Reasonable Europeans Should Read This Objectively...It Makes Sense

[MarkDel]

 Bicultural Europe is doomed
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 15/11/2005)

Three years ago -December 2002 - I was asked to take part in a symposium on Europe and began with the observation: "I find it easier to be optimistic about the futures of Iraq and Pakistan than, say, Holland or Denmark."

At the time, this was taken as confirmation of my descent into insanity. I can't see why. Compare, for example, the Iraqi and the European constitutions: which would you say reflected a shrewder grasp of the realities on the ground?

Or take last week's attacks in Jordan by a quartet of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's finest suicide bombers. The day after the carnage, Jordanians took to the streets in their thousands to shout "Death to Zarqawi!" and "Burn in hell, Zarqawi!" King Abdullah denounced terrorism as "sick" and called for a "global fight" against it. "These people are insane," he said of the husband-and-wife couple dispatched to blow up a wedding reception.

For purposes of comparison, consider the Madrid bombing from March last year. The day after that, Spaniards also took to the streets, for their feebly tasteful vigil. Instead of righteous anger, they were "united in sorrow" - i.e. enervated in passivity. Instead of wishing death on the perpetrators, the preferred slogan was "Basta!" - "Enough!" - which was directed less at the killers than at Aznar and Bush. Instead of a leader who calls for a "global fight", they elected a government pledged to withdraw from any meaningful role in the global fight.

My point in that symposium was a simple one: whatever their problems, most Islamic countries have the advantage of beginning any evolution into free states from the starting point of relative societal cohesion. By contrast, most European nations face the trickier task of trying to hold on to their freedom at a time of increasing societal incoherence.

True, America and Australia grew the institutions of their democracy with relatively homogeneous populations, and then evolved into successful "multicultural" societies. But that's not what's happening in Europe right now. If you want to know what a multicultural society looks like, read the names of America's dead on September 11: Arestegui, Bolourchi, Carstanjen, Droz, Elseth, Foti, Gronlund, Hannafin, Iskyan, Kuge, Laychak, Mojica, Nguyen, Ong, Pappalardo, Quigley, Retic, Shuyin, Tarrou, Vamsikrishna, Warchola, Yuguang, Zarba. Black, white, Hispanic, Arab, Indian, Chinese - in a word, American.

Whether or not one believes in "celebrating diversity", that's a lot of diversity to celebrate. But the Continent isn't multicultural so much as bicultural. There are ageing native populations, and young Muslim populations, and that's it: "two solitudes", as they say in my beloved Quebec. If there's three, four or more cultures, you can all hold hands and sing We are the World. But if there's just two - you and the other - that's generally more fractious. Bicultural societies are among the least stable in the world, especially once it's no longer quite clear who is the majority and who is the minority - a situation that much of Europe is fast approaching, as you can see by visiting any French, Austrian, Belgian or Dutch maternity ward.

Take Fiji - not a comparison France would be flattered by, though until 1987 the Fijians enjoyed a century of peaceful stable constitutional evolution the French were never able to muster. At any rate, Fiji comprises native Fijians and ethnic Indians brought in as indentured workers by the British. If memory serves, 46.2 per cent are Fijians and 48.6 per cent are Indo-Fijians; 50-50, give or take, with no intermarrying. In 1987, the first Indian-majority government came to power. A month later, Col Sitiveni Rabuka staged the first of his two coups, resulting in the Queen's removal as head of state and Fiji being expelled from the Commonwealth.

Is it that difficult to sketch a similar situation for France? Even in relatively peaceful bicultural societies, politics becomes tribal: loyalists vs nationalists in Northern Ireland, separatists vs federalists in Quebec. Picture a French election circa 2020, 2025: the Islamic Republican Coalition wins the most seats in the National Assembly. The Chiraquiste crowd give a fatalistic shrug and Mr de Villepin starts including crowd-pleasing suras from the Koran at his poetry recitals. But would Mr Le Pen or (by then) his daughter take it so well? Or would the temptation to be France's Col Rabuka prove too much?

