Why do so many Americans have this grin attitude to the EU?

[jerseyart]

Blue

Of course it did.

Like in some cultures it was considered immoral and womanly to refuse killing the children of your enemies. Great fun for all

 

[Robert Jan]

Robert, you're young enough to imagine that everything old is new. Every young person imagines that all their elders are myopic and irrational. That if they only saw the wrold through your rose colored lenses things would be so much better than they are currently.

You view every new "innovation" in thought or ded as progress. What you fail to recognize, and the intellectual giants of Europe as well, is that it is all been there, done that.

Do you truly imagine that the secular humanist philosophies of western europe are somhow innovative and progressive. Do you really think that ere havent been millions upon millions of bright eyed geniuses who havent proposed and implemented the same "ideals" all throughout history. They only see unique for the simple reason that none of those societies thrived, and therefore their is no one around to sing their praises.

Matt addressed the "big three" with respecty to religions and pointed to them as the greatest burden on the world. The hisorical ignorance needed to reach such a conclusion is astounding. The very values and freedoms you enjoy at this moment are a direct result of the Judeo Christian moral philosophy which guided your law and culture. Religion in general, but as we our speaking of Europe, Christian culture specifically is what raised man to a position of singular importance. The inate value of the human being is itself a Christian concept.

The superstition you so readily dismiss as antiquated has been not only the uniting and stabilizing force of your culture, but its precepts have given you what success and dominance you have experienced.

Forget God. Lets not make this a religious discussion. Instead focus on the fact that those "sily rules" have proven to be the most efficient and successful way to guide and build a society. Western European Christian dominance existed not because Europeans were genetically superior, but because their foundation was superior, to those of the rest of the world. It nurtured your society, and is the direct impetus for you long term historical success. The same is true of the US.

What you abandon so foolishly is the very thing that has given you your prominence in the world. To be replaced by what? A secular humanist philosophy which promotes the relative insignificance of man, the poor dumb accident of nature, who is too stupid to be left to his own supervision. You trade actual compassion and mercy for a state sponsored benefactor which once again removes the indiviudal as the central focus, and replaces it with glorified "crowd appeasement."

You're dying. Your birth rates cannot even maintain a population neutral growth rate.. Your insane social policies require you to import tens of millions of workers from primarily islamic and indian backgrounds who guess what, dont share your advanced view of the world. They wil come, their families will come, and unlike you they will reproduce in abundance, cause their God tells them so. You will soon be a miniority sir on your own continent, and in your advanced age, will look back in puzzlement wondering where did it all go wrong.

You assume too much. You assume I think all these things. You assume I think hedonism and people remaining bachelors for longer times and humanism are novel, new, fresh ideas. I hope I do not come across as being that naive or uninformed. I realise very well they are as old as mankind, even their being mainstream is not a new or unique phenomenon.

I am an atheist, but I am also a traditionalist, a nationalist, and honour hungry. Not all atheism breathes apathy.

Christianity is but a fad, great empires rose and fell long before it.
You give it far too much historical credit. People in the post Christian time need a sense of direction and reason. Jesus however, or Judaism, is not the only thing that can give that. In fact I don't even think they give that at all, but that's a whole other debate.

The number of immigrants we allow into Europe is in fact strongly decreasing, not increasing. The immigrants that come here do have more children than the locals, but this only lasts for 1, at most 2 generations. After all they are quick to adopt the mindset you have sketched, which you will agree is after all, the road of the least resistance.

All in all, I find it very unlikely that Europe will consist of a majority of non Europeans any time soon. Keep in mind that these immigrants all moved into the cities. The countryside is still white as fresh skimmed milk. All in all, non europeans make up only a tiny fraction of the total european population.

I agree that apathy is a big problem in Europe. I do think however it's a big problem in the USA too.

Countries where apathy is very low, like Japan and China for instance, all share one big similarity... it's not christianity. or even monotheism. It's honour. Family honour, Male Honour, national honour, basically just pride. The great incentive, IMO. This is what needs to be restored. This is why there needs to be a stop to the too soft culture we are seeing, where it is somehow OK to be a loser. I do not necessarily direct this at social spending, I am referring to a far more general and broad concept.

 

[Allon]

I was just in Europe and most people I spoke with there are REALLY against the EU... I also was positive about it but speaking with people there now left me a bit scepticle.

 

[Robert Jan]

Blue

Of course it did.

