into two teams A and B and the members of each "team"
> seemed to be exact intellectual clones of each other. I interrupted
> their complicated idiological arguments with what seemed to me like an
> obvious practical question. I asked "does Sweden have higher rates of
> recidivism than neighboring countries". I opined that, if not then
> they might as well continue their lenient policies, but if yes then
> they should toughen their criminal code.
I think the question of justice is very important here, and that is,
does the punishment fit the crime? But, I get the drift of your
argument, and agree.
It's interesting to note, however, that there are quite a few
Swedish Objectivists. It seemed for a while there they had, perhaps
still do, more Objectivists per-capita than any other European country.
> > It is my belief that this problem we're having with Muslims today,
> > this war, was made possible by leftist intellectuals, and most
> > especially postmodernists. They who claim to be anti-War, have brought
> > this war upon us. We never defend ourselves against these terrorists,
> > and this is how they have become the problem they are. We never
> > defend ourselves because of left wing intellectuals.
> > I recall a program from a Swedish library where they had something
> > like "Take a muslim home" day. The whole idea was to see how nice
> > these people are and to get rid of our irrational prejudices against
> > them.
> Oh yes. The Swedish media is incredible when it comes to this PC crap.
> > I brought up the network show "Survivor" in another thread, because
> > I believe it ties in with the war on terror. It is multiculturalism
> > that is responsible for that episode of the show, and it's
> > multiculturalism that is responsible for this war.
> OK but at least "Survivor" does not have pretensions to being anything
> more than idiocy for those who find it entertaining.
I'm not so sure, but that's beside the point. What they are doing
is driven by the cultural emphasis on diversity, which is driven by
postmodernism, which is driven by hatred of Western values, and in the
case of environmentalism and animal rights whackos, hatred of human
beings. This isn't an innocuous and cute movement so many think it
is. In fact, that's the sugar coating meant to get you to swallow the
poison.
People are individuals. Diversity promotes racism. Individualism
thwarts it.
vonvegas
"John Alway" <jal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156958826.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
John Alway wrote:
>> > I'm going to keep emphasizing this connection until people see it,
>> > because I think it's the heart of the matter.
I'm very much in general sympathy with the outlook you express here - and I've
even made similar off hand remarks. But what I don't have is a nice
straightforward logical presentation of how post modern/ multicultural
ideas, lead to those dire consequences.
You've obviously given this some thot, so can you lay it out in more and
clearer detail, please? Thanks, I'd be grateful.
Vonvegas
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> It is my belief that this problem we're having with Muslims today,
> this war, was made possible by leftist intellectuals, and most
> especially postmodernists. They who claim to be anti-War, have brought
> this war upon us. We never defend ourselves against these terrorists,
> and this is how they have become the problem they are. We never
> defend ourselves because of left wing intellectuals.
There is something to this. These folks are the enablers and
codependents, in the language of addiction. They buffer the
terrorists from the appropriate consequences. They provide
reinforcement of their fantasy ideology, giving them an extra
push in the direction they were already going.
But there is plenty of blame to go around. While the lefties
have made the job harder, dramatically so, the Muslims
came up with the fantasy ideology on their own. The kind
of disconnect from reality that allows a person to fill his
pockets with explosives and ball bearings, then get on a
bus full of children and old people and set off the bomb,
this comes straight from Islam, pretty much entire and
whole and pure. The suicide bomber expects to be
instantly transferred to paradise.
Also, don't forget that an accident of geography happened
to put large deposits of oil under the feet of much of the
Muslim world. Without the oil they'd be this rag-tag pile-
of-filth cult stumbling around in the wilderness. They would
still be dangerous, but their teeth would be much smaller.
It would be relatively easy to just put up a big fence around
them and expend most of our effort relative to them just
keeping them behind that fence. And they might like it
that way, being what their fantasy ideology consists of.
Still, as long as the lefties are prepared to nurture and
cherish any stray fantasy ideology that comes along, the
future prospects of another such conflict are annoying.
So the lefties do need to be grabbed by the lapels and
smacked around until they see the light. In a way, the
Muslims are doing this job for us in Europe. A few of the
less brain addled of them are realizing there is a problem.
Thus we need several things to happen for a non-Kolker-
algorithm solution. We need to change the minds of lots
of the leftist types. We need another source of energy
besides Muslim oil. (Hey, ho, I'm a nuke.) We need the
political will to enforce the quarantine. Then we need a
whole lot of fence. This is a daunting task for even the
most optimistic.
