Thursday, November 09, 2006

A World Without Europe?

An article in France-Echos reminds us of still another reason why Bush was never a defender of Western civilization: his strong support for Turkey in the EU:


George W. Bush, the President of the United States, during a meeting at the White House with the Turkish Prime Minister, reiterated his fervent support for Turkey's candidacy in the European Union. "I was very clear with the Prime Minister, I think it's in the interest of the United States that Turkey rejoin the European Union," declared Mr. Bush as he shook hands with the Recep Tayyip Erdogan , Prime Minister of Turkey, in front of the White House.

The editor of France-Echos adds this note:

George W. Bush is completely right, it IS indeed in the interests of the United States, both long and short term, to make Europe collapse. The United States will be stronger if Europe is no longer capable of producing airplanes to rival those of Boeing, of producing television shows and movies, all of which will become impossible when the Turkish hordes start pillaging legally the public funds of socially advanced States, provoking civil unrest, having an abundance of babies, lowering the standards of education, creating political instability thanks to a Turkish Muslim majority, then provoking a global recession thanks to the collapse of the European countries, rotted from within from Islam.

In fact, it would be even more accurate to say that the USA will seem stronger if Europe becomes weaker, because in fact the USA will not have advanced, rather Europe will have regressed!

Long term, it's in nobody's interest, but have you ever known a politician to reflect on long-term consequences?

Note: I'll just add that the editor is too optimistic about America. The minute Europe collapses, America is gone. The hordes from South of the border will stream in, Muslims will continue to arrive by the thousands (as of now, we "welcome" about 40,000 Muslims a year).

If our government is in the hands of Socialists, they will make quick work of the whole thing. If, by some miracle, we recapture our sense of nationhood and patriotism, something may be salvaged. The world without Europe is not the world.

Photo from the White House.


At November 09, 2006 5:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here in the USA, very few Republicans understand what is happening in Europe and what the EU is about. Thinkers like Roger Scruton do not create even a ripple. Current American conservatism places commerce and the free movement of goods and people (open borders) above everything else. Those like Pat Buchanan who appeal to patriotism, local attachments, fair trade, sovereignty, and other traditional values are decried by the party as isolationists and, of course, racists. I know: I have been a party operative. Today Republican means Wall Street. Unattached multinationals welcome bigger markets; whether Turks or Mexicans, all they see are "consumers," never citizens. Indeed, citizens are a liability in so far as they have other attachments besides brand loyalty. Modern transnational capitalism has nothing conservative about it. The seeds of its destructions lie in its short-sightedness and its oblivion to the political structures that support it in the first place. Eventually they will make a bargain with Islam only to find those consumers are not what they expected. People who believe in transcendence cannot be bought. The precondition to corporate capitalism is materialist atheism. Here and for now, the threat of the Third World to America may be greater than what Europe faces precisely because of integration. In Europe, if Turkey is kept out, native Europeans can, at least in principle, take back their nations from Brussels and their capitals from Muslims. But here, where everything melds into one big spectacle (I'm thinking of Guy Debord), the transformation will be subtle and go unnoticed. One day we will awaken to find a different country and wonder how this occurred. But don't tell Bush and Co. about this or the EU or the realities of dhimmitude or the importance of patriotism. What do those things have to do with capital markets? Better open sharia-friendly banks and Islamic Law divisions before someone else cashes in on the "newcomers" the promises of higher returns.


At November 09, 2006 5:44 PM, Blogger truepeers said...

Arguably, what hurts America the most today is the *lack* of competition in global politics from any nation or state of its scope and scale. The barbarians and the corrupt softness within can only erode American republicanism because there is no serious nation-state competitor to keep the Americans honest. While smaller, more focussed and compact economies can chip away at specific American industries, no one can yet replace the global military strength that makes US dollars (and financial markets) the world's reserve currency.

If the European Union were a realistic political or economic dea, instead of a bureaucratic nightmare, I'd be all for it. The best we can hope for is that the ROmano Prodis who go on about European Union being necessary in order for Europeans to compete with the new China will learn that they would have a lot harder time competing, economically, with thirty Taiwans.