And the Fijian scenario - a succession of bloodless coups - is the optimistic one. After all, the differences between Fijian natives and Indians are as nothing compared with those between the French and les beurs. I love the way those naysayers predicting doom and gloom in Baghdad scoff that Iraq's a totally artificial entity and that, without some Saddamite strongman, Kurds, Sunnis and Shias can't co-exist in the same state. Oh, really? If Iraq's an entirely artificial entity, what do you call a state split between gay drugged-up red-light whatever's-your-bag Dutchmen and anti-gay anti-whoring anti-everything-you-dig Muslims? If Kurdistan doesn't belong in Iraq, does Pornostan belong in the Islamic Republic of Holland?

In a democratic age, you can't buck demography - except through civil war. The Yugoslavs figured that out. In the 30 years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 per cent to 31 per cent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 per cent to 44 per cent.

So Europe's present biculturalism makes disaster a certainty. One way to avoid it would be to go genuinely multicultural, to broaden the Continent's sources of immigration beyond the Muslim world. But a talented ambitious Chinese or Indian or Chilean has zero reason to emigrate to France, unless he is consumed by a perverse fantasy of living in a segregated society that artificially constrains his economic opportunities yet imposes confiscatory taxation on him in order to support an ancien regime of indolent geriatrics.

France faces tough choices and, unlike Baghdad, in Paris you can't even talk about them honestly. As Jean-Claude Dassier, director-general of the French news station LCI, told a broadcasters' conference in Amsterdam, he has been playing down the riots on the following grounds: "Politics in France is heading to the Right and I don't want Right-wing politicians back in second or even first place because we showed burning cars on television."

Oh, well. You can understand why the Quai d'Orsay is relaxed about Iran becoming the second Muslim nuclear power. As things stand, France is on course to be the third. You heard it here first. You probably won't hear it on Mr Dassier's station at all.

[Nation]

An intriguing article --- definitely brings up some very good points (as well as some basic sociological ones about biculturalism). I'd like to hear some of the Europeans (particularly the couple French users we have on here) opinions on it, though.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Mark,

A common misconception is look at a hundful of european countries and then extrapolate for the rest of europe.

While much of western europe is in decline (economically, socially, militarily, politically and morally) much of eastern europe is in varying stages of recovery from communism.

[MarkDel]

Mark,

A common misconception is look at a hundful of european countries and then extrapolate for the rest of europe.

While much of western europe is in decline (economically, socially, militarily, politically and morally) much of eastern europe is in varying stages of recovery from communism.

Carl,

No, no, I totally agree with you about Eastern Europe. To be accurate, I should have said Western Europe, or what we right wingers derisively refer to as Old Europe.

[The Duke]

The recent events in France certainly substantiate the notion that the west's greatest enemy is from within, not without.  "Tolerance" (Why do we bestow such noble terms to those who are tolerant of murderers?) has coddled radical Islam in France and Spain, but there often seems less tolerance for radical Islam in the Islamic world!

[afleitch]

The recent events in France certainly substantiate the notion that the west's greatest enemy is from within, not without.  "Tolerance" (Why do we bestow such noble terms to those who are tolerant of murderers?) has coddled radical Islam in France and Spain, but there often seems less tolerance for radical Islam in the Islamic world!

A agree with you there. Britain seems to offer refuge to the terrorists Syria don't even want!

[Sibboleth]

I'll give it a try...

By Mark Steyn

Oh dear. Now that's a bad sign. I don't usually bother reading past this line in anything he write, but what the hell. Just don't expect any of this to be even slightly polite...

Three years ago -December 2002 - I was asked to take part in a symposium on Europe and began with the observation: "I find it easier to be optimistic about the futures of Iraq and Pakistan than, say, Holland or Denmark."

Uh huh

At the time, this was taken as confirmation of my descent into insanity.

Well that had been confirmed a while ago actually

Or take last week's attacks in Jordan by a quartet of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's finest suicide bombers. The day after the carnage, Jordanians took to the streets in their thousands to shout "Death to Zarqawi!" and "Burn in hell, Zarqawi!" King Abdullah denounced terrorism as "sick" and called for a "global fight" against it. "These people are insane," he said of the husband-and-wife couple dispatched to blow up a wedding reception.

