The European Dream

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Texans 4 Furors, Another one-liner. How about backing it up with a little something resembling argument? What's to argue?

The point made was one-line posts are discouraged. It's meant to encourage you to amplify your point and make it clearer to others.
In other words, "Europe is the problem..." begs the question, HOW is it the problem. We don't know what you're thinking, so put some Texas beef into your posts from now on.

Of course, we are all guilty of doing this at one time or another, but you're new so just consider this a heads up.

[Sonart]

Originally posted by Castille They're both a threat to world harmony and peace.

Europe isn't the one throwing the mideast into turmoil with an unprovoked war of aggression and, thanks to LBDubya's and Rumsnamara's blinding incompetece, a never ending war and alienating the world in the process.

Unless you're suggesting they're a threat to world harmony and peace simply because they disagree with Dear Leader.

[Lava]

Originally posted by castille, Just because Europeans love each other won't mean they'll love any non-European races.

We dont love each other, I can assure you. Britain and Germany...

Lava

[castille]

Originally posted by Sonart,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sonart,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Castille They're both a threat to world harmony and peace.

Europe isn't the one throwing the mideast into turmoil with an unprovoked war of aggression and, thanks to LBDubya's and Rumsnamara's blinding incompetece, a never ending war and alienating the world in the process.[/b][/quote]
400 years of history never taught you anything?

I don't suggest Europe is going to conquer the world again and exterminate millions of native barbarians, but I've never seen a benevolent superpower.

[Sonart]

I don't suggest Europe is going to conquer the world again and exterminate millions of native barbarians, but I've never seen a benevolent superpower.

I sorta disagree with that, and it has to do with democracy. I like to compare the British empire and the American 'empire' to the Salinist empire and the Third Reich.

This occurred to me when I was thinkiing about Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. and their revolutionary campaigns of civil disobedience. The fact is, neither could have suceeded in a totalitarian environmnet. Under Stalin or Hitler, either would have been summarily executed the moment they opened their mouths.

But although America and the British Empire have had their share of shameful repressions, they are both basically benevolent societies, because in both, the power of the government stems ultimately with the people who have the power to vote leaders out of office should they disagree with those leaders. And the average American or Brit is peaceful, decent and fair, just as I'm sure the average Russian or German citizen was peaceful, decent and fair. They simply had no say in their governments and survived best by going along.

Only in a democratic society, where the average voter's decency makes a difference, is the government constrained by the moral values of the people, instead of the other way around.

[rmnunez]

The European dream is shattered in many ways. Chirac shattered the chance of their easily transitioning into a unified foreign policy when he admonished the Vilnius 10 (or was it 18?).

Now the immigration problem is shattering another dream. In Holland they want the foreigners to at least speak the local language and at a ministerial summit they ruled on integrating immigration policy to so require. A critical leftie elsewhere commented on the Dutch falling like a domino to the American anti-Muslim paranoia as they react to Van Gogh's slaughter on his very Dutch bicycle. Austria and Italy went conservative, in Spain the right is resurgent, despite Zapatero. In Belgium conservatives received more votes than any others and were outlawed for being racist. Immigration is a serious problem all over the EU.

The Muslims are not only not integrating, some are Islamic fundamentalists involved in international terrorism. In France we get frequent reference to synagogues set afire and tombstones turned over, this happens everywhere but in France it seems to get more play. In Italy its Albanians and in Spain the Morrocans. They swarm like locusts and wade ashore in the night, making their way to the former industrial centres and large cities.

Now the EU is realizing its efforts at integration among themselves have eroded their individual efforts at national identity to the point applying some of the EU minister's suggestions (requiring immigrants know some local history and values) might be troublesome. The dream of a united Europe where people freely transited across mere lines on the pavement rather than actual international borders is evaporating.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said: This occurred to me when I was thinkiing about Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. and their revolutionary campaigns of civil disobedience. The fact is, neither could have suceeded in a totalitarian environmnet. Under Stalin or Hitler, either would have been summarily executed the moment they opened their mouths.

I say: A great thinking point, but I must point out that for the first time in history we are seeing publicized "Free Speech Zones" for political conventions. There are literally hundreds of other violations I could rattle off, but won't because I have covered a lot of it in other threads. Seat belt laws, are wrong, but they are literally at the BOTTOM of the priority list for libertarians and any liberty minded citizen. Asset forefeiture, mis-use of mlitary and police personnel, lack of public redress of grievances, tax fraud by the system against the citizens, the growing list of civil rights violations being perpetrated by the courts, the executive branch and all of the past administrations since the early 1900's.

