Posted on 03/21/2004 9:08:15 AM PST by mrustow
Mythology.
Diversion via repetition?
The Euros have lost even the will to survive. They are far below replacement numbers, they can't even summon the energy to breed a new generation. Their men are so flaccid that they will put their women in burkahs and kiss the scimitar before they raise a fist to defend their culture. The only question is which will be the first nation to adopt islamic sharia law.
Pre-311, I assumed the Muslims were targeting France. But now, I expect there will be a major influx into Spain, in honor of the new prime minister. Call them Zapatero's Moors.
LOL.
Could be.
His was more than a little dry if it was (admittedly, I was a bit rushed in reading it), or preferring the drip grind, p'raps I'm blinded by my own.
As far as Europe is concerned, the author, while otherwise making a splendidly competent case, prefers to deal in causes rather than remedies (except by inference), but even there he missed a major element. IMO, the projection of ecumenism upon Islam was clearly displaced since, as a religion, it is entirely underserving of that distinction. One also wonders why the Church so willingly capitulated to socialsim, as its nexus in public schooling worked wonders to the effect he bewails. That capitulation conceded systemic alienation of the rearing of children from the primary responsibility of imparting faith and culture. It abetted the Gramscian objective of depriving succeeding generations from their inheritance in Western Culture.
Insofar as America is concerned, we are simply too late to act selectively in controlling immigration and expect time alone to bind our cultural wounds. Besides controlling the borders, we now have to focus instead upon successful assimilation. In addition to (and distinct from) absorbing Latino culture, we have to face the seeming contradiction between the stated goals (ghouls?) of Islam and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
Here is something I wrote last year on that topic,:
There are, however, limits to free association. There is one major religion operating within this country with a written doctrine that advocates complete overthrow of the Constitution and replacement of our entire body of laws: Islam. When free association is used for purposes of sedition and bigotry we must make exception concerning free exercise. It is a test of our ability as a nation to make distinctions upon individual behavior that may do more to transform an ancient religion for the better than all the soldiers in the Middle East.
Happy now? ;-) CO
It didn't. It lost. Read Belloc to see it still kicking and screaming. Also it backed all the wrong horses, politically and culturally speaking, defending monarchism vs. republicanism, infallibility against scholarship, paternalism vs. capitalism, etc. There were plenty of advisors telling them to go to the classical liberal position and stand there, defending their case on its merits, but that is not what they actually did. Not until 50 years after they lost the fight over control of education, while trying to hold positions that could not be held long and in a number of cases did not deserve to be.
As for toleration and intolerant teachings, we tolerate mere teachings but should not tolerate crimes. Every school has had its intolerant versions and has persecuted. There is plenty of stuff in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that taken literally is poison, stuff that got Quakers hanged on Boston Common as late as the 1680s.
Rather than promulgate new doctrine and attempt to enforce it by the sword, we have found it works better to regulate acts and not thoughts. We bear with error - because error is the natural state - and with intolerance - because there was precious little else anywhere on earth until quite recent times. We need not bear with crime.
They are not the same, and attacking errors because they seem to tend toward crime would mean attacking far too much. Worse, it would set up the state as an arbiter of truth, a task for which it is singularly unsuited. That corrupts thought as well. The state's role is to disarm such disputes, to force sides to carry them on by persuasion rather than force, not to settle them. It can't settle them. It can punish use of violence.
Likewise, there was a revival of Christian piety in (West) Germany after the Second World War. And even earlier, conventional religious faith hadn't died out -- the intellectuals loss of faith and the disastrous political turn weren't necessarily representative of the way many ordinary people lived. Such piety didn't last in Germany either. But a recognition of such historical developments and continuities -- as well as of the thousand years of medieval culture -- ought to have been expected by someone who presumed to write on religion and culture in Europe. When a writer ignores such things, as Stix does, it calls his credibility into question.
More to the point, the Nietzschean view that "God was dead" in 19th century Europe applies just as much to 21st century America as it did to his own era. He wasn't saying that everyone was an atheist, but that underneath the surface piety of the day, God had ceased to matter. And that's a criticism that we can't simply ignore as our own culture is concerned.
Maybe Stix is a friend or relative of yours. If so your loyalty to him is commendable (If he's you, the criticisms can only help you to improve your essays). But he has real trouble organizing his perceptions into a coherent and convincing argument. He keeps reaching for a "big picture" theory, but throws in so many of his own likes and dislikes that he doesn't escape the merely subjective. He doesn't seem to see that his peeves don't add up to anything substantial.
Is "anti-scientific thinking" really stronger in contemporary Europe than it has been at other times and places? Does the term "North America" function "as a petty insult to Americans"? Is Europe really less creative artistically than the US? Are Europeans greater "culture snobs" than Americans? And isn't there some contradiction in attacking both multiculturalism and supposed European cultural haughtiness? Between attacking Europeans for betraying or not living up to their heritage, and condemning them for priding themselves on a supposedly superior culture, and hinting that that culture never was what some said it was, Europeans don't get a break from Nicholas Stix.
That Stix reproaches Europe because of its "embrace of the inferior fare at McDonald's" is an indication that whatever problems there are aren't unique to Europe. Modern Europe is seriously flawed, but other parts of the modern world don't escape criticism either. If le Big Mac is a problem, it's not something one can blame on Europe, or even on socialism.
Then you can't contradict it at will. Or don't you understand the concept of a general principle?
Glad you liked it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.