Oh, to not be EUROpe

[erudito]

This graph sets out how catastrophically bad youth unemployment is in debt-ridden EUROpe. Meanwhile, in Oz, unemployment is holding steady at 4.9%The euro was a bad idea: lots of economists said so at the time, but the EUrosuperstate decided that it could make it work in a Triumph of the Will. As folk discuss the odds of various states (starting

Comments

[ford_prefect42]

You are conflating ideas which Erudito is not.

Norway is not part of the european monetary union, but they *are* part of the european *political* union, Generally referred to as the EU. However, even that is not the point.

The point is that the welfare statism (and over-regulation, and all the other things that those of us that actually *like* jobs complain about) that is present throughout europe has driven out most of the job prospects for the young people almost out of existence. Which is part of a trend that was correctly observed by, among others, breivik. That trend being a dramatic decline in the standard of living, massive infusions of self-ghettoising outside groups that can easily be blamed for the woes of that society (in some cases with justice), etcetera.

Now, when you *have* those factors, as Norway does, it becomes certain that eventually, someone hitler-like will spring up and say "we germans deserve better, and we'd have it if not for those damned arabs" (conflating hitler and Breivik. That's what "cultural panic nationalism" is about.

Now, as to the similarities between the things that Breivik said, and the things that the US conservatives say. I am certain that he also daily observed that the sun had risen in the east, does that make the observation evil? I am equally certain that he observed that a dropped object usually falls, does that mean that we must deny gravity to avoid the similarity? Hitler ate sugar (tv trope).

The important aspect that sets breivik apart from the conservative movement is his willingness to kill for his political position. Which is a fundamental belief that those lives were *his to end*, which is the absolute antithesis of any tea party or conservative belief. The *core tenet* of those thought systems being the belief that the individual is sovereign.

[yamamanama]

I don't know why people say things like "Oh, hitler ate sugar, so sugar must be evil" when there's a huge difference between things like eating sugar or observing that the sun rises in the east and targeted killings against political opponents.

*or as I said to someone else who said the same thing about Hitler eating sugar, creating and fostering ethnic and religious hatreds.

Guilt by association

[erudito]

Folk do guilt-by-association because it is an easy move. Some folk have attempted to metaphorically tar-and-feather people in Oz that Breivik quoted in his manifesto because he quoted them: it is the same move.

I dislike the arrogant authoritarianism that underlies a lot of EU policy and processes: hence the "Triumph of the Will" jab. But it, as I explain to catsidhe, about arrogance not concentration camps.

Re: Guilt by association

[ford_prefect42]

Please do not feed the troll.

[catsidhe]

Norway is not part of the european monetary union, but they *are* part of the european *political* union, Generally referred to as the EU. However, even that is not the point.

Actually, you have that exactly backwards. Norway is not and never has been a member of the EU, and has never had representation in the European parliament. It is a member of the European Economic Area, which is based on those Marxist principles of free movement of people, goods, services and capital within Europe. Oh, wait, those are things which you guys are in favour of. Except for free movement of people, because it's apparently obvious that poor people have no right to go anywhere.

It's not just "similarities", it's damn near identity in the mathematical sense. He quoted all the same people you guys quote, all the same bits you guys quote, and with the same understanding you guys seem to have.

As you say, the main and most obvious difference is where he decided to do something about it himself. You guys are content to sit back and pontificate on how inevitable it is that people like him will do what he did, and it's nothing at all to do with the cowardly xenophobia you all bathe in.

No, I am not saying that any of you are loading up on fertilizer and ammo. But I am saying that pulling out the No True Scotsman fallacy isn't going to fly either.

[ford_prefect42]

And I am saying that your application of the "hitler ate sugar" fallacy is pointless.

So, we're at an impasse, I am saying that his central tenets are utterly inimical to the beliefs of *any* of us, and you are saying that the superficial points are indistinguishable. It's not difficult to see which should carry the day, but liberals being liberals, you'll probably decide that the singular superficial similarity trumps all the fundamental differences.

Here's the thing, some monster, sometime has said *everything*, take any speech that expounds on *any* position, and I guarantee that mao, or Pol Pot, or Stalin, or Hitler, or Dahmer, or Kaczinsky has said it. That goes for *every* statement, with *every* understanding. What makes the fundamental movement different is not the superficial beliefs, but the *fundamental* beliefs. Which in the case of the Tea party and the conservative movement is that life is sacred, that the individual is sovereign, and that no one has a right to inflict their beliefs on another. Now it happens that this particular freak noticed something that a lot of us have noticed, which is that Islam and any form of civilization are incompatible, but to say that he and we are from the same intellectual footing is utterly ludicrous.

In short, that fundamental intent to "sit back and pontificate" is the very core tenet, the need to act as a nation or not at all on the profound threat that is represented by islam, is *who we are*, he who would act alone on this is *not* a scottsman, he's faking the accent, but has never set foot in scottland.

Have a nice day.