Like in some cultures it was considered immoral and womanly to refuse killing the children of your enemies. Great fun for all

JA, dont be silly. Killing off your enemies children when you kill your enemies is just common sense. Those will grow up to be some seriously vengeful brats

Much like the great Adolf Eichmann wrote to the supervisor of Auschwitz one day, after the man had written to Eichmann that he found it too hard to murder Jewish children who begged for mercy on their little knees, and he felt weak for this.

Eichmann told him to stand firm and understand, that "Killing the Jewish children was the most important task of all, for they represent the future, and it would be harmful to create an entire generation of merciless vengeance seeking Jews. "

What religion were the Nazi's again, anyway?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Not to bust chops, but if they were readily interchangeable, then there would be no need to refer to them as Judeo Christian. Either or would be sufficient. It is the fact that they arent which necessitates the double identification. It shows a basis and progression, and is an entirely appropriate description.

I have to disagree strongly.

That phrase is a favorite of Christians - you'll never hear a Jew say it - to convey and further the Christian doctrine of supersessionsism, as if Christianty somehow supplanted Judaism with an advanced moral development. (ie Jesus)

As you probably know, the real roots of Christianty (and Islam) are entirely secular. There is no continuity whatsoever; an in depth study of both belief systems would leave you to conclude that Christianty is not only an agglomeration of the pagan religions popular at the time Christianity was created, but also "Judaism lite".

Many jewish laws were included in the "new" religion; all the responsibility went away. Jesus "solved the problem". hence, "Judaism lite." What is lost in the transfer is that the focus of this belief system became DEATH, (also true of Islam) whereas with its Jewish predecessor, life was the main focus. Jews donot believe in life after death.

there is no continuity. The term is patently wrong.

I'll put the "cult of death" hyperbole aside.

it is not hyperbole. Death is the central event of Christianty and Islam, integral to Buddhism, and well...I don;t knwo in Hindusim.

Death is always seen as the gateway to the supernatural.

Add up the sum total of all those killed in alleged "religious wars" (which if you ever bothered studying the crusades at anything above a cursory level you would be ashamed to refer to them as such) and they dont come close to equaling the deaths and deprivation inflicted by the secualr humanists in the 20th century alone. Yeah, there is a worthy substitute

You're probably more familiar than I am with the Crusades. However, to suggest that the central event of religious / supernatural oppression was the Crusades is inaccurate. For centuries after the fall of Rome, Europe was plunged into dark ages under the rule of the church. Progress simply stopped.

This was only broken by the Renaissance, which resulted from outside intervention; largely from the non-Christian middle east; a place where, for centuries, Jews, Muslims and some Christians got along, and, suprise, made breakthroughs.

Now, as to the other point: If by secular humanists you are referring to lenin/stalin the soviet communists and all their satellites, I agree with you, they were a horrible pox upon humanity.

If you seek to group Hitler and co into that ilk, I will disagree and state that their actions were largely religion-based. The church was only too happy to have a friend in germany after von Bismarck's kulturkampf

Lol do you have any basis whasoever for such an outlandish statement?

The British isles? yes. America's democracy is the result of centuries of progress toward human rights in England, which, not coincidentally, broke from the Pope / church in the 1500s.

back to you.

 

[jerseyart]

You assume too much. You assume I think all these things. You assume I think hedonism and people remaining bachelors for longer times and humanism are novel, new, fresh ideas. I hope I do not come across as being that naive or uninformed. I realise very well they are as old as mankind, even their being mainstream is not a new or unique phenomenon.

I am an atheist, but I am also a traditionalist, a nationalist, and honour hungry. Not all atheism breathes apathy.

Christianity is but a fad, great empires rose and fell long before it.
You give it far too much historical credit. I will readily admit that atheism and the apathy it nurtures is a cancer eating away at any collective of people it is found in. Yet this is not required. People in the post Christian time need a sense of direction and reason. Jesus however, or Judaism, is not the only thing that can give that. In fact I don't even think they give that at all, but that's a whole other debate.

The number of immigrants we allow into Europe is in fact strongly decreasing, not increasing. The immigrants that come here do have more children than the locals, but this only lasts for 1, at most 2 generations. After all they are quick to adopt the mindset you have sketched, which you will agree is after all, the road of the least resistance.

All in all, I find it very unlikely that Europe will consist of a majority of non Europeans any time soon. Keep in mind that these immigrants all moved into the cities. The countryside is still white as fresh skimmed milk. All in all, non europeans make up only a tiny fraction of the total european population.

I agree that apathy is a big problem in Europe. I do think however it's a big problem in the USA too.

If I projected Rob, some of it was due to earlier mutual conversations, but admittedly some of it was just stereotyping.


Putting aside the "Christinaity thing for a moment (dont wish to get into a religious debate) lets concentrate