In the military-political markets, perhaps a "united" China will prevail to compete with America and sideline Europe. But I think this will not be in the economic and ethical interests of the Chinese who would be better served if China were broken up into a number of smaller, self-governing, states.

America may be at the limits in size of an effective nation-state, in a world in which nation-states are more successful in producing productive amd politically free people than are empires. Lacking necessary competition/sharing in global responsibilities, it may be tempting for the Americans to see an expanded EU as a solution to this lack. But the EU is not a nation-state but unproductive imperialism that, along with the barbarians, erodes the productivity of erstwhile self-ruling polities.

I think America should hope for a revived naitonal spirit in all the small and mid-sized nations of the world and that these nations embrace a true inter-national competition that will force them to find ways to play a role in and thus keep America honest in political and military markets. So yes, the fight for France and other nations is of central import to America and anyone who thinks France's demise is in America's interest isn't thinking straight.

At November 10, 2006 12:42 AM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ sebastian and truepeers

What can I add to your analyses? Very little.

The indifference to the idea of nationhood (in fact the almost total ignorance of the concept), dooms us as does our belief in the American economy as being "unsinkable". Remember the Titanic.

We have no high profile leaders (that I know of) that advocate anything like patriotism, as it has been understood in the past. People who do advocate such worn-out notions are relegated to a kind of "leper colony." And, personally, I'm not sure we would be able to survive against a real competitor, should one come along. We've lost our vitality, and have become a service-oriented, social problems-ridden land.

Also, I see that Rumsfeld's replacement, Gates, has repeated, word for word, Douste-Blazy's remark that Iran is a major stabilizing force in the Middle East. At least "Rummy" didn't go THAT far.


At November 10, 2006 1:27 AM, Blogger tiberge said...

Sebastian's comment on integration is important: it acknowledges that integration is actually detrimental to the welfare of the nation. Europeans integrating with one another is one thing, but when alien races are "integrated" on purely economic grounds, without taking into consideration the inner beliefs and mind-sets of these people, disaster will not be long in coming.

I know this will sound racist to some, but in the school systems, schools function immeasureably better when they are not integrated.

Same with a nation.

At November 10, 2006 6:23 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ truepeers

I'm not versed in Chinese politics, other than the basics. Has there been talk of breaking up China into smaller "self-governing states"? Are the Chinese regions today in any way self-governing? Is Chinese communism evolving into partial capitalism? What's happening?

@ sebastian

When you say that "people who believe in transcendence cannot be bought", you have said a mouthful. The West has been "bought" so to speak because it no longer has a belief in transcendance. Muslims cannot be bought. Now America will learn her horrible mistake. More attacks, more blood... or maybe not, just steady encroachment.

At November 11, 2006 3:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I enjoy your website. I've left a few rants that seem to occasion some comment. My anonymity is the result of a burgeoning legal career, but my passion, as is evident, is political philosophy. Like you, I have (had?) a real love of Europe, especially Italy and the German world: from Boccaccio to Visconti. But I find it increasingly difficult to relate to modern Europeans. The lawyers I meet from Paris...I'll keep it civil! I grew up thinking I would live like a Marcelo Mastroianni character or the guy from A Man and a Women or Wilhelm Meister on a white horse. Now I listen to Dennis Prager.

Keep up the site. I'm not much of a "blog" person but I like this one and others dealing with Islam. The media blackout is complete. As I once wrote, legitimate articles (published) will begin to appear early next year. For now I get great tidbits of depressing info from Gallia Watch. Thanks,

At November 12, 2006 5:45 AM, Blogger Halgian said...

Greetings from Finland!

I agree. The world without Europe would be nothing. However, I would like to see USA, European countries and Israel work in concert against common foes.

GalliaWatch seems to be a very interesting blog; thought-provoking stuff you have here.

At November 12, 2006 1:42 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ anonymous

Thank you for your comments. They are a great benefit to the website. I'm interested in your experiences with Parisian lawyers, or any experiences you have that relate to our current civilizational crisis.

You don't have to be civil.


Welcome. In the past I've had some Finnish readers. One had a website whose name I forget - mahtikuningas - something like that. I must check to see if the website still exists.

