You can't beat something with nothing

So who would you rather live among: devout Muslims, or ex-Muslim sex-and-booze athiests?

I think Steve Sailer put it best - that Spengler's columns are useful reminders

"that adventuring in the Middle East seems to appeal most to two sets of people:
- The not very bright sorts who get Iraq and Iran and Saddam and Osama confused.
- And the extremely bright but not quite stable sorts who can convince themselves of anything."

She's the neocon's dream! If there were two or three like her, you'd have the start of a movement.

jaybird: great Steve Sailer reminders. Completely true.

Speaking of Sailer, I think he nails what is right and wrong about Spengler:

Spengler is clever and has original ideas, some of which might even be true.

way too profound (or wrong -- I can't tell which)

..looking for reasons to think the Spengler glass is half empty gets in the way of recognizing that the Spengler glass is also half full.

The same combination of grandiosity and dubiousness characterizes what now appears to be Spengler's most famous theory -- that Iran must go on the warpath now to head off a demographic crisis that it will face in, oh, say, forty years.

In other words, Spengler is simply an out-to-lunch lunatic...but a serious original thinker. And in a world of sycophant, PC media, that alone makes him worth reading. But finding the errors in Spengler's wacked-out theories is like playing "Where's Waldo" on a two mile long billboard.

Of course Islam could be crushed by force. It would be time consuming, messy and involve doing lots of things that are unpopular now, but yes it could be done.

The only thing is that Europe, being a nothing more than a museum, is not worth the trouble. The muslims can have it.

Matt, I think I would save getting completely plastered for watching a one hour PBS documentary, and sip the wine over the porn.

I leave off the scare quotes on documentary.

So who would you rather live among: devout Muslims, or ex-Muslim sex-and-booze athiests?

That's a classic "freedom and democracy versus totalitarian dictatorship" choice.

Under Islam, human beings have almost no rights. In a free society like America, you can choose whether or not you want to listen to modern Rock music and such.

Let's put it this way. How many people decide to leave the United States or Europe to live in Saudi Arabia or Iran? How many people decide to leave Saudi Arabia or Iran to live in the US or Europe?

I think it's clear that people vote with their feet for freedom over tyranny. Why the ambivilence between the two, as if it's a hard choice?

The point is, Maisie, when you outgrow 'sex and booze', in that society, you can simply abstain. The 'sex and booze' group, last I heard, aren't forcing you to participate. Only allowing.

You can't say the same about the other group.

Of course, this is assuming there's all that much 'sex and booze' among atheists. Frankly, I've seen more sex, booze and scandal in the last few news reports on preachers and conservative politicians than this atheist has had in more than a decade.

I don't know if it is meant to be insulting... or envious wishful thinking.

Karan writes "Frankly, I've seen more sex, booze and scandal in the last few news reports on preachers and conservative politicians than this atheist has had in more than a decade.

I don't know if it is meant to be insulting... or envious wishful thinking."

It is neither. What we have is the media and opposition groups reveling in the faux pas of certain iconic conservative people, accusing them of hypocracy whereas the mass of people on the other side of the fence politically are already explicityly or implictly debauched so as to have nothing to report.

Wow, dueling almost identical posts, claiming the opposing political view of total lack of ethics. After the post dealing with 'sex and booze' atheists.

I said THIS atheist. Me. Who, admittedly, doesn't have a high 'public standard' of morality, mostly because I don't go around touting my personal moral code publically, this is true. Nor do I try to go around imposing my private moral code publically, which is also true.

Which doesn't change the fact that those who do those very things have been a lot more active in sex and.. well, usually harder stuff than booze in the last year than I have in the last ten.

This whole "Europe is on its deathbed and overrun by Muslims" meme is among the most anti-intellectual, nativist jibberish being circulated these days. And, of course, completely removed from the facts and common sense.

Agree completely, Daniel.

Muslims are not on the verge of overrunning Europe. The demographic "analyses" that get you there assume that recent birth and immigration rates will stay the same over long periods of time. Almost laughable. And I do think that the people who originate these claims have an agenda.

Not "on the verge" but trending that way. Even Bernard Lewis, who in my opinion is rather soft on Islam, thinks Europe will be Islamic, but not till the end of the century.

So we should at least acknowledge that people disagree on this, and that the predictions by one group are not just "nativist jibberish". Also, the left wants the continued infiltration of Islam simply as a tool to vanquish the last vestiges of Western traditionalism. It's not as if they're going to admit this up front.

I found Spengler's analysis on Muslim apostates more likely becoming atheists than Christian converts interesting. That no doubt is what the European left is betting on.

