Saturday, April 23, 2005

Rumble In Europe: 2019

Europe is different than America.

European history and culture often moves in a dialectic - thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis.

America does not.

America moves inexorably forward, with mini-reversals, but with twin pistons of Good Cop and Bad Cop endlessly chugging.

It does not matter if you look at the left or the right, once you start looking for the Gothamimage Good Cop/Bad Cop dichotomy/paradox, you will see it in all American affairs, past and present. You cannot escape it. It's like the FOX news swoosh.


Granted, you can and will argue over who is the Good Cop and who is the Bad Cop, in any given situation. Fair enough. But you will see what we mean. Those two Cops are always there- even on TV shows, like COPS.

This theory and analysis is overlooked by American Euro-centric intellectuals (in part because gothamimage just recently invented the theory), who mistakenly try to apply European dialectic or Asia-Confucian analysis to the USA's GC/BC reality.

However Rupert Mudoch understands. When he sets up a channel for immoral TV shows, he also sets up another channel to criticize moral decline.

In GOP operations, for every Rumsfeld there is a Powell.


In Democratic circles, there are many equivalents of this.

GC/BC is omnipresent in all aspects of our culture and history. It's symbolized in our two-party structure, with roles determined, by where you sit.

Usually , from abroad, the Democrats are the Good Cops, unless your are the leaders of Italy, Japan, or Russia- all of whom endorsed Bush.

Incidentally, that was a fury of foreign meddling that would had the monkey handlers in the right-turn- only blog-o-roads foaming banana spit if it had been Kerry who received such assay.

Anyway, Europe is different.

Right now the cliche among the insta-book snipers, keyboard Partisans, garrulous gigglehawks, and the bellowing blowhards is that 'Murica is from Mars, and Europe is from Venus.

Ofcourse, we are refering to Bob Kagan's overrated book, written in a precious Venus-like style, by a Venus-type guy, who advocates Mars-like behaivor for 'Murica, while he was living in cosy temporarily Venus-ish Belgium.

The book has a superficial, albeit misleading plausibility.


In some ways Kagan theories of relative martiality among the nations sound similar in limited ways to those characters who proffer theories about the relative quality of various racial groups sporting skills. Sometimes they might sound clever, until they is proven wrong and racist.

Not all of France is like Paris. Not all of Paris is like Paris. Humphrey Bogart would rather cower in Rick's Place than visit some neighborhoods surrounding Paris.

The dialtone-like secular quiesence one now hears in Europe, from the cafe's of Seville to the Brandenberg gate, is very real, but misleading because it will not last. The dilalectic will change. The Opera will commence. Now, Europa is in the the eye of the demographic storm. The Venus-days have started ending as Kagan went to press.


Dialtones always end, if you leave the phone off the hook.

You cannot forever not have children, then import workers to do your work.

This is especially so when you do not like them and they do not like you, and you do not melt with them, nor share religion. This will end -first with a whimper, followed by a bang(s).

Prediction:

In less than a generation, after Muslim pluralities are achieved in major cities in the Low Counties, you will see a right wing reaction all accross Europe that will make Tom DeLay's most fevered dreams look like Alan Alda-type chin scratching by comparison.

There will also be the emergence of a new Christ Militant - operating against Ecclesiatical approval, but ostensibly on behalf of European Christian heritage. They could be a a far more serious version of "The Minutemen" on the Mexican border, who were denounced and denied (while seemingly inspired and provoked) by their hero Bush.

Last year, the gristly murder and the hard-ass populist Dutch reaction, to the murder of Christopher Hitchens-like provocatuer Theo Van Gogh, was a early indicator of what's to come. This was in Europe's most liberal city- no less. A canary in a coal mine.

Two drinks, rather than than the previous six, is now the number of drinks a liberal European male needs to consume before he will tell you how much he hates many of the foreigners who are taking over his country and dreaming of Sharia law.

In America, the Muslim man can be a American man. In Europe, in European eyes, the Moslem Thee will never be Thou, only It. Nationalism still exists.

The Muslims know it and the hatred is mutual. It can be heard in all the great cities, away from where tourists walk, and spend.

When the rumble happens, and it will, it will be bad.


Europe is now pretending to be considering Turkey for membership, but this is being matched by a series of parallel measures that are being put in place, that will make admission of Turkey almost impossible.

A small example of this was M. Chirac coming out in favor of Turkey's admission in public, while supporting a referendum on the question because he knows "his" position will be defeated.

The pro-Turkey (for now) neocons in the USA immediately spotted this, because that is the kind of trick they use. Chirac is like a neocon, albeit with a military service record, a true sense of history, and a taste for municiple corruption. We digress.

Just wait til Turkey is finally rejected from the EU. Just wait.