A great topic post in this thread, and an excellent group of talking points. Though I disagree with the authors somewhat inflated favoritism of Europe, he makes many points well.

The citizens of the nation need to understand more of why this is happening though, and it is truly a matter of greed, corruption and no constitutional limitations being enforced by the people.

[Lava]

Originally posted by Sonart, But although America and the British Empire have had their share of shameful repressions, they are both basically benevolent societies, because in both, the power of the government stems ultimately with the people who have the power to vote leaders out of office should they disagree with those leaders. And the average American or Brit is peaceful, decent and fair, just as I'm sure the average Russian or German citizen was peaceful, decent and fair.

A simply wrong argument I'm afraid.

First the how come: Britain behaved much like Hitler did during the Victorian years, in the area of foreign policy. It took over the world, and it certainly didnt do so benevolently. It did so by mass murder. Once in place it proceeded to run other nations in ways that were appalling. It was normal practice on slave plantations to chop off enough hands to fill a basket, and present them as evidence that the slaves were being made to work hard. The people this was done to were mostly picked at random. This is just a glimpse at how Britain worked. In no way was it benevolent. The ethos of the day was 'resources are short, and we want to be rich, so we'll take all yours thanks, and we dont give a monkeys if you all starve to death.'

Is the average person decent and fair? In my business experience I would say no. Some are, but over 50% are out to use you, and give not a brass monkeys about decency or fairness.

And even if people were fair, and even if the government really responded to what the people asked, would that make foreign policy fair and decent? Nope. 99% of the people cant be bothered to get informed about whats going on. 3/4 of them lack critical thinking ability and will swallow all sorts of nonsense: youve only got to look at pre-election promises to see that. The people can be as nice benevolent and fair as they like, it wont make those with power follow their values.


Lava

[G. Adams]

I'll second that. GB would have executed Ghandi by the traditional method we used in india, strap them to the end of a cannon and blow some grapeshot through them. However, GB was in its descendency, and it had other priorities to deal with. Ghandi didn't get rid of the British, Germany did that by starting world war II, thus redirecting our resources to war rather than empire maintenance.

RM, I think your overstating the immigration problem. We already have a problem with a lack of population growth to maintain the economy. Who is going to pay for our pensions if theres less of us working that there are claiming pensions? It will have to be immigrants, unless your going to force couples to get pregnant.

[castille]

Originally posted by Sonart, I sorta disagree with that, and it has to do with democracy. I like to compare the British empire and the American 'empire' to the Salinist empire and the Third Reich.

Is this the same Britain who exterminated an entire race of people? The same America who supports dictators then claims they are actually democracies?

Like I said, I've never seen a benevolent superpower.

[Lava]

Originally posted by G. Adams, RM, I think your overstating the immigration problem. We already have a problem with a lack of population growth to maintain the economy. Who is going to pay for our pensions if theres less of us working that there are claiming pensions? It will have to be immigrants, unless your going to force couples to get pregnant.

We have many options. The first and most obvious one is to stop firing people who want to work, just because theyre in their 60s. Its one of the most moronic policies we have. We will have to support pensioners because we arent letting them work! Duh or what.

Secondly you dont need population growth in order to sustain the economy. I have no idea why we would.

Thirdly we have a grossly inefficient economy with loads of room for improvement. Business after business does nothing but take peoples money while giving them nothing of any serious value. Its the big fashion these days. Then those who have spent so very much so very carelessly over so many deaces of their life whine in their old age about the consequences of their actions!

The solutions? education for a start. Secondly a 2 rate tax system, higher rates for waste of time type busineses, lower rates for more constructive products and services. But the big problem is just cluenessness, lack of understanding of what to do with money and why.

There are numerous things we can do to make this problem go away.


Lava

[G. Adams]

You need continual population growth to a)keep down labour costs b) expand the market for your products and c) have a sufficient labour force to keep up with the expanding world market. I don't agree with the system, I'm a hard lefty afterall, but as long as we keep this system we should at least support it properly. Of course if we did adopt anarcho-communism, or any variant of communism, we wouldn't need an everexpanding population, or for populations to shift in order to follow work. But till then, we need more people.