Of course Islam could be crushed by force. It would be time consuming, messy and involve doing lots of things that are unpopular now, but yes it could be done.

Not true, unless "unpopular" is a euphemism for exterminating 1 billion human beings. And even if, God forbid, one were willing to resort to something that heinous, it would be impossible to do for all practical purposes.

Islam has serious internal problems whose roots are found in their conception of God and His Will. The challenge of our era is for Muslims themselves to work those problems out in a way that both enables them to live peaceably in the modern world and is coherent with their religious tradition.

Maybe that can be done, maybe it can't. But guns and nukes are powerless to address that challenge.

I think we've be entirely too nice in dealing with Islam. We need humor, laughter, mockery, derision.
Clitorectomies and women as chattel?

Heaven as conceived by a masturbating 14-year old boy?

Arranged and "temporary" marriages?

A pedophile, murderous thieving prophet as a holy man?

Old men who know damn well having young boys do the suicide bombing culls the herd?

The entire religion, and it's debased culture, is a joke.Theri politcal systems are an embarrassment. Theri governments corrupt kleptocracies. And we should say so, forcefully and often.And do so while we a. leave the region to these savages and b. do everyhing we can to seperate ourselves in every way. And tell them exactly what we think of them and their groupthink psychotic stupidity.

And do so while we a. leave the region to these savages and b. do everyhing we can to seperate ourselves in every way. And tell them exactly what we think of them and their groupthink psychotic stupidity.

The sad fact is the stability of the US economy depends on the oil underneath that region, and the trillions in dollar-based securities the OPEC countries hold. For that reason alone we will make no effort whatsoever to "separate ourselves" from these Muslim countries, and no one in our government will say one harsh word to Muslim leaders about their abysmal record on human rights. In fact, we see neocon plans to occupy Pakistan, and maintain a permanent presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And while Bush's disinformation campaign on Iran has hit a bump, expect to see the US entangling itself in Iran for decades to come as well.

Ridiculing radical Islam might make you feel good for a minute or two, but it does nothing to end the oil issue.

Maise,

I was given a choice between living among devout Muslims or ex-Muslim sex-and-booze athiests. Ideally, I would choose neither. But because I chose the latter does not mean I subscribe to that "belief" (as far as the sex and booze go) system or choose to engage with it. (Incidentally, I have no idea why "sex and booze" was tied to atheism. I suppose that to some--or, hell, many--religious folks, atheism is not only a dismissal of a belief in a deity, but also of any sense of values, moderation, community and morality.)

From my perspective, "the sex-and-booze, cheerfully-nihilist, cynical-hipster mindset" is useless and idiotic. But the great thing about it, from my perspective, is that that mindset is not institutionalized. You can take it or leave it. For example, I have never been a heavy drinker. I average about one or two beers/glasses of wine a week. In college, most of my friends could charitably be called binge drinkers. Whereas my weekend night usually ended with a mild buzz, my buddies were on the verge of passing out. Yeah, I would get ribbed occasionally, but if getting an occasional teasing from friends gets you to down a fifth of Jack D., you are simply a weak-minded person with little sense of self.

You certainly could not say the same for a community ruled (without secular restraint) under Islam, Judaism or Christianity.

It's good you are trying to create a meaningful and happy life for your family. I am trying to do the same, but I understand that there are unsavory aspects of our culture, accept it where I must and fight it where I can, and shape the life I want for my family accordingly. I just don't feel that I need a preacher, iman, or rabbi (nannies, all) telling me I need to do it their way, lest I be struck by lightning or beheaded or smited or sent to hell. Thanks, but no thanks.

Will-

We could drill everywhere-ANWR, the coasts.

We could increase and modernize refineries.

We could mine "clean" coal.

We could encourage new technology.

We could conserve more.

We could develop alternatices-solar, wind, natural gas.

But we haven't had leadership on this issue from our oilman president.

We all should know; don't get mixed up with crazy people, which is what Islam's adherents are.

Why does our oil dependency involve tolerating Islam “in all its manifestations”?

They don’t have to like us to sell us something. The great thing about a market economy is that the buyer doesn’t have to tolerate the seller in all respects – only his price.

no one in our government will say one harsh word to Muslim leaders

Sure, it's oil in America. But in Europe demographics is what prevents pols from saying anything bad about Muslims (who are Europe's fastest growing minority). France is a prime example with nearly 10% Muslim (and an even higher percentage of youth, as European Muslim birth rates are 3x that of whites). Plus, Europe must have more immigrants to keep the economy growing. So why should politicians slit their own throat by going after Muslims? Like Hispanics in the US, politicians won't even touch illegal immigration, let alone regular immigration, because they know making enemies with a growing minority is a political loser.

