My review of those two new books about Europe gets a bad review from Mark Steyn.
Much as I enjoy Steyn's work - no one is quite as good at skewering dumb anti-Americanisms - I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. There were lots of things I liked about Bruce Bawer's polemic - I said so in the piece - but I don't accept that the continent is in a "death-spiral", to borrow a phrase from the cover blurb. And while I'm as worried as anyone about Muslim extremists, I don't believe the continent is "practically within their grasp". The same goes for Claire Berlinski's wilder claims.
Steyn doesn't mince his words about the old continent's chances:
The only question about Europe is whether it's going to be (a) catastrophically bad or (b) apocalyptically bad, as in head for the hills, here come the Four Horsemen: Death (the self-extinction of European races too self-absorbed to breed), Famine (the withering of unaffordable social programs), War (civil strife as the disaffected decide to move beyond mere Citroën-torching), and Conquest (the inevitable victory of the Muslim successor population already in place). I'd say option (b) looks the better bet, for a few if not all Continental nations: united they'll fall, but divided, a handful might stand a chance.
A lot of US commentators seem to take the same view. All I'll say is that after the "post-war" mayhem in Iraq we should all approach the crystal ball business with a little more humility. [Hat-tip: David S & Stewart M]
It's a good thing Front Page is never relevant to anything and modern art sucks. Clive, if you are traveling by plane on your week off and a black dude sits next to you, watch out for snakes. He might release snakes on a plane.
Posted by: Mike | Monday, April 10, 2006 at 06:46 AM
Why is post war in quotes? No one I am aware of is maintaining we are in post war status.
Using what you consider mayhem in Iraq to knock down unrelated arguments about the status of Europe isn't even logical.
Petty, yes. But not logical.
If you disagree with Steyn, whose work you acknowledge you enjoy, disagree with him on the merits of the arguments he made.
C'mon. You're better than this.
Mike, however is not.
Posted by: Pamela | Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 06:31 PM
I stand by my comment. Modern art sucks and Berlinski is an idiot. She is just repeating the same sort of nonsense you might find in Der Spigel or Le Monde back at them. Europe isn't dead and if she used the example of the French riots as an arguement it's retarded.
French car riot=intifada
Similar riot in the U.S.= logical result of the Pistons winning the NBA championship
Who doesn't consider what has happened in Iraq since 2003 mayhem to some degree?
Posted by: Mike | Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 10:13 PM
Mike
and if she used the example of the French riots as an argument it's retarded.
IF? IF?
Have you read anything she has written?
Posted by: Pamela | Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 11:05 PM
"Berlinksi: In brief: Europeans are lazy, unwilling to fight for anything and willing to surrender to anyone; they are fascinated by decadence; they favor the bureaucracy over the corporation; they are unable to assimilate their immigrants; they no longer have children; they no longer produce much of cultural or scientific significance; they have lost their religious vocation and they no longer hold their lives to be meaningful."
That's enough for me to ignore her. It's almost enough for me to add her to the list.
1. Michael Moore
2. Noam
3. O'Rielly
4. Limbaugh
5. Coulter
6. Frankin
7. Kos
8. Most of my prof's
9. Zinn
10. Mclellan
11. Raed
12. Boss tweed
13. the guy who wrote the book attacking Cosby
14. Jesse Jackson
15. People from Newsweek, not counting Fareed
16. Sharon
17. Arafat
18. Arab/muslims in general
etc...
P.S.: Snakes on a plane.
Posted by: Mike | Thursday, April 13, 2006 at 06:48 AM
Do all, or any, of these strictures apply to the British, or are we honorary non-Europeans when an American is having a go at 'Old Yerrup'?
Posted by: Matt O'Halloran | Saturday, April 15, 2006 at 12:03 PM