I just love posting articles on how Europe is going to fade away, slowly... must be a serious masochistic streak in me... or is it just post-modern self-hatred? Anyway, I don't see a spiritual renewal coming to us anytime soon. RIP.
Long, needs to be p.49-ed.
By George Weigel
Foreign Policy Research Institute | June 7, 2005
America's "Europe problem" and Europe's "America problem" have been staple topics of transatlantic debate for the past several years. Political leaders, media commentators, and businessmen usually discuss those problems in terms of policy differences: differences over prosecuting the war on terrorism, differences over the role of the United Nations in world affairs, differences over the Kyoto Protocol on the global environment, differences over Iraq. The policy differences are real. Attempts to understand them in political, strategic, and economic terms alone will ultimately fail, however, because such explanations do not reach deeply enough into the human texture of contemporary Europe.
To put the matter directly: Europe, and especially western Europe, is in the midst of a crisis of civilizational morale. The most dramatic manifestation of that crisis is not to be found in Europe's fondness for governmental bureaucracy or its devotion to fiscally shaky health care schemes and pension plans, in Europe's lagging economic productivity or in the appeasement mentality that some European leaders display toward Islamist terrorism. No, the most dramatic manifestation of Europe's crisis of civilizational morale is the brute fact that Europe is depopulating itself.
Europe's below-replacement-level birthrates have created situations that would have been unimaginable when the 1940s and early 1950s. By the middle of this century, if present fertility patterns continue, 60 percent of the Italian people will have no personal experience of a brother, a sister, an aunt, an uncle, or a cousin;[1] Germany will lose the equivalent of the population of the former East Germany; and Spain's population will decline by almost one-quarter. Europe is depopulating itself at a rate unseen since the Black Death of the fourteenth century.[2] And one result of that is a Europe that is increasingly "senescent" (as British historian Niall Ferguson has put it).[3]
Continued on Page 49
#1
Two posts in one day that refer to humanism, which I thought was dead and buried years ago. If you reject religion then you reject morality. All issues then become pragmatic issues (refer to JSM and Utilitarianism). Humanism was just a weasel way of rejecting God while hanging on to morality.
#3
Sooner or later, but rather sooner, the dual burdens of socialism and liberal borders will just plain wear you down. Nationalism then becomes the haven - does Germany pre-WWII ring a bell? They have spent so much time post-war appeasing and compromising and deifying the great satan America that their political leadership has crumbled into weak feta cheese!
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
06/08/2005 10:14 Comments ||
Top||
#5
In the US, there is a popular distinction made between "morality" and "ethics". Americans are generally distrustful of "morality", because it is thought of as religious inspired law--varying tremendously between different religions. So when a politician preaches "morality", it sounds like he is being sectarian. Once again, the rules of "morality" are believed to be written in heaven, and up to the interpretation of whatever shaman is believed. "Ethics", however, is following the laws written by and for humans. As evidenced by the preamble to the Constitution, it is *not* a document written in heaven or revealed by prophecy. It is "of the people, by the people, and for the people." It is there in black and white, a document of reason with limited interpretation nationwide. And it can be changed. Americans respect a politician who is "ethical", who obeys the written law, and just as importantly, who promulgates "ethics" in the laws he endorses and the things he stands for. So what of "morality" and reproduction? First of all, statistically, when a people achieve a certain plateau standard of living, in *whatever* society, their birthrate drops off to about 2.1 per family. That is natural and occurs all of the time. Government cannot substantially *increase* this birthrate, but they can strongly *decrease* it, based on social policy. One of the worst things a government can do in such a case sounds very "moral", that is, demanding "responsibility" at all levels of procreation. Over time, government creates so many *rules* that must be followed to "properly" raise a child, that a child becomes a major burden. They insist that first of all, parents be "of age" before they reproduce; that they use "protection", to prevent "unwanted" pregnancy; that they not reproduce until married; that a father is "responsible" for the raising of his children; that a child must be raised with many amenities, far beyond survival needs, or even essential needs, that is, many luxuries; that parents keep responsibility for their children until their children turn 18 years old. Each of these individually sound reasonable, until you realize that each one on its own can reduce the birthrate another .1 children per family. In total, anywhere from .5 to .8 fewer children because of government "morality."