Socks
John Alway
Okay, but instead of repeating myself too much, I'll quote what I
wrote in a prior posting to this thread:
[quote] Postmodernism. Remember, postmodernism is an anti-Western,
anti-man philosophy, which is much more strident and virulent in Europe
than America. These people are not on our side. You have to realize
that. To concretize this, from a multiculturalist perspective,
America and the West are guilty of terrible crimes against other
cultures the world over, and we have to pay the price. We are
capitalist exploiters. We should feel guilty for "our" past actions,
and we're getting our comeuppance.[/quote]
Think about how America is accused of crimes against Indians,
blacks, and others ad infinitum. Westerners generally are also so
accused, but America seems to be the bigger target. Multiculturalists
aren't entirely fact less in their presentation, but what they aren't
is objective, because they don't give the full picture. They don't
mention how much more brutal other cultures are and have been, nor do
they present the great positives of America that put an end to thuggish
actions. They don't mention the founding ideals of America, and don't
understand or appreciate the brilliance of those ideals. Or maybe,
worse, they probably *do* understand the brilliance of Lockean politics
and that's why they make little mention of it.
The cause of this is their unwillingness to deal with facts honestly
(they hold to a deep rejection of reason), and their strong desire for
equality. There is no way that Western culture can actually be
superior to any other culture. That is something that they are
uncomfortable with.
This is the sort of stuff that is taught throughout American
universities by default today, and that kind of thing can only have a
corrupting effect as more and more people are subjected to it,
especially when there is little in the way of rational response given,
save for among Objectivists.
Noam Chomsky, after 9/11, made claims to the effect that we deserved
what we got, because we have done far worse things to them, Muslims,
Arabs, et.al. There was also the professor Ward Churchill who made
similar claims.
I've often noted that Muslims in the West don't use Muslim
arguments to defend themselves as much as they use postmodernist
arguments. They accuse people of being "racists", of being "bigoted",
of "discriminating", of using "hate speech", and that sort of thing,
which puts lots of Westerners on the defensive. This is their wedge
into Western culture, courtesy of postmodernists.
The Australian historian Keith Windschuttle has pointed out what
these intellectuals are doing, and the effect they're having:
His article "The perverse anti-Westernism of the cultural elite" is
worth reading.
http://tinyurl.com/jwvzs
http://www.sydneyline.com/Adversary%20Culture.htm
...John
John Alway
> John Alway wrote:
> [snip]
> > It is my belief that this problem we're having with Muslims today,
> > this war, was made possible by leftist intellectuals, and most
> > especially postmodernists. They who claim to be anti-War, have brought
> > this war upon us. We never defend ourselves against these terrorists,
> > and this is how they have become the problem they are. We never
> > defend ourselves because of left wing intellectuals.
> There is something to this. These folks are the enablers and
> codependents, in the language of addiction. They buffer the
> terrorists from the appropriate consequences. They provide
> reinforcement of their fantasy ideology, giving them an extra
> push in the direction they were already going.
> But there is plenty of blame to go around. While the lefties
> have made the job harder, dramatically so, the Muslims
> came up with the fantasy ideology on their own.
I agree. The Muslims are 100% responsible for the atrocious ideas
they believe in and act upon. Absolutely. Going right back to Al
Ghazzali, they are very much responsible for being primitive mystics by
choice, since they had the opportunity to stay on the route of science
and reason. Ghazzali explicitly and knowingly rejected this world, and
endorsed knowledge by revelation.
The way I see it, leftists have severely weakened Western culture,
and out there in the world one of the bad memes, took advantage of
this. The Muslim religion happened to be the first one to do so (there
could always be others that follow suit). The Muslim meme has been out
there for 1000 years, basically harmless to us, because we were too
strong, but now it's found its opening.
So, it's not so much that the Muslim meme has grown strong; it's
that the West has grown weak due to the postmodernist meme.
[...]
> Thus we need several things to happen for a non-Kolker-
> algorithm solution. We need to change the minds of lots
> of the leftist types. We need another source of energy
> besides Muslim oil. (Hey, ho, I'm a nuke.) We need the
> political will to enforce the quarantine. Then we need a
> whole lot of fence. This is a daunting task for even the
> most optimistic.
The big problem, in my opinion, is having the will and courage to
crush the bad guys. That's the problem in a nut shell. We don't have
it, because leftists don't want us to have it. It would be wrong to
have such will and courage in their eyes.
...John
Robert J. Kolker
>
> The big problem, in my opinion, is having the will and courage to
> crush the bad guys. That's the problem in a nut shell. We don't have
> it, because leftists don't want us to have it. It would be wrong to
> have such will and courage in their eyes.
That time may have come to ship leftists to an isolated spot near East
Bumfuck so they can harrangue each other. I am all for freedom of
speech. I think the leftists should be granted a place East of Nowhere
where they can speak (to each other) all they wish.
We are in or shortly will be in the fight for our lives. We do not need
colaborators, apologists for the enemy and useless baggage to obstruct
us in defense of our lives, our homes and our values.
When I face such creatures as the pomos and apologists for terrorist
thugs, I find my libertarian inclinations diminishing markedly. Once the
war is over and the threat is handled we can afford to be tolerant
again. I can deal with folks who disagree with policy. WHo knows? Maybe
they are right. But I cannot abide those who would tell us that we
deserve to be destroyed.
