The demographic reality is that Europe is running out of Europeans -- the deathbed fertility rates of the French, Italians, Germans, Spaniards, etc. is a continent-wide suicide bomb, a kind of auto-genocide in which one population is gradually yielding to a successor population unlikely to share American foreign policy goals in any parts of the world
JJ, you can't possibly disagree with Steyn on this, can you? Seems axiomatic to me. What I don't understand, though, is that Steyn says Barnett doesn't get it, whereas Barnett says Steyn misunderstood him. I'm kind of lost -- do these guys read each other's books, or are they just engaging in a pissing contest? "The seeds of our victory lie in the wombs of our mothers" ---Hamas.
So I guess all Steyn's doing is asking us white folk to go horizontal in order to get symmetrical with the threat.
Bring it on, mother-f--ker!
OK, funny. But isn't this just the laughter of the damned?
Barnett says fuck Europe, our way is with China and India. We picked Pakistan as an ally in the WOT because the Taliban were there. Should have made a big strategic deal with India and China instead of with one of their mutual antagonists.
This point of view might find some resonance with Pepe. A way of looking at this could be that Islam is broke and always be broke. We don't need them as allies and as enemies they are a limited nuisance (because they're broke).
What is important is to go for the money shots of technology and industry (China and India) and ignore the natural resources crowd because the techies will sooner or later come up with alternatives to petroleum.
It's an interesting argument I have heard from the rightmost of the Harvard Sq crowd.
I think there's a hole in the argument though. It's this: That China, India, Russia, and the oil producers right now have interests with each other more than with us.
China and India are getting smarter by the minute but for now they need lots of dumb old oil and will sell us down the river whether we make economic ties (more than now, Barnett??) with them or not.
In fact, to make big deals with us they need more cheap Arab oil.
About the democraphic collapse in Europe there's no denying that. I don't think it's an emergency as long as they can keep from being swamped by immigrants. Pepe might think this is KKK of me, but I don't think it's natural for me to want to keep France France and Italy Italy.
They might be able to do that. I see some signs here and there that even the French are getting fed up with the immigrants be they from Poland or Algeria.
If Europe loses power on the international stage, I think that's probably a good thing. Have they given us anything good since, say, 1776, besides tourism, architects (UK and Italy, anyway) and cheese?
JJ: Too many questions in there for me to be able to answer in one shot. You shoulda itemized them, with bullets or somethin', and spread them over several posts. But lety me make a couple of quick, irrelevant comments:
It's an interesting argument I have heard from the rightmost of the Harvard Sq crowd.
Isn't that the empty set? Unless you define "rightmost" in the Harvard context as being someone in between Fidel and Jimmah?
Pepe might think this is KKK of me, but I don't think it's natural for me to want to keep France France and Italy Italy.
Did you confuse yourself here with double negatives in here somewhere, and meant "unnatural", instead?
I think there's a hole in the argument though. It's this: That China, India, Russia, and the oil producers right now have interests with each other more than with us.
Another hole in the argument is that Russia is commiting auto-genocide (in the rather apt Steyn formulation) at a faster rate than even Europe: in addition to not producing babies for the Rodina, the Russkies are drinking vodka at a rate that their livers can't take.
And, by the way, India is not immune to Islam militant: see the recent bombings in Mumbai. Do you think they can just put their heads in the sand, a la Pepe (and the Dems), and say everything is hunky-dory, as long as the Taj Majal is left alone?
You bring up important points, AI. The AQ types haven't missed an opportunity to make a mistake since 9/11. If they get India and China against them too, actively I mean, then Barnett's dichotomy falls apart.
I am sure that these ideas have crossed the minds of our guys in the military since, Barnett IS part of our military's thinking.
Still, it is an interesting counter to Steyn for one willing to sacrifice Europe to itself.
5 comments:
The demographic reality is that Europe is running out of Europeans -- the deathbed fertility rates of the French, Italians, Germans, Spaniards, etc. is a continent-wide suicide bomb, a kind of auto-genocide in which one population is gradually yielding to a successor population unlikely to share American foreign policy goals in any parts of the world
JJ, you can't possibly disagree with Steyn on this, can you? Seems axiomatic to me. What I don't understand, though, is that Steyn says Barnett doesn't get it, whereas Barnett says Steyn misunderstood him. I'm kind of lost -- do these guys read each other's books, or are they just engaging in a pissing contest?
"The seeds of our victory lie in the wombs of our mothers" ---Hamas.
So I guess all Steyn's doing is asking us white folk to go horizontal in order to get symmetrical with the threat.
Bring it on, mother-f--ker!
OK, funny. But isn't this just the laughter of the damned?
Barnett says fuck Europe, our way is with China and India. We picked Pakistan as an ally in the WOT because the Taliban were there. Should have made a big strategic deal with India and China instead of with one of their mutual antagonists.
This point of view might find some resonance with Pepe. A way of looking at this could be that Islam is broke and always be broke. We don't need them as allies and as enemies they are a limited nuisance (because they're broke).
What is important is to go for the money shots of technology and industry (China and India) and ignore the natural resources crowd because the techies will sooner or later come up with alternatives to petroleum.
It's an interesting argument I have heard from the rightmost of the Harvard Sq crowd.
I think there's a hole in the argument though. It's this: That China, India, Russia, and the oil producers right now have interests with each other more than with us.
China and India are getting smarter by the minute but for now they need lots of dumb old oil and will sell us down the river whether we make economic ties (more than now, Barnett??) with them or not.
In fact, to make big deals with us they need more cheap Arab oil.
About the democraphic collapse in Europe there's no denying that. I don't think it's an emergency as long as they can keep from being swamped by immigrants. Pepe might think this is KKK of me, but I don't think it's natural for me to want to keep France France and Italy Italy.
They might be able to do that. I see some signs here and there that even the French are getting fed up with the immigrants be they from Poland or Algeria.
If Europe loses power on the international stage, I think that's probably a good thing. Have they given us anything good since, say, 1776, besides tourism, architects (UK and Italy, anyway) and cheese?
JJ: Too many questions in there for me to be able to answer in one shot. You shoulda itemized them, with bullets or somethin', and spread them over several posts. But lety me make a couple of quick, irrelevant comments:
It's an interesting argument I have heard from the rightmost of the Harvard Sq crowd.
Isn't that the empty set? Unless you define "rightmost" in the Harvard context as being someone in between Fidel and Jimmah?
Pepe might think this is KKK of me, but I don't think it's natural for me to want to keep France France and Italy Italy.
Did you confuse yourself here with double negatives in here somewhere, and meant "unnatural", instead?
I think there's a hole in the argument though. It's this: That China, India, Russia, and the oil producers right now have interests with each other more than with us.
Another hole in the argument is that Russia is commiting auto-genocide (in the rather apt Steyn formulation) at a faster rate than even Europe: in addition to not producing babies for the Rodina, the Russkies are drinking vodka at a rate that their livers can't take.
And, by the way, India is not immune to Islam militant: see the recent bombings in Mumbai. Do you think they can just put their heads in the sand, a la Pepe (and the Dems), and say everything is hunky-dory, as long as the Taj Majal is left alone?
You bring up important points, AI. The AQ types haven't missed an opportunity to make a mistake since 9/11. If they get India and China against them too, actively I mean, then Barnett's dichotomy falls apart.
I am sure that these ideas have crossed the minds of our guys in the military since, Barnett IS part of our military's thinking.
Still, it is an interesting counter to Steyn for one willing to sacrifice Europe to itself.
Post a Comment