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/08/2005 13:52 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Well, the Spanish conquistadores seemed fairly proficient at genocide, without any help from the doctrine of 'atheistic humanism'. Ditto the Arab muslims in India, the Turks in Armenia, etc. The fact that people who believe in worn-out fairy stories involving miracle-working supernatural entities still presume to offer advice to the rest of us is a joke of truly cosmic proportions.
Posted by: Man U Suck ||
06/08/2005 18:27 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Add them all up and still come way short of the 120,000,000 victims of communism. Throw in another 10,000,000 for Naziism (which can be viewed as either atheist or pagan).
#14
I'd vote for atheist. The paganism was fun dress-up stuff for the dramatically minded, connecting with their German Volk roots, nothing anybody serious took seriously.
#17
Europe isn't the only place that is 'dying'. Japan has the lowest birthrate on the planet, and all developed Asian nations like Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan have births that are below replacement level, as do Anglo-Saxon descendent nations like New Zealand, Canada and Australia (although those are still growing due to immigration).
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
06/08/2005 23:36 Comments ||
Top||
For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more than half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
While the focus in Washington has shifted from the Iraq conflict to Social Security and other domestic matters, the survey found that Americans continue to rank Iraq second only to the economy in importance -- and that many are losing patience with the enterprise.
Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam. Was Vietnam in the question, or the answer?
Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. I thought the central notion was the non-existent WMD? In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and three months ago 52 percent thought so.
The surge in violence in Iraq since the new government took control -- 80 U.S. troops and more than 700 Iraqis died in May alone amid a rash of bombings -- has been accompanied by rising gloom about the overall fight against terrorists. By 50 percent to 49 percent, Americans approved of the way Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism, down from 56 percent approval in April, equaling the lowest rating he has earned on the issue that has consistently been his core strength with the public.
The dissipating support for the Iraq war is of potential military concern, because, as Marine Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis wrote in a note to his troops as he led them back into Iraq in February 2004, "our friendly strategic center of gravity is the will of the American people."
Some authorities on war and public opinion said the figures indicate that pessimism about the war in Iraq has reached a dangerous level. "It appears that Americans are coming to the realization that the war in Iraq is not being won and may well prove unwinnable," said retired Army Col. Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor at Boston University. "That conclusion bleeds over into a conviction that it may not have been necessary in the first place."
That is the view of poll respondent Margaret Boudreaux, 63, a casino worker living in Oakdale, La. "I don't think it's going well -- there's too much killing," she said, worrying that the Iraq invasion could move more enemies to violence. "I think that some of the people, if they could, would get revenge for what we've done."
"You hear a lot about Saddam but nothing about Osama bin Laden. I don't think he [Bush] does enough to deal with the problems of terrorism. . . . He's done a lot of talking, but we haven't seen real changes," said another poll respondent, Kathy Goyette, 54, a San Diego nurse. "People are getting through airport security with things that are unbelievable. . . . I don't think he learned from 9/11."
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/08/2005 07:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The journey of a thousand li starts with one step.
#7
B-a-R---In WW2, after the heavy Marine casualties on Betio in the Tarawa campaign, there was concern about the public turning anger against the govt.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/08/2005 11:26 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I'm beginning to suspect that a free press and a free country are incompatible in time of war.
I consider myself a student of WW II, but just found out this week that 8 US C-47's full of paratroopers were shot down by friendly fire in Operation Husky (Sicily). That's why the Normandy planes had black and white stripes. Can you imagine the uproar had that been known at the time? Pilots, co-pilots, 160-odd paratroopers! Not to mention the equipment! Why, the gunners should've been court-martialed, generals demoted, the war halted! George Marshall would've been forced out, no Marshall Plan, no demise of the USSR - the mind reels!
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/08/2005 12:13 Comments ||
Top||
#9
#8 at least "free press" as defined by the current MSM.
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/08/2005 12:14 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The only reason we are seeing this poll is that our wonderful journalists are "deeply saddened" about the dearth of dead Americans and the surplus of dead terrorists.
#12
they need to get back to covering Michael. They are much more competent in this regard. Anyone interested in the WOT isn't paying attention to them anymore anyway.
#13
Bobby, the Air Corps would get their own back in Normandy. Attempted close air support by B-17s dropped short and killed hundreds in one action before the St. Lo breakout.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