[Sonart]

Is the average person decent and fair? In my business experience I would say no. Some are, but over 50% are out to use you, and give not a brass monkeys about decency or fairness.

Well, by all means, then, let's give up on the democratic experiment and elect Bush as dictator for life.

Look, I wrote in great big qualifying letters, "America and the British Empire have had their share of shameful repressions." I'm no polyanna who sees democratic societies as faultless... hell, all you have to do is read my diatribes against Bush. I may be devoutly patriotic but I am not blindly patriotic. But taken as a whole, I believe superpowers based on democratic principles are basically benevolent because their power stems from middle class values.

Simply jerking your knees into your foreheads to point out where we've failed doesn't change the overall picture. The British Empire, for all it's failings, was NOT the equivilent of Hitler's Third Reich.... period. And on top of all that is simple historical perspective.... societal values change as they evolve through history. Martin Luther King could probably not have suceeded in 1800 America, either. The U.S. used to condone slavery, but it was the will of the people that forced a change. It repressed blacks, aboriginals, women and others, but these things have changed and evolved from the will of the people. A free society, whose people are free to speak, to disagree, to be educated, and to petition their governments for change are MORE LIKELY to impose their values on their government, versus totalitarian regimes which impose their values from the top down.

As Wintons Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

[G. Adams]

You do remember it was a democratic Germany that gave such wide support to the NSDAP? And it was the middle class that did so. And they by and large supported Hitler right into the war, if not to the end. Granted, they didn't know the extent of his crimes, but they sure wern't blind to everything.

Not that I'm opposing democracy, just highlighting that when people get desperate they tend to look to radical solutions. Shame they didn't look to the Sparticists in 1919, we would have a very different Europe if they did.

[castille]

Originally posted by Sonart, The British Empire, for all it's failings, was NOT the equivilent of Hitler's Third Reich.... period.

Hitler's Third Reich only came close to exterminating a minority "race" in Europe. Britain's Empire came close to exterminating an entire continent of people.

Besides, if you argue historical context, people hated Jews in Europe and most supported discrimination against them, so the British Empire is easily comparable to Hitler's Germany.

You do remember it was a democratic Germany that gave such wide support to the NSDAP? And it was the middle class that did so.

Not just the middle class, but much of the working classes, and even a few of the wealthy industrialists (after Hitler realised you need money to run a campaign). Although the NSDAP's primary appeal was to the middle classes, and later extended to the working classes.

Shame they didn't look to the Sparticists in 1919, we would have a very different Europe if they did.

Funny that you only support radical extremists when you agree with their views. You remind me of Chinese ultra-nationalists who support genocide against Japanese people, while urging for everyone to remember the genocide against Chinese people.

And Germany did look to the left....except the left was too busy pandering to the Soviet Union. I don't think the Germans wanted to be another satelite of the USSR.

[G. Adams]

There was around 3 million German Communists in the interwar years, so I think there was more than a little support for it. And oddly enough, I do support people who share my views, funny that. I don't deny crimes people from my side make, but as no-one of my persuasion has ever formed a government it's a little difficult.

Oh and which continent exactly is it the B.E. was wiping out a whole race of people from? As we never controlled any single continent, I think we'd find it difficult to attempt it. We would not only have to kill the locals but fight the French, Dutch, Belgians and Germans if we're talking Africa, Spain and Portugal if it's the Americas, and trying to clear Asia of its many races would just be dumb. I have never seen evidence of British state plans to eradicate any race, and I think this would be fairly well known had we tried to. As Europe worked as a balance of powers in it's imperial age, any attempt by GB to do something as grand as you suggest would lead to everyone else declaring war on us. That never happened.

[castille]

Originally posted by G. Adams, And oddly enough, I do support people who share my views, funny that. I don't deny crimes people from my side make, but as no-one of my persuasion has ever formed a government it's a little difficult.

Can you stop using the "nobody has formed a real communist government" excuse? Nobody has formed a real capitalist free market government either, but you don't have me complaining.

And there is a difference between supporting those who share your beliefs, and supporting their crimes.

I have never seen evidence of British state plans to eradicate any race, and I think this would be fairly well known had we tried to.

Being British, you are obviously biased in favour of Britain's actions. I have spoken to many British people who argued that British imperialism "civilized" many "barbarian races".

But to compare to Nazi Germany, how many people did Britain enslave? How many did the Nazis enslave? How many countries did Britain rape for their resources, compared with the countries Germany got? How many people were killed by the British Empire, compared with Nazi Germany?