Uh huh

For purposes of comparison, consider the Madrid bombing from March last year. The day after that, Spaniards also took to the streets, for their feebly tasteful vigil. Instead of righteous anger, they were "united in sorrow" - i.e. enervated in passivity. Instead of wishing death on the perpetrators, the preferred slogan was "Basta!" - "Enough!" - which was directed less at the killers than at Aznar and Bush. Instead of a leader who calls for a "global fight", they elected a government pledged to withdraw from any meaningful role in the global fight.

Not even close to being an accurate summary of what happen; the first thing the PP government did was to claim, repeatedly, that ETA did the bombings. Why? Because it fitted in with their electoral strategy. Now, can you all understand why people might have been perhaps a little bit pissed off about that?
Imagine what would have happend if just before the 1996 election a bomb had gone off in (let's say) D.C and killed a lot of people. Clinto then blames it on some terrorist group that the U.S government had made fighting against a top priority, even though he was well aware that it was some other group. Let's imagine that it becomes clear that he had lied for his electoral advantage a day or so before people go to the polls.

My point in that symposium was a simple one: whatever their problems, most Islamic countries have the advantage of beginning any evolution into free states from the starting point of relative societal cohesion. By contrast, most European nations face the trickier task of trying to hold on to their freedom at a time of increasing societal incoherence.

Uh huh

True, America and Australia grew the institutions of their democracy with relatively homogeneous populations, and then evolved into successful "multicultural" societies. But that's not what's happening in Europe right now. If you want to know what a multicultural society looks like, read the names of America's dead on September 11: Arestegui, Bolourchi, Carstanjen, Droz, Elseth, Foti, Gronlund, Hannafin, Iskyan, Kuge, Laychak, Mojica, Nguyen, Ong, Pappalardo, Quigley, Retic, Shuyin, Tarrou, Vamsikrishna, Warchola, Yuguang, Zarba. Black, white, Hispanic, Arab, Indian, Chinese - in a word, American.

If I could be bothered I would read the names of some of the people who were killed on 7/7. For such a small list (compared to 9/11) it's very diverse.

But the Continent isn't multicultural so much as bicultural. There are ageing native populations, and young Muslim populations, and that's it: "two solitudes", as they say in my beloved Quebec. If there's three, four or more cultures, you can all hold hands and sing We are the World. But if there's just two - you and the other - that's generally more fractious.

Uh huh

Bicultural societies are among the least stable in the world, especially once it's no longer quite clear who is the majority and who is the minority - a situation that much of Europe is fast approaching, as you can see by visiting any French, Austrian, Belgian or Dutch maternity ward.

O.K, now he falls off the deep end. No European country is going to be minority "white" for the forseeable future.

Take Fiji - not a comparison France would be flattered by, though until 1987 the Fijians enjoyed a century of peaceful stable constitutional evolution the French were never able to muster. At any rate, Fiji comprises native Fijians and ethnic Indians brought in as indentured workers by the British. If memory serves, 46.2 per cent are Fijians and 48.6 per cent are Indo-Fijians; 50-50, give or take, with no intermarrying. In 1987, the first Indian-majority government came to power. A month later, Col Sitiveni Rabuka staged the first of his two coups, resulting in the Queen's removal as head of state and Fiji being expelled from the Commonwealth.

The problem with Fiji is due to the appalling racism of the native Fijians and the blatenly segregationist policies instituted by various governments there; it even applies to electoral districts! You have one set of districts that only Fijians can vote in, one set of districts that only Indians can vote in and so on.

Is it that difficult to sketch a similar situation for France?

However bad the situation is in France; yes

Even in relatively peaceful bicultural societies, politics becomes tribal:

Politics become tribal everywhere. It's a human thing, you wouldn't understand.

loyalists vs nationalists in Northern Ireland, separatists vs federalists in Quebec.

Northern Ireland is peaceful? Well now it is more-or-less, but until very recently?
Er... no... not really...

Picture a French election circa 2020, 2025: the Islamic Republican Coalition wins the most seats in the National Assembly.

Uh huh. Now, what % of the French population is Muslim? Well it's hard to tell because France doesn't keep statistics on this sort of thing so everything is a guess (which enables people like Steyn to make absurd statements like this) but most estimates for ethnic minorities (including but not limited to Muslims) put it at something like 14% or so.