Bob Kolker
Gary Reichlinger
<puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Also, don't forget that an accident of geography happened
>to put large deposits of oil under the feet of much of the
>Muslim world. Without the oil they'd be this rag-tag pile-
>of-filth cult stumbling around in the wilderness. They would
>still be dangerous, but their teeth would be much smaller.
The fact that there are large oil reserves in areas occupied by
Muslims is part accident of geography as you indicated, but another
factor is also in play. Oil has been produced in the US since 1859.
As long as there were large conventional oil reserves available in a
(relatively) free country, there would certainly be no reason to look
in places where you had to go to war with the Muslims to explore for
it. Since the 1980's, large oil companies have devoted most of their
exploration budgets to areas outside of the US, largely because of
environmental regulations. Also, other domestic energy sources such
as nuclear and coal were held back by environmentalism. Without the
environmental movement, the large oil companies would have invested
their money in North America in things such as unconventional oil and
advanced recovery on existing producing fields.
The current wealth and power of the Muslims can be largely
attributed to the failure to develop North American energy resources.
The fact that conventional oil deposits of Muslim countries had not
been developed and depleted earlier was similarly attributable to the
governments in those countries. Of course, had the US had a foreign
policy based on self-interest in the 20th century, things would have
been totally different as well.
.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> The fact that there are large oil reserves in areas occupied by
> Muslims is part accident of geography as you indicated, but another
> factor is also in play. Oil has been produced in the US since 1859.
> As long as there were large conventional oil reserves available in a
> (relatively) free country, there would certainly be no reason to look
> in places where you had to go to war with the Muslims to explore for
> it. Since the 1980's, large oil companies have devoted most of their
> exploration budgets to areas outside of the US, largely because of
> environmental regulations. Also, other domestic energy sources such
> as nuclear and coal were held back by environmentalism. Without the
> environmental movement, the large oil companies would have invested
> their money in North America in things such as unconventional oil and
> advanced recovery on existing producing fields.
The oil fields in Oaklahoma and Texas had been pretty well (no pun)
drained down. It was getting more and more expensive to extract the oil.
The first oil fields were in Pennsylvania (good sweet crude there). They
were drained dry in the early part of the twentieth century. When the
Texas and Oklahoma fields were going dry there was a big push to get oil
elsewhere.
Bob Kolker
Ken Gardner
>> In Europe, there seems to be more of a disconnect between their
>> political leadership and the voters than there is here.
>Victor D. Hansen has remarked in a few of his essays how Europe's leaders
>are elected democratically, but they pretty much do whatever they damn well
>want to, and hold their constituents in contempt.
Incidentally, I am a huge Victor D. Hansen fan.
>> It is
>> probably a vestige of centuries of aristocracy.
>Europe is still the rulers and the peasants. Take a look at the voting on
>the EU and its constitution.
I rather not, and not just because I'm currently paying for eating
tainted leftover food yesterday when I knew better. :(
>> And being more
>> well-educated, they are decidedly more screwed up philosophically. The
>> result is that the leadership is decidedly more "blue state" than the
>> populace.
>I thought American schools were appalling until I saw Europe's. They do
>teach fundamentals better, but their "yutes" are far more indoctrinated than
>American kids. Hard, if not impossible to believe, huh?
American colleges are still among the best in the world. That's not
saying much, is it.
Ken
Ken Gardner
>By the way, the Scandinavians also think that the French are pompous
>assholes.
Dude, everyone KNOWS this. Even the Frogs themselves.
Ken
Chris Cathcart
"Putain, nous sommes les cons! Vas te faire foutre!"
"Quest-ce que c'est un "pederast', Walter?"
"Ta gueule."
Gary Reichlinger
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>The oil fields in Oaklahoma and Texas had been pretty well (no pun)
>drained down. It was getting more and more expensive to extract the oil.
>The first oil fields were in Pennsylvania (good sweet crude there). They
>were drained dry in the early part of the twentieth century. When the
>Texas and Oklahoma fields were going dry there was a big push to get oil
>elsewhere.
There are currently wells being drilled in Oklahoma, Texas,
Pennsylvania, and other areas. In fact there are currently about
twice as many active drilling rigs operating in the US as in the rest
of the world outside of the US and Canada
(http://www.bakerhughes.com/investor/rig/index.htm). Most US wells
are being drilled by small independent companies since as I indicated
earlier the large companies started leaving the US in the 1980s. In
that process, they sold their existing producing wells. They weighed
the environmental risks in the US with the political risks elsewhere
and found a balance. The scales were tipped by the ability to bring
in larger wells with older technology.
Primary production (basically just pumping what comes out) gets
from 10% to 50% of the oil that is in the oilfield. Secondary
production (water flooding) gets additional production. Tertiary
production (flooding with carbon dioxide or chemicals) further
increases the share of original oil that can be recovered. If the
large oil companies were not harassed by environmental rules, they
would have kept their US wells and used advanced technology to
increase production. A lot of the activities of advanced production
require large investments, such as building carbon dioxide pipeline
systems, that are beyond the reach of the small independent companies.
.