(Keeping in mind Nazi Germany had less time, but a lot more sophiscated mass-killing devices)

[G. Adams]

Nope, certainly won't if the point is relevant. You said "You remind me of Chinese ultra-nationalists who support genocide against Japanese people, while urging for everyone to remember the genocide against Chinese people". So I highlighted that I'm not like your example in that no-one of my persuasion has committed atrocities.

Yep there is a difference between supporting those of a similiar opinion and supporting their crimes. I support those of my opinion, and cease to do so when they commit atrocities. So, once again, I'm not like your chinese ultra-nationalist.

I'm not biased towards Britain, anyone of the Tory's in my political seminars will tell you I'm a bloody leftwinger who hates his country. I do, in many ways. I am ashamed of our empire and what it did, I'm ashamed of the fact we created the first concentration camps in the world, I'm ashamed that people in this country think Churchill was a good man etc

But I still won't have you slinging mud at it because you can't produce facts.

Nazi Germany rounded up and executed 6 million people in less than 12 years. Even accounting for the technology, the UK could not compare to those numbers. We ruled 1/4 of the world population, if we wanted to wipe out 6 million in 12 years I'm sure we could have done it without gas chambers, but we didn't. So don't compare the European Empires to Nazi Germany, they are a long way apart.

[Lava]

QUOTE G. Adams:

> I'm not biased towards Britain, anyone of the Tory's in my political seminars will tell you I'm a bloody leftwinger who hates his country.

Ever visited Africa? Iraq? Russia? We have our problems like everywhere, but we're one of the best off nations on this planet.


> I do, in many ways. I am ashamed of our empire and what it did, I'm ashamed of the fact we created the first concentration camps in the world,

We didnt, other british people did, generations now long gone. We have little to do with them, some of us are biologically related, thats about all. We have nothing to be ashamed of, we are not our great grandparents.


> I'm ashamed that people in this country think Churchill was a good man etc

why was he not?


> But I still won't have you slinging mud at it because you can't produce facts.
>
> Nazi Germany rounded up and executed 6 million people in less than 12 years.

This is often quoted, but Nazis killed way more than that, there was warfare as well as camps. A quarter of the British population was killed for a start, then there were Russians, poles, French, germans, etc. It was far beyond 6 mil.


> Even accounting for the technology, the UK could not compare to those numbers. We ruled 1/4 of the world population, if we wanted to wipe out 6 million in 12 years I'm sure we could have done it without gas chambers, but we didn't. So don't compare the European Empires to Nazi Germany, they are a long way apart.

What are the figures? I wish I knew. All I know is:
1/3 of a world of around 1-2 billion is a whole lot of people.
I know roughly how things were run,
and I know that great numbers would have died in wars, power and control exercises, and from starvaion caused by loss of food and other assets.

What the final total is I dont know, but I would expect it would greatly exceed 6 milion.


Lava

[Lava]

>> Is the average person decent and fair? In my business experience I would say no. Some are, but over 50% are out to use you, and give not a brass monkeys about decency or fairness.

> Well, by all means, then, let's give up on the democratic experiment and elect Bush as dictator for life.

not a sensible suggestion.


> But taken as a whole, I believe superpowers based on democratic principles are basically benevolent because their power stems from middle class values.

And I still put it to you that it in fact stems from securing middle class votes, not from practising middle class values. Thus those that get power are those that can convince the middle class voters - and other voters of course. Now since when did power mongers and manipulators live by middle class values?


> Simply jerking your knees into your foreheads to point out where we've failed doesn't change the overall picture. The British Empire, for all it's failings, was NOT the equivilent of Hitler's Third Reich.... period.

If anything it was probably worse. You offer nothing to back up your point, except a bit of waffle. If you want to support your view there, numbers are about all I can think of. I dont have any, do you?


> And on top of all that is simple historical perspective.... societal values change as they evolve through history. Martin Luther King could probably not have suceeded in 1800 America, either. The U.S. used to condone slavery, but it was the will of the people that forced a change. It repressed blacks, aboriginals, women and others, but these things have changed and evolved from the will of the people. A free society, whose people are free to speak, to disagree, to be educated, and to petition their governments for change are MORE LIKELY to impose their values on their government, versus totalitarian regimes which impose their values from the top down.

oh absolutely, I doubt anyone would disagree there.


> As Wintons Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

exactly :)


Lava