The Chiraquiste crowd give a fatalistic shrug and Mr de Villepin starts including crowd-pleasing suras from the Koran at his poetry recitals. But would Mr Le Pen or (by then) his daughter take it so well? Or would the temptation to be France's Col Rabuka prove too much?

Y'know, I think that Steyn needs to get it into his thick skull that getting drunk before writing articles isn't a great idea...

And the Fijian scenario - a succession of bloodless coups - is the optimistic one. After all, the differences between Fijian natives and Indians are as nothing compared with those between the French and les beurs. I love the way those naysayers predicting doom and gloom in Baghdad scoff that Iraq's a totally artificial entity and that, without some Saddamite strongman, Kurds, Sunnis and Shias can't co-exist in the same state. Oh, really? If Iraq's an entirely artificial entity, what do you call a state split between gay drugged-up red-light whatever's-your-bag Dutchmen and anti-gay anti-whoring anti-everything-you-dig Muslims? If Kurdistan doesn't belong in Iraq, does Pornostan belong in the Islamic Republic of Holland?

Add "on meths" to my statement above

In a democratic age, you can't buck demography -

Well you're predictions are certainly doing that Steyn...

except through civil war.

Ooookkkaaaayyyyy...

The Yugoslavs figured that out. In the 30 years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 per cent to 31 per cent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 per cent to 44 per cent.

I don't know what point Steyn is trying to make here and frankly I really, really don't want to know...

So Europe's present biculturalism makes disaster a certainty. One way to avoid it would be to go genuinely multicultural, to broaden the Continent's sources of immigration beyond the Muslim world. But a talented ambitious Chinese or Indian or Chilean has zero reason to emigrate to France, unless he is consumed by a perverse fantasy of living in a segregated society that artificially constrains his economic opportunities yet imposes confiscatory taxation on him in order to support an ancien regime of indolent geriatrics.

Beneath his usally insanity he does actually have a half a point here

France faces tough choices and, unlike Baghdad, in Paris you can't even talk about them honestly.

Well, Steyn, you aren't talking about them honestly either so that makes it a draw, right?

As Jean-Claude Dassier, director-general of the French news station LCI, told a broadcasters' conference in Amsterdam, he has been playing down the riots on the following grounds: "Politics in France is heading to the Right and I don't want Right-wing politicians back in second or even first place because we showed burning cars on television."

What exactly is so unreasonable about not wanting a bunch of vicious Vichy apologists to win elections because of these riots?

Oh, well. You can understand why the Quai d'Orsay is relaxed about Iran becoming the second Muslim nuclear power. As things stand, France is on course to be the third. You heard it here first. You probably won't hear it on Mr Dassier's station at all.

The above passage reminds me of why I don't drink anymore

[Sibboleth]

Ahem.

A couple of points; first off while most countries have race problems and some countries have very, very serious race problems, it's important not to get carried away or get alarmist. That the French "social model" has failed is very clear. That France has a huge task trying to come to terms not just with what has happend over the past few weeks but the past few decades is also clear.
But why tie all of that into yet another quasi-racist ugly rant about "demographics"? The argument that "Europe" will be majority Muslim within a few years is so absurd and so easily disproven that I sometimes wonder why people keep bringing it up; as soon as you mention it in an argument, you've as good as lost. Discussing the problems of race and integration isn't something that should be avoided, but this sort of vicious demagoguery certainly should be.

I should also add that in the Spanish election, all sides acted pretty disgracefully over the bombings.

[Old Europe]

The Yugoslavs figured that out. In the 30 years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 per cent to 31 per cent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 per cent to 44 per cent.

I don't know what point Steyn is trying to make here and frankly I really, really don't want to know...

That it is the Muslims' own fault that a genocide was committed against them... probably like the Jews' responsibility for the Holocaust? *rolls eyes*

[MarkDel]

Pretty much what I expected from the poster Old Europe...