Maybe the Kurds may brake away from Istanbul. Kurds do have these dreams. It took Ireland a long time before Dublin Castle stopped flying the Union Jack. Maybe the Kurdish split will happen before Turkey is snubed by the EU. What will be left for Turkey? Pan-Turkic identity politics will take it's place. Insurrection in Bosnia? Re-birth of Armenia, in response? Kurdish Iran joing the Kurds? Central Asian manuevers? Pipeline politcs? Breakup of Iran? Rebirth of Persia, with alliance with Israell? Israel's current alliance with Turkey has serious strains.

Watch what happens when Israel acknowledges the Armenian genocide, which they must do as soon as the feel secure to do so, in the wake of Turkish fury. That will hurt their alliance with Turkey. Over to Serbia- whither Kosovo? You think that war ended? Think again. Read your Rebecca West.

In the Europe this is all old news -as old as the conservative German Pope. But he knows what's about to happen, and so do many European statesmen, throughout the spectrum. Yet, with the Church, the liberal west is sort-of understandably occupied with social issues. However, that may not be the big picture.

"Who gives a s--- about the minimum wage?"

That's what President Kennedy said during either the Berin crisis or the Cuban Crisis , when the specter of all-out thermonuclear war was a very real possibility.

In the vast reaches of the world, where people earn only a dollar a day, where the Church is growing fast and behind and close to Muslim lines, the social issues are inevitably seen as boutique abstraction. Whether wrong or right, that's just a fact. Not among the elite, or the internationals, but among the great mass of humanity, not just the faithful.


The most conservative Pope is far more liberal than leaders of rival religions, like Islam. Various church policies are just not a big deal compared to basic theology. Just isn't.

The war that is now going on in Africa and Asia between Islam and Christianity, will increasingly reverberate back in Europe (and Latin America), and we predict that will be a big deal in coming years.


The Church is now getting its Game Face on. The Zamboni is clearing the ice.

Even Frenchmen will start going to church again once they feel existentially threatned, which they will. This will be combined with the non-relgious revanchist sentiment, that you have already seen, in the respectable poll showing of the unrespectable nationalists.

Just speculating. We may be wrong, and if we are, we'll admit it. Check back in twenty years, or less.

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Bush Apes Lincoln In Illinois

No one ever made any good money trying to compare George Bush to Abraham Lincoln.

However, yesterday Bush went to the revamped Lincoln Museum, evidently in the hope that someone will soon start.

It seems like a stretch too far.

Afterall, even Lincoln's most bitter opponents conceded his wit and the beauty of his langauge.

With Bush, it's the opposite.

Even Bush's most diehard supporters concede he has ill concern for the English language, and minimal regard for the force of ideas that lie behind words.

However, there are similarities and differences.

Both men had a "relationship" with The Almighty.

Lincoln tried to pray to God, while Bush says God talks to Bush.

Lincoln was publicly irreligious and skeptical, while privately spiritual and seeking.

Bush is publicly and conspicuously a pious Christian, but acts like he privately thinks of himself as Zeus.

Both had detractors who called attention to their respective simian physical characteristics.

Detractors of Lincoln often compared him to a Great Ape.

Bush critics (and some supporters), sometimes compare Bush to a wee little monkey.

Lincoln presided during the incipient stages of the new Republican party, while Bush actions are inchoate signs of its decadence and decay.

Men who fought for Lincoln, sang for "John Brown's Body."

Men who benefit from Bush's war, beat bodies over the bottom line of Kellogg, Brown, & Root.

Restoring the Union between Blue & Grey was Lincoln's biggest concern, while dividing the Union into Red & Blue, is Bush's salient accomplishment.

Opposing the war with Mexico was Lincoln's first big political stance.

Supporting the war in Vietnam was Bush's earliest important politcal position.

However, unlike Bush, Lincoln was not too scared to fight.

Despite no military draft, Lincoln volunteered for combat in "The Blackhawk Campaign."

Fearing being drafted, Bush avoided combat thru his own 'chickenhawk campaign.'

Lincoln lived in a Log Cabin, while Bush just wants to cut down logs.

They were both "soft" on controlling the Mexican border.

Lincoln wasn't really sure where the border should be. Bush knows damm well where it is, and he knows where to put border patrols not.

Lincoln was "soft" because he thought the war with Mexico was was wrong and was fought under false pretenses.

Bush hasn't taken a position on the Mexican War-probably only Mexican oil futures. As far as waging war under false pretenses, can you spell WMD?

Nevertheless,regarding our porous border, Bush knows that poor enforcement of the border maintaines the illegal and vulnerable status of those who are lured accross to work for his campaign contributers. Plus, as a bonus, it gets his 'base' all 'riled-up.'

Lincoln blamed his political opponents, not American citizens, for a bad Mexico policy.

Bush supporters often blame American workers, not politicians, for being unable to compete with Mexican labor wages.

While Bush uses Mexicans to divide Americans and it does, Lincoln feared a war with Mexico was gonna divide America, and it did.

So, in that sense, they were both smart, but in their own way.