Whither Europe?
In the run-up to The Collapse of Europe Conference coming to Malibu's Pepperdine University on June 10, Pajamas Media asked one of the participants - Claire Berlinski, author of %%AMAZON=1400097703 Menace in Europe: Why the Continent's Crisis is America's, Too%% - whether things had improved in the old continent since the publication of her book. [Details and reservations for the conference available at the link.]
by Claire Berlinski
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
As readers here know, the American Freedom Alliance and Council for Democracy and Tolerance will be sponsoring a conference at Pepperdine University next weekend dedicated to exploring the crisis in Europe and its ramifications for the United States. I’ve been invited to join the panelists. My book Menace in Europe: Why the Continent’s Crisis is America’s, Too was published in early 2006. Pajamas Media editor Roger Simon called me Monday morning to ask if I’d comment, ahead of the conference, on the way the landscape has changed since the book’s publication.
The landscape in Europe has changed very little. New politicians with interesting ideas have come to power in Germany and France, and I am glad of this, but the long-term economic, demographic and cultural trends have not changed and will not be easy to change.
Americans’ view of the landscape, however, has changed considerably. I began working on Menace in Europe in March 2004, immediately after the bombing of the Atocha train station in Madrid. At the time, the suggestion that Europe might be on the verge of collapse was an extraordinary idea; offering it in public marked me as an extremist and something of a spoilsport. Since then, the arguments I made have been made widely, and well, by a great number of economists, demographers, historians and journalists; there are now many excellent books in print that argue, more or less, what I did. A consensus has begun to emerge. The problems I described-Europe’s collapse of confidence, the unsustainable character of its welfare economies, its population decline, the rise of militant Islam, and the flourishing in Europe of a host of bizarre anti-Enlightenment ideologies-are now widely appreciated.
Whether or not they are appreciated, there is still no consensus at all about what do about them. A commenter here described the upcoming conference as a “gathering of the usual suspects.” Indeed, it is, and the fact that there are now enough suspects to gather is in my view good and significant news. The same commenter wrote that “this is probably another group that will be preaching to the converted.” In the sense that the panelists all believe that there is a problem, yes. But I expect there to be considerable difference of opinion about the nature of that problem, its origins, its consequences, and the appropriate US policy response. The panelists include, for example, prominent atheists (who are prominent for being atheists), conservative Christians, exponents of the notion that “moderate Islam is the solution,” advocates of the position that “there is no such thing as moderate Islam,” traditionalists who have argued that secular feminists are killing Europe, and secular feminists who have argued that traditionalists are killing Europe. So yes, we’re all converted, but we are converted-very literally-to different religions.
It will be interesting to see what, if anything, we can come up with together.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
19 Comments
Jacknut:What other anti-Enlightenment ideologies, besides militant Islam, are flourishing in Europe?
Jun 5, 2007 - 5:55 am Big D:How about a dozen different flavors of Luddism?
Jun 5, 2007 - 6:34 am francis:I would say 2
- islam, which is enough by itself
- I would offer socialism, which deadens individual drive and achievement (why work hard when you aren’t rewarded and no one else does?)
maybe technically not “enlightenment” ideas, but the result is a exodus of Europe’s best and brightest
Jun 5, 2007 - 7:56 am Licklet:Postmodernist anti-rationality is pervasive in European intellectual circles and universities.
Multiculturalism is rampant, and is simply a euphemism for anti-western enlightenment thinking.
The fanatical embracing of an unproven theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming from greenhouse gases is irrational and potentially destructive.
Anti-globalism is an appeal to a neo-protectionism which would inevitably lead to increased tensions and international violence.
Ultra-low birthrates in Europe among indigenous people, combined with ultra-high birthrates among untrained, religiously intolerant immigrants, leads to a future in European cities resembling the Gaza strip of today.
Jun 5, 2007 - 8:32 am Ann:What other anti-Enlightenment ideologies.
European Unionism. Designed from the beginning to shield enlightened government from the evil whims of democracy.
Jun 5, 2007 - 9:49 am RE:What other anti-Enlightenment ideologies?
of course we can’t forget the ubiquitous anti-Americanism, ‘just because’.
Jun 5, 2007 - 3:06 pm pch1013:“Postmodernist anti-rationality”
As opposed to the premodernist anti-rationality we have in the U.S. in the form of “intelligent design” claptrap and widespread Rapture mania.
Jun 5, 2007 - 3:30 pm venividivici:pch1013,
While I have no allegiance to anything calling itself intelligent design or any desire to witness the Rapture, there is a crucial difference between those US phenomena and the European phenomenon known as post-modernism, which is that the US’ anti-rationality does not objectively help Islam make inroads here in the way post-modernism does in Europe (and where it has a toehold in the US). Given that my main goal is to avoid the same level of Islamization that appears to be occuring in Europe, I’m willing to make a short-term alliance with anti-rational forces in the US that further my main objective.