Al, I give you a lot of credit for breaking down each statement point by point, but quite frankly I expected a more objective analysis from a person of your intellect. It seems that when a European criticizes Europe you have no problem with it, but if an American or someone else does so, you immediately put up the defensive forcefield. No, Europe will not be predominantly Muslim in the next few years, but take a look at birth rates among native Europeans and immigrant Muslims and then project those numbers to drop (non-Muslim) and rise (Muslim) even higher over time. Plus, there is the beginnings of an unholy alliance between the Far Left and Islamics in Europe, which will increase their numbers and influence. Also, the Far Right will gain strength and credibility as average citizens see the predictions of the Far Right starting to come true on certain levels. It is a very dangerous short term problem and a potentially catastrophic long term problem.

[Old Europe]

Pretty much what I expected from the poster Old Europe...

So, what is that supposed to mean? An polemic article derves an polemic answer. If you want an "objective" or a "reasonable" discussion about the topic, I urge you to post an objective or reasonable article.

I see some parallels between Steyn's argumentation and those of Holcaust deniers/apologizers. Let me say first that unlike the situation in World War II, the Muslim factions in the Bosnian civil war of course beared their part of the responsibility too. Nevertheless, the concentration camps operated by the Serbs reminded of particular events which took place 50 years earlier in Europe, only to a smaller extent. What Steyn is doing now is to blame the guilt for the collapse of Yugoslavia and the subsequent civil war and genocide totally on the Bosnian Muslims, although the Serbs share equal, or maybe even primary responsibility. The victims are turned into perpetrators. I don't know how you would call this, but I call it revisionist history.

Plus, there is the beginnings of an unholy alliance between the Far Left and Islamics in Europe, which will increase their numbers and influence.

Not to forget the alliances between the Far Right and Islamists... see the NPD in Germany.

[Vasall des Midas]

Three years ago -December 2002 - I was asked to take part in a symposium on Europe and began with the observation: "I find it easier to be optimistic about the futures of Iraq and Pakistan than, say, Holland or Denmark."

At the time, this was taken as confirmation of my descent into insanity.

Well, either that or just a very warped - but not necessarily entirely pointless - definition of the things to be optimistic about.

I can't see why. Compare, for example, the Iraqi and the European constitutions: which would you say reflected a shrewder grasp of the realities on the ground?

Neither was good on that count.

For purposes of comparison, consider the Madrid bombing from March last year. The day after that, Spaniards also took to the streets, for their feebly tasteful vigil. Instead of righteous anger, they were "united in sorrow" - i.e. enervated in passivity. Instead of wishing death on the perpetrators, the preferred slogan was "Basta!" - "Enough!" - which was directed less at the killers than at Aznar and Bush.

Not really... Aznar undid himself by saying not a word of truth about the attack ... and being found out.

Instead of a leader who calls for a "global fight", they elected a government pledged to withdraw from any meaningful role in the global fight.

So Saddam Hussein was an Islamist terrorist?
Case settled.
He is insane.

Here I wanted to stop reading, but then I did read the next paragraph after all...

My point in that symposium was a simple one: whatever their problems, most Islamic countries have the advantage of beginning any evolution into free states from the starting point of relative societal cohesion.

Societal cohesion? In Iraq? Afghanistan? LOL fucking LOL. Get a grip on reality. Maybe touch the wall next to you and assure you it's still there.

[Sibboleth]

Al, I give you a lot of credit for breaking down each statement point by point, but quite frankly I expected a more objective analysis from a person of your intellect.

Let's just say the words "by Mark Steyn" set alarm bells ringing

It seems that when a European criticizes Europe you have no problem with it, but if an American or someone else does so, you immediately put up the defensive forcefield.

Non; I'd have said the same sort of things if certain columnists based over here had written it or something similer to it (and I have actually, just not on here).
My problem with the article (and just about anything that that sort of columnist, left or right, writes) is the tendency to obscure any valid points they have under mountains of rubbish and insults (if someone were to post an article by someone like Robert Fisk I'd say some very similer things...).
I'm told that this sort of columnist are often very nice people in real life.

No, Europe will not be predominantly Muslim in the next few years, but take a look at birth rates among native Europeans and immigrant Muslims and then project those numbers to drop (non-Muslim) and rise (Muslim) even higher over time.