[catsidhe]

I am saying that his central tenets are utterly inimical to the beliefs of *any* of us, and you are saying that the superficial points are indistinguishable.

His thesis quotes all the same people you guys do. He accepts all the same assumptions and hysterical predictions as you guys do. He makes all the same conclusions and predictions as you do, with much the same apocalyptic pessimism.

The difference is where he made the leap to do what is, if you accept all the bullshit spewed from you guys, the logical, necessary, and horrible action to stop it.

And "sitting back and pontificating" is your "central tenet" would be easier to believe if you guys didn't have so much fun ‘joking’ about genocide.

[ford_prefect42]

I never disputed that the superficial similarities existed. Nor do I now deny that he correctly analysed the islamic threat. Nor do I debate that his sources are the ones that give accurate assesments of that threat.

Nor do I deny that it would be desireable for the US to engage in total warfare against the Islamic world.

Those are the *superficial* similarities that I have repeatedly stated do in point of fact exist (although there also exist a whole lot more position sets to the conservative osition than this one aspect, on which there are few similarities between the conservative movement and breivik).

What I said was that the differences are fundamental. Hitlers anti-semitism would have been laughable if he hadn't *also* had the belief that killing them was A-Okay. That's the *fundamental* differencew that I keep trying to pound into your head, that the conservative movement is *all about* individuality and individual rights, including the right to not be murdered by your political opposition.

But I guess that I am going to fail at pounding that exceptionally simple concept into a liberal skull. Unsurprising.

I would have an easier time accepting many of your positions if they didn't mirror *at the fundamental level* the positions of those that murdered 200 *MILLION* people in the 20th century. Including so many many liberals, Obama's cabinet members included frequently expressing respect and appreciation of the actual genocidal monsters.

Frankly, if you are going to be politically murdered, it's almost always going to be a leftist that pulls the trigger.

[catsidhe]

As “superficial” similarities go, they seem fairly significant.

So basically, you're claiming that Breivik isn't a True Conservative. Despite you and he agreeing on most fundamental premises and almost every philosophy (short of having the courage of your own xenophobia to act upon it). Your conclusions differ slightly, but as regards political action, mainly in that he was prepared to do himself what you are bravely committed to having the US military do for you.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt of assuming that you don't agree with his conclusions about the desired state of women (according to Breivik, that being uneducated, homebound, pregnant, and franchise-less), but given that Anne Coulter has pronounced roughly the same conclusions in the past, I don't think it counts against him being counted as right-wing conservative.

I await your arguments that he also was not Christian, and/or that he was insane, so I can collect more Bingo points.

[ford_prefect42]

I am claiming that he isn't a conservative at all, despite his having noticed one trend that I have also noticed.

I am confident in stating this because we *disagree* on most major fundamental philosophical positions, including, but not limited to, that *it's wrong to murder people* with the caveat that a *war* between nations and peoples is frequently a historical necessity.

I don't claim that he was "insane" and I don't claim that he wasn't a christian, I'll leave that for the christians. I *do* however, make the claim that his christianity was not particularly significant in his decision to undertake this action. But that's just because he said it wasn't.

Nor do I, or most conservatives agree with his position on "A womans place". Pretty much all conservatives are of the opinion that "A womans place is wherever the hell she says it is". Thanks for pointing out that difference. Now, I will own that a fair number of conservatives do wish that more women would *choose* home and hearth, but none would force the issue.

So, thanks for making my case, that other than this *one* positional similarity (that the islamic threat exists), which is bourne out by ALL the factual information, there exists no fundamental similarity between Breivik and the tea party position.

What about Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel? Does their declaration that "multiculturalism has failed" make them both conservatives too? Does the French headscarf ban make the entire nation of france a member of the tea party? Does the existence of the frence "academe" make france Nazi because they seek to retain national identity? Are you *this* dumb?

Let me try a different angle. I believe in peak oil. Which is a primarily leftist held position. I believe it because I have read simmons and kunstler, and others who have made the case to me. If I now go bomb GM, Are you going to apply the same "sources, chain of reasoning, and results" to it? No, you will look at the *rest* of my positions, realize that that is the *only* thing I have in common with you, and defend yourself on the grounds that we have nothing in common.

I am avidly pro-choice. A primarily leftist position. If I were to write up a manifesto and go strafe a planned parenthood picket line, are you going to accept that I was one of yours?

I am an advocate of evolution. If I go attack a bible convention, will you just casually accept that I am a democrat on those grounds?

I am pro gay marriage. If I were to attack a tea party retreat, will you defend the differences between me and you, or will you say "you're right, I will no longer believe in gay mariage because *he* did".

That's the essence of the "hitler ate sugar" argument. No superficial similarity on a single issue (or even a small collection of issues) makes one a member of a total political movement. It takes an over-arching similarity which does not self-evidently exist between Breivik and any conservative.

[catsidhe]

I *do* however, make the claim that his christianity was not particularly significant in his decision to undertake this action. But that's just because he said it wasn't.