As someone whose main intellectual inspirations are people like Socrates, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein and Heidegger, I find this a crucial difference. Would I prefer that the entire US population became philosophers in the Socratic sense? Sure, but that’s very unlikely, so it’s best to be practical.
Jun 5, 2007 - 5:01 pm Morton Doodslag:I am an agnostic, but have great respect and fondness for the rich Christian cosmology of the West. I think the void left in many hearts by radical secularism, especially in the hearts of the self-loathing and contemptous, exemplified by poster pch1013 above, makes such persons susceptible to all kinds of irrational mindsets.
Perhaps such person foolishly dismiss the omnipresent impluse in the human being for a belief system — one which answers the all too human need for meaning, and which provides a framwork for understanding the endless patterns which the world presents.
Radical secularism is very similar to any religion. And it’s clearly susceptible to the same pitfalls any religion is susceptible to — but most radical secularists neither recognize themselves as a form of religious zealot and bigot, nor do they recognize in themselves the sometimes vile strains of ignorance which they consistenly exhibit.
Has anyone noticed the similarity the Global Warming fairytale bears to the story of Man’s expulsion from Eden? In this new cosmology — one which hates humankind for our human impulses — impulses for wealth, comfort, security, religion — in such a cosmology, perhaps the old myths simply get replaced with newer myths, untried myths. At least our old myths, the ones which the radical secularists are so frantic to denigrate and to discard, had the benefit of being tested over long periods of time. Presumably they possess some value through this vetting process of history. Yet we are told by radical secularists that these cultural foundations are to be ignored, laughed at, spit at, discarded.
The thing I find most distasteful is not their pretense of virtue , though that in itself is quite odious. It is their unquestioning mindset, their utter conviction that their radical ideas are the only ones to be accored respect.
On their face, radical secularist are irrational. Their utter contempt for their culture of origin is evidence for this — they behave as if they emerged into the world as perfectly rational human beings. How is this achieved? Apparently by dint of their utter rejection of all the “irrational” thinking which came before. This is ludicrous, and shows a pathetic lack of understanding of the progression of thought in the West — a progression which spans thousands of years, and predates Christianity by at least a millenium.
Further, history shows us that zealots who have lost their capacity to self criticize, who militantly espouse their dogma are often extremely dangerous.
I’d argue that the unthinking certainty of such persons, persons who reject wholesale our fabulous Western history are the petri dish in which nightmares are born. People who despise their culture of origin so deeply are capable of anything — such self contempt is among the most irrational of all mindsets. They also make incredibly encouraging targets for more confident primitive and less conflicted enemies.
I have likened the plight of Europe to a patient suffering with the A.I.D.S. virus — the radical secularism and socialism of Europe won’t directly cause Europe’s decline and death — but they utterly subvert Europe’s social defense mechanisms.
Radical secularism is robbing her native citizens of hope, filling them with irrational self-contempt, causing them to wallow in indulgences and to stop having babies. Such a diseased society is immunocompromised. Opportunistic infections, lies of utopia, lies of multiculturalism, lies of Islam, communism, hatred of America, hatred of Jews, self hatred, paranoic delusions — all of these flourish in such environments.
Jun 5, 2007 - 6:20 pm pauld:What other anti-Enlightenment ideologies, besides militant Islam, are flourishing in Europe?
The church of global warming
Jun 5, 2007 - 9:46 pm FRENCH ON THE LOOSE:I agree with Morton Doodslag,a society non able to self criticize is virtually dangerous and dead. The killers are here, they use their faith, and more often a great lack of basic knowledge to enter Europe like a trojan Horse. But Now, for Europe, after a long and patient analysis, i think that the game is over. There is no solution because the demographic problem caused by the muslims, has brought there an irreversible situation. How could you deport in their maghreb people born in France and with french ID, married with french spouses and having often french names? The only criteria is the deep hatred of France, Europe and of course of the US. They came here in conquerors not to intregrate a beloved country. What we see in France is not a tale: the suburbs are a sample of Gaza City with fear and violence spreading around. The problem will be exactly the same in US (it is already there in Canada who easily accepted on its soil a french speaking population but essentially muslim, who brought there the roots of islamism and hatred of jews and of US). It’s time for US to wake up and consider this problem more seriously.
Jun 6, 2007 - 11:31 am pch1013:I left my job and my past in France, to build here a new life especially for my children. I would not like to see the muslim coming here with their midle age faith, their agressiv proselytism, their hatred of women and of anyone who doesn’t think like them, to resume the process of emigrating…Once again, and to wich country?
“a society non able to self criticize is virtually dangerous and dead”
But when an American dares to criticize any aspect of the U.S., he or she is usually invited, in no uncertain terms, to emigrate. “Love it or leave it,” do those words ring a bell?