I can only speak about the U.K here (I think it's similer everywhere else in western Europe, although the birthrates tend to be lower IIRC) but what tends to happen with immigrant communities is an initial large rise in the population (both from having similer birth rates to back home and much lower deat rates to back home) which gradually declines as the new immigrants become just another minority group and change their lifestyles to adapt to the new environment. This was the case with the West Indian immigrants in the '40's and '50's and is becoming the case with most of the Asian immigrants (note that the big waves of immigration happend quite a few years ago here).
Oh also note that very few old people immigrated; something that has a big impact on age structures.

Plus, there is the beginnings of an unholy alliance between the Far Left and Islamics in Europe, which will increase their numbers and influence.

That's certainly true, but you do have to remember that only a minority of Muslims can be considered to be Islamists; as an example Bradford North has a large Muslim population (mostly Kashmiri) but in the last election the "Respect" candidate polled just 474 votes (1.4%).

Also, the Far Right will gain strength and credibility as average citizens see the predictions of the Far Right starting to come true on certain levels. It is a very dangerous short term problem and a potentially catastrophic long term problem.

What you have to remember about the far right is quite how diverse it is; a blatently Neo-Nazi party like the BNP or the NPD is never going to do as well as a bunch of Vichy apologists for example. And what they feed on depends on where they are as well (something that also effects how long they can remain a force in a certain area; the BNP polled in double digits in the two Oldham seats in 2001 (race riots over a lack of integration were going on at the time) but collapsed there this year) it isn't *just* fears of some wave of Muslims turning up out of nowhere. Other things are at work.

[opebo]

Oh please, the US has been bi-cultural throughout its history, with a dominant White culture and a totally subjugated black culture.  These oppressed have been segregated into ghettos, and periodically 'riot', burning up things like cars or chop-suey stands.  Now Europe also has its own 10% of oppressed darker skinned people, and you're saying they're doomed.  Well, beating up on the negro for 200+ years doesn't seem to have done the good old US of A any harm.  Perhaps it has been good exersize - a sort of warm-up - for foreign imperialism?

[Michael Z]

Pretty much what I expected from the poster Old Europe...

Al, I give you a lot of credit for breaking down each statement point by point, but quite frankly I expected a more objective analysis from a person of your intellect. It seems that when a European criticizes Europe you have no problem with it, but if an American or someone else does so, you immediately put up the defensive forcefield.

Perhaps, but equally the same could be said for the reaction towards Europeans who criticise America. I think the majority of people will automatically become defensive when somebody from another part of the world criticises the culture they directly experience on an everyday basis, and I don't think anybody likes to be lectured from abroad (especially if the person making the argument only seems to have a disproportional understanding of the situation). I see very little difference between European anti-Americanism and the sort of anti-Europeanism people like Mark Steyn exhibit. Jingoism is jingoism, no matter which flag you drape it in.

[MarkDel]

Al and Michael Z,

I think you both know that I have a great deal of respect for both of you, and I certainly understand what you're both saying, however, I really think you are making a major mistake by dismissing what Steyn is saying here. You may not like the messenger, but the message is what's important.

As for Michael's main point, I would tend to agree, many or even most Americans would react more negatively to foreign criticism than they would to domestic criticism. I myself am guilty of doing this from time to time, though it's a fairly recent development for me over the past 10 years or so. And the reason I now over-react to European criticism is that my entire view of the continent changed dramatically after my extended visit there. Prior to that, I felt a great love and respect for Europe, but became quite disillusioned by the covert and sometimes overt hatred of Americans I encountered...even in England which was truly shocking. And before any of you come on here and tell me "We don't hate Americans, we just hate Bush and his policies..." well this trip took place when Clinton was President, long before Bush even was running for President the first time. That visit to Europe was a real eye opener for me and made me realize that the Western Europe was in crisis on some intricate societal, and perhaps even spiritual levels, and the long term future was not a bright picture unless they came to grips with their unexplained anger and sense of intellectual/moral superiority.

Now, despite my problems with Europe, as I have explained in the past, I am a strong, strong believer in the fact that a US/European alliance is critical to the continued prosperity of both regions. There is too much history and culture which bind the two together, plus Europe will continue to need U.S. protection since they have chosen to essentially eliminate military strength from their diplomatic arsenal, and the U.S. will need Europe on an economic level as new powers like China and India emerge in the 21st Century. We need each other, so I don't care to sit back and watch in bemusement as the uppity French get what they deserve, because what happens today in France will eventually threaten the entire continent...sadly even the U.K. once Tony Blair is gone and the real Labour Party takes power.

