The war supporters have retreated about as far as they can go. They’ve brought out their last argument to salvage their reputation for sagacity.
“I supported the invasion of Iraq, and the rest of the terror war, because I think the alternative would have been something much, much worse down the line, resulting in far more deaths for all concerned. And fearing something worse is the opposite of advocating it.”
– Glenn Reynolds (2/19/2007)
Reynolds said this in the context of defending the Serbs’ actions against the Bosnian-Muslims. Other Europeans who are not culling the herd of Muslims within their ranks are “are ineffectually waffling in full Weimar mode.” We are seeing a concerted effort at a Final Solution to the Euro-Muslim Problem. Here is how Mark Steyn put it in his book America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It:
Why did Bosnia collapse into the worst slaughter in Europe since World War Two? In the thirty years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 percent to 31 percent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 percent to 44 percent. In a democratic age, you can’t buck demography — except through civil war. The Serbs figured that out — as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you can’t outbreed the enemy, cull ’em. The problem that Europe faces is that Bosnia’s demographic profile is now the model for the entire continent.
Now, once criticized, Steyn falls back on this:
My book isn’t about what I want to happen but what I think will happen. Given Fascism, Communism and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, it’s not hard to foresee that the neo-nationalist resurgence already under way in parts of Europe will at some point take a violent form. That’s pretty much a given.
It is pretty much a given that Europe will revert to the 1930’s and carry out a Serbian inspired genocide on their internal Muslim population; that is essentially what Mark Steyn is arguing.
I have to admit that I am concerned about a resurgence of neo-nationalism in Europe. I believe we are seeing an uniquely American version of it as we speak. And I’ve read and talked enough to my brother to understand the demographic changes that are going on Europe. White europeans have stopped reproducing at replacement levels and Europe will see a sharp drop in population throughout the 21st-century. This drop in population will be mitigated by immigration and the higher fecundity of immigrants. But the racial character of Europe will not survive. The question is not whether Europe will remain white, but whether it will retain its unique secular culture and political systems. And should they (and we) do a preemptive strike to perserve their system of government?
Mark Steyn seems to think a lot of things are a given. But what he is really doing is bastardizing my brother’s work to justify the war on terror. I don’t agree with many of my brother’s political views, but I don’t like to see his research turned to genocidal purposes. Here is the essence of my brother’s argument:
What’s the difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City? There are many differences, of course, but here’s one you might not know. In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs.
This curious fact might at first seem trivial, but it reflects a much broader and little-noticed demographic trend that has deep implications for the future of global culture and politics. It’s not that people in a progressive city such as Seattle are so much fonder of dogs than are people in a conservative city such as Salt Lake City. It’s that progressives are so much less likely to have children.
It’s a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future — one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default…
…Tomorrow’s children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents’ values, as often happens. But when they look for fellow secularists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born.
Many will celebrate these developments. Others will view them as the death of the Enlightenment. Either way, they will find themselves living through another great cycle of history.
Nowhere does he advocate culling Muslims. He makes his own mistakes. In my opinion, advocating a return to patriachy is akin to burning a village in order to save it. In that way, my brother’s analysis suffers from a similar flaw to Steyn’s. But my brother advocates that progressives have more children, not that they get on with the killing of social conservatives.
And that is what Reynolds and Steyn ultimately want. They want to our social conservatives to kill their social conservatives, all in the name of perserving the liberal state.