@Morton Manslaughter: I do have a belief system. It’s called “science.”
Jun 6, 2007 - 2:29 pm FRENCH ON THE LOOSE:Dear pch 1013,
Jun 6, 2007 - 3:27 pm pch1013:I don’t understand why you think that american society doesn’t allow people to criticize the policy of the government. Everyday i read in different newspapers hard critical articles against the Pdt Bush. And no democrat thinks that he or she has to leave!
About Iraq, I know quite well the topic because the French policy has been edicted only according to the personal financial interest of Pdt Chirac. It is not a secret that he and his party have get a LOT of money from Sadam Hussein, and this for a very long time, even before the construction by French engeneers of the nuclear reactor Osirak destroyed by the Israelis on May 10th 1981. We know why he took so hard the defense of he dictator. He didn’t care about the kurdish people and about the chemical weapons who disappeared through the Syrian border. He doesn’t care anymore about Iranian nuclear threat and about the Kassam rockets falling everyday on civilians in Israel. His heart is on the side of the petrodollars. If Israel had gas, France would be a wonderful true and sincere friend!
Well, that’ll all change now that Sarkozy is President. I’m sure French troops are even now on their way to Iraq to join all those Canadian and German troops who signed up for World War III (or is it IV now? I’ve lost count) after their respective countries elected center-right governments, much to the jubilation of the editors of this website.
As far as American tolerance for dissent is concerned, if you’ve never heard the words “love it or leave it” deployed against someone who happens not to like George W. Bush, that just means you haven’t been in this country very long.
Jun 6, 2007 - 7:33 pm venividivici:pch1013,
If you think “love it or leave it” is as intellectually advanced as the argument against unreasonable levels of anti-Americanism masquerading as “dissent”, that’s your own problem.
It appears as though people want to hide their own shame at being such losers (have you seen the people calling what they do “dissent”? I’d be embarrased to walk out of my house looking like that), by elevating it to the level of deep political insight. From a real intellectual vantage point, so much of “dissent” is simply the mirror image of “love it or leave it”, so I see nothing wrong in using that as the appropriate counter to “dissent” as it’s practiced in the US today.
Jun 6, 2007 - 9:12 pm pch1013:So what would constitute a reasonable level of anti-Americanism in your opinion? Maybe there should be a nationwide speech code or something.
Jun 7, 2007 - 11:01 am Morton Doodslag:To be generous, when slander and hatred hide behind the pretenses of “criticism” and “dissent” — you know you’re dealing with a conflicted person at the very least. Such a person must know they’re incorrect on some level — how else can one explain their attempted deflections?
But when that person relentlessly throws up straw men to bolster his sad arguments, you know you’re dealing with a dubious and duplicitous character. For example, has anyone in this thread told the bitter poster pch1013 to “love it or leave it”? He grandiosely depicts himself as “daring” to “criticise” aspects of the U.S. (as if there’s any risk in doing so), while mouthing some very ugly and unenlightened rhetoric. “Science” indeed. Glad to see the quotation marks around that term — I see no science whatsoever in your views — your non-responses to valid arguments — your ad hominem attacks — your bitter resentment — or the hollow straw men you set up to slay in your fantasies of power and persecution.
Jun 7, 2007 - 12:42 pm venividivici:pch1013,
It ends up being a little bit like pornography in the Supreme Court’s definition, “I know it when I see it”.
Valid ‘anti-Americanism’ has led to things like all of the Constitutional amendments after the Bill of Rights. Obviously, people weren’t happy with the status quo, they went through the proper channels and got their changes ratified by a significant number of their fellow citizens.
Put simply, if you can’t accomplish that, maybe your (the generic “your”) pet issue isn’t as unambiguous or earth-shattering as you think it is. Maybe it’s, as I suggested in an earlier post, a psychological tic on the part of a relatively small segment of society, designed to deflect their attention from self-criticism at their own shortcomings in life.
Jun 7, 2007 - 4:35 pm pch1013:Morton Manslaughter [which is the English translation of the Dutch word doodslag, in case anyone is wondering]:
You accuse me of…
“ad hominem attacks”
Please point them out.
“grandiosely depict[ing] himself as “daring” to “criticise” aspects of the U.S.”
Please point out where I have done so.
“very ugly and unenlightened rhetoric”
Kindly point out what part of my rhetoric thus far has been ugly and unenlightened.
It would also be very interesting if you could share you apparently vast knowledge of European history to enlighten us as to when, exactly, Europe was not steeped in anti-Semitism, which you seem to think was invented by “radical secularists” sometime during the last century. Was it during the nineteenth century, when the thoroughly Christian tsars condoned the first pogroms? Was it during the Renaissance, when thoroughly Christian rulers first herded Jews into ghettos? Or was it during the Roman Empire or the Stone Age or some other time?
I look forward to your reply.
Jun 7, 2007 - 8:10 pm