America is moving further and further away from the goal you propose. There's so much evidence to indicate that Bush, Rice and now Robert Gates, Rumsfeld's replacement, are bending over backwards to please the Iranian mollahs and Hezbollah.

At November 13, 2006 1:04 AM, Blogger truepeers said...

Has there been talk of breaking up China into smaller "self-governing states"? Are the Chinese regions today in any way self-governing? Is Chinese communism evolving into partial capitalism? What's happening?

Tiberge, I'm no expert. There is certainly no serious, official talk of breaking up China - quite the reverse, but it is an idea I see here and there from time to time. The Chinese government's antagonism to Taiwanese independence seems to reflect a fear that Taiwan's success will serve as a model to other provinces tired of Beijing control.

Are the Chinese regions self-governing? yes and no. Various forms of autonomy are given to cities and regions. And while ultimately, China is ruled by the Communist Party and Beijing, this rule is not efficient and the party is in effect a huge network of local patron-client relationships held together by power brokers at the regional and national levels. In day to day matters, local officials have a lot of power and they must be bribed for all sorts of decisions/favors. They thus create local fiefdoms and all kinds of local self-interests outside or rational market mechanisms. When there is a conflict between one local interest and that of another, it gets bumped up the ladder to Beijing to be decided in the backrooms. But as long as Beijing's general policies are being followed adn there is not a lot of conflict between two power brokers/two regions in the Communist Party hierarchy, the local officials have a lot of power and control. For example, in the military, whose regiments are often singularly regional or ethnic in make-up, the generals are often more like local lords with investments in facories and business, that they are strictly military professionals.

So much of business in China is focussed on export markets. A truly integrated and ratioanlized domestic market has not yet developed, as best I can tell, precisely because to do so would require a lot of competition among the countries' various regional players and that kind of market freedom is not allowed by Beijing because party officials have many personal interests in businesses and these must be protected and come before rationalization and integration of the domestic market.

So it's a situation where one can imagine all sorts of tensions among the regions, especially since the military is somewhat decentralized, if they ever want to fight for their interests, and don't like how the boys in the Beijing back rooms mediate conflicts between the various power brokers of the country. But it seems China holds together because everyone fears the chaos that might ensue if the regions were to attemtp to go it alone. WHo then would provide security guarantees, or mediate conflicts? WOuld it mean endless wars among the regions of CHina?

I talk about 30 Taiwans being a much more serious economic force than one united CHina. But this is to assume a break up could be peaceful, which is highly doubtful.

So things change slowly. Those favored by the system grow rich by exporting manufactured goods made with cheap Chinese labor. But is this really capitalism? Look at how difficult it is for the rich Chinese to reinvest their wealth in the country. It is one thing to make money in a protected industry, but there is a limit to how much any business can grow, after which, to reinvest profits, you might have to start a whole new business, develop a whole new set of patron-client relations with the officials, because there is no serious stock market, no faith in the rule of law, so very little anonymous investing in corporations as there is in NOrth America. Not surprisingly, all the wealthy and connected Chinese seek to get foreign passports and move money out of the country because they are all afraid of some crisis in future. There is a lot of fear of crime in the cities where a huge underclass comes in contact with the nouveau riche. And then there are the frequent demonstrations of furious peasants whose land is being expropriated by the networks of Communist officials and businessmen.

How will it all play out? I don't know. You certainly can't bet on China's stability, but how would any alliance be forged among regional players that would be necessary for a serious break up of the country? Everyone is scared of chaos and most defer to the logic of the system - as the only means of order, however corrupt - or they get really angry and leave the country - I know a few people in this category. The immigration policies of the Anglosphere, and the re-investment of Chinese wealth in the real estate, stock, and bond markets of the West, all act as a kind of safety valve for the less than functional Chinese domestic system. Internally, it's crony "capitalism", which is to say not real free market capitalism.

At November 14, 2006 12:36 AM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ truepeers

A very enlightening explanation. China sounds like a medieval society, ready to burst into the Renaissance, but held back by the fear of violence. Europe moved into the Renaissance (for better or for worse) because the dominating ideology, Christianity, no matter what its strictures and excesses, was not the terrifying dogma Communism is.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home