The long-term decline of birth rates in Europe has been going on now for 300 years. And over the last 100 years, the rest of the world has been making up the balance nicely. Europeans won't be missed.

Year: Percentage of world population in EU states
1900: 25%
1950: 22%
2000: 12%
2050: 7% proj (and this 7% is a heck of a lot less white native "European" than the 25% was back in 1900).

It absolutely makes me belly laugh at the raw arrogance of Europeans who think that they are somehow like immortal gods, and some "future" batch of children will rise up to save their culture. Because, you know, everything goes in "cycles." Pah. The truth is that every culture gets overrun sooner or later, and feminist Europe is incapable of breeding even at replacment. So now it's Europe's turn to go down, and who cares? They won't be missed, just like Constantinople wasn't. The future belongs to those who show up for it.

I found Spengler's article quite interesting, particularly his take on the Muslim version of God as capricious, and of the idea of "no limits on God" being identical to chaos. I think he is right. Of course, I can only submit to a God that has no limits, I can't worship that God (speaking for me) or love that God, I can only grovel.

I prefer not to worship a God that requires such groveling, even if He is beyond my categories and judgments.

As far as Rod's point about "not being able to replace something with nothing" I don't want to make you groan, Rod, but Paul Berman's book, "Terror and Liberalism" characterizes all forms of totalitarianism as arising in opposition to "secular liberalism."

I do believe it is possible for religion to co-exist with secular society, and I think we (all of us who are appalled by those trends)are responsible for "pushing back" against negative cultural trends. However, pushing back by means of fundamentalist totalitarian religion is the cure that is worse than the disease. Genuine freedom is to be found, I believe, in the middle ground between no limits and too many limits.

I understand feminist being used as a negative even less than secular.

I don't use "feminist" as a perjorative here. It's merely descriptive, and a better term than "secular," because while one could imagine secular women having an average of 2.1 kids, but not feminists by definition. For every career woman who has no kids, another has to have 4.2 just to break even. Fat chance of that. So who's gonna do the all breeding in a feminist culture? Imported slaves?

If giving women equal rights to men leads to the decline and destruction of Europe does that make it any less the right thing to do?

I offer no opinion on the morality of feminism, but I'm sure the Shakers felt they were morally superior too.

What I do know is that women who are treated "equal" to men and thus find themselves working in careers head-to-head with men are absolutely going to say, "Screw that 3 kid family thing!" And this is exactly what we see. And more power to those women; why shouldn't they? But the cold, hard fact still remains: feminism = death.

The great thing about a market economy is that the buyer doesn’t have to tolerate the seller in all respects – only his price.

Saudi Arabia is our #2 provider of oil. Has a US president ever reproached the decidedly non-democratic kingdom of Saudi Arabia for its deplorable record on human rights? Does anyone dwell on the pesky fact that most of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudis?

Sure, we in the peanut gallery can rail against the Saudi Kingdom all we want. And OPEC just refused again to raise oil production to ease oil prices on US citizens.

Rereading Rod's blog entry, particularly the title, I just want to add, a system that has flaws, like secular liberalism, is not "nothing" unless you are an absolutist for whom anything but a strict fundamentalism is "nothing."

Just because Ayaan Hirsi Ali no longer considers herself religious does not mean that her beliefs rest on no solid philosophical foundation. Replacing a conservative religiosity with "live-for-today" hedonism is not the only option available when one rejects religious belief.

Alicia (the self-described "Christian agnostic).

M_David: Doesn't that argue for policy positions to try to help women balance home and work lives?

I don't think low birth rates "argue" for any law. There are literally hundreds of policy positions that will increase birth rates: say to outlaw women working or going to school, or to ban birth control or abortion. But why should we? If people don't want kids, hey, it's a free country. We have a right to die out, dammit :-).

Regarding adjusting social services to increase birth rates: been tried, don't work. Those places best at allowing women to balance home and work always seem to have the lowest birth rates. Make sense, too; once you get women well educated and working careers, they don't want children. Never let it be said that feminists can be bought!

Which are usually, ahem, liberal/Democratic positions?

Yep. Just like welfare, liberal solutions always seem to, ahem, make the problem worse.

At the risk of repeating myself, low birth rates are:

a) the only way to maintain a world consistent with crunchy values
b) the only way to maintain a world, period
c) the only alternative to overpopulation
d) inevitable in any culture that values education and prosperity, or evolves to the point where it can value them.