[MarkDel]

Old Europe,

I have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Steyn's comments on Bosnian Serbs and/or Muslims. He is merely trying to point the dangers of widely disparate birth rates in a bi-cultural society. It was that simple. Somehow you and your seemingly paranoid mind turned that into an analogy of Holocaust denial...that's an interesting leap...makes no sense at all of course, but very interesting...

[Old Europe]

Somehow you and your seemingly paranoid mind turned that into an analogy of Holocaust denial...that's an interesting leap...makes no sense at all of course, but very interesting...

And I thought discrediting political opponents as mentally ill was primarily an attribute of Stalinism... aside from this that's a pretty insulting and immature comment.

[MarkDel]

Somehow you and your seemingly paranoid mind turned that into an analogy of Holocaust denial...that's an interesting leap...makes no sense at all of course, but very interesting...

And I thought discrediting political opponents as mentally ill was primarily an attribute of Stalinism... aside from this that's a pretty insulting and immature comment.

Oh, that's rich...you imply that Mark Steyn, and thus indirectly my position, is racist, anti-semitic and generally ridiculous, and you have the nerve to get upset when I claim your position (which WAS bizarre) might be indicative of a paranoid mind.

As for your Stalinism comment...no, that's your side of the political aisle, not mine.

[Old Europe]

Somehow you and your seemingly paranoid mind turned that into an analogy of Holocaust denial...that's an interesting leap...makes no sense at all of course, but very interesting...

And I thought discrediting political opponents as mentally ill was primarily an attribute of Stalinism... aside from this that's a pretty insulting and immature comment.

Oh, that's rich...you imply that Mark Steyn, and thus indirectly my position, is racist, anti-semitic and generally ridiculous, and you have the nerve to get upset when I claim your position (which WAS bizarre) might be indicative of a paranoid mind.

As for your Stalinism comment...no, that's your side of the political aisle, not mine.

Where did I say that he's an anti-Semite? Oh, well, in a way he could be one, considering that at least Arabs etc. are Semites too. But this isn't how the word "anti-Semitism" is usually used.

What I did is to point out similarities between his argumentation with that of some Holocaust revisionists. In both cases is the blame for a genocide sometimes layed on the victims of the genocide. Steyn basically said, that the whole/main reason for the outbreak of the civil war in Yugoslavia is the fact that the Muslim population was growing for some time:

In a democratic age, you can't buck demography - except through civil war. The Yugoslavs figured that out. In the 30 years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 per cent to 31 per cent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 per cent to 44 per cent.

And now to the charge that I was "indirectly implying" that you're a racist. Again, show me where I said this. And why the double standard anyway? Al said in his first post:

At the time, this was taken as confirmation of my descent into insanity.

Well that had been confirmed a while ago actually

Using your argumentation now, Al was "implying" here that Steyn, and thus "indirectly" you too, is insane. Double standard.

[MarkDel]

Old Europe,

You're right, I did implement a double standard. I cut Al slack...because I LIKE him and generally respect his views.

[Old Europe]

Old Europe,

You're right, I did implement a double standard. I cut Al slack...because I LIKE him and generally respect his views.

Ah, I see, under normal circumstances you would have treated him like dirt too. Now, I feel better.

If you're generally treating criticism against controversial statements made in articles/editorials you post here as personal insults against yourself I can't help you. What did you expect? That everyone is shouting "Oh, this article is soooo right, I'll make Mark Steyn my personal guru now"? What's the point of a internet forum then anyway?

An additional remark about your statement that my position is "bizarre"... well, we can agree to disagree, but that's no reason at all to start rants about me being a "paranoid mind". You will have a hard time to find any "reasonable Europeans", when you call everyone you "don't like" paranoid.

[Sibboleth]

Could you two calm it down a little, please?

[Old Europe]

Could you two calm it down a little, please?

To get called a "paranoid mind" isn't exactly a good condition to stay calm.

[Vasall des Midas]

Could you two calm it down a little, please?

To get called a "paranoid mind" isn't exactly a good condition to stay calm.

Now you're being paranoid.