Exactly which part of the New Order of Templars Reclaiming Christian Europe did you fail to understand?

which is bourne out by ALL the factual information,

... that is misinterpreted, misunderstood, and counterexamples ignored. Or is just plain made up.

What about Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel? Does their declaration that "multiculturalism has failed" make them both conservatives too?

Yes, actually. Or, more precisely, the version of multiculturalism they've been working on. You know, the "multiculturalism" of ghettoisation and exclusion lasting over generations. The same model which doesn't work with Algerians in France. Where it doesn't matter what the minimum wage is, because Algerian (Turkish, Pakistani) kids won't be employed anyway.

Does the French headscarf ban make the entire nation of france a member of the tea party?

Those that agree with it, functionally yes. Their ideological allies, anyway.

Does the existence of the frence "academe" make france Nazi because they seek to retain national identity?

The existence of the Académie Française is no more ‘Nazi’ than is the American Enterprise Institute. It's not the retention of ‘National Identity’ per se that's a problem, it's when a bunch of xenophobes get to decide unilaterally what that is, and then seek to impose it by force. By legislating that Muslims may not wear what they like, for example. (By the way, do you care that that same legislation also bans the wearing of Yarmulkas, or is that acceptable antisemitism?) I'd be worried about that trend, by the way. You never know when you'll end up on the wrong side of the definition.

If I now go bomb GM, Are you going to apply the same "sources, chain of reasoning, and results" to it?

If anyone had said that the only way to combat Peak Oil were to do such a thing, oh, how tragically inevitable it is that someone will do this thing *wrings hands*, then this might be arguable. As no-one has, this strawman falls.

I am avidly pro-choice. A primarily leftist position.

A primarily libertarian position. Liberals can be libertarian too, you know. (Or maybe you don't. It would explain a lot.) The contrary view is mainly held by the religious right and other social conservatives. As it is, no-one has called for the deaths of Planned Parenthood Protesters that I have heard of, while actual deathlists of Abortion providers exist and have been used. Another false analogy down.

I am an advocate of evolution. If I go attack a bible convention,

Please show me where PZ Myers or Dawkins have called for armed attacks on Creationists. Let alone both of them.

I am pro gay marriage. If I were to attack a tea party retreat,

Now you're just taking the piss.

[ford_prefect42]

Okay, I quit. You are too dumb.

[yamamanama]

But it's not a fallacy because there's a genuine connection between Breivik's beliefs and Geller's or the rest of the far-right blogosphere. He just acted upon them.

Cowardly xenophobia

[erudito]

So, if Copts in Egypt raise any issues about Muslim behaviour, that is "cowardly xenophobia" on their part is it? Or the persistent pattern across so many Islamic countries of poor treatment of religious minorities?

How about raising concerns about Islamic misogyny? Or Islamic queer-hatred? Is that "cowardly xenophobia"?

But, of course, if one criticises Catholic doctrine, that is just fine?

Did the Unabomber showed "consistent" concern about the impact of technology on the environment? Does that raise any issues about environmentalism? Or that Ira Einhorn killed his girlfriend because she was pregnant and inconvenient? Did Pim Fortuyn's killer Volkert van der Graaf show "consistent concern" for anti-Muslim xenophobia? Are you manifesting cowardice in failing to take it seriously, like he did?

Do all the left-wing terrorists show "consistent concern" for social justice?

Re: Cowardly xenophobia

[catsidhe]

Are you an Egyptian Copt?

What they have to do about their Muslim neighbours isn't cowardly, because they're there and doing it. And it's not xenophobia, because these are their neighbours. They can argue the issues on their merits. So, no. Neither cowardly, nor xenophobic.

What about raising concerns about Christian misogyny in the Congo? Of mainstream queer-hatred through most of the USA? (Especially in those places most likely to vote for the Tea Party. Not that there's a connection. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.)

Yeah: About Kaczynski's manifesto.In his opening and closing sections, Kaczynski addresses Leftism as a movement and analyzes the psychology of leftists, arguing that they are "True Believers in Eric Hoffer's sense" who participate in a powerful social movement to compensate for their lack of personal power. He further claims that leftism as a movement is led by a particular minority of leftists whom he calls "oversocialized":The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. [...] Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people.

Strange how his concerns about what's wrong with “the Left” seem to coincide so closely with yours.

Not every murderer with political leanings does what they do because of those politics. Are you really trying to claim that Einhorn's murder was in any way equivalent to Breivik's? That it was inspired by his politics?

Van der Graaf is actually relevant. He killed one man whom he saw as personally responsible for the degradation of society (which does not in the slightest excuse what he did). Breivik murdered dozens of children because they would grow up likely to join a political party.

Van der Graaf wasn't working from a culture that repeatedly claims that the mere existence of xenophobes is an existential threat, and he has not been praised or excused for what he did. He even had Asperger's and OCD claimed as mitigating circumstances, and, rightly IMO, rejected.

But what do I see about Breivik? "Oh, he had nothing to do with us, but... he was right about those Muslims, wasn't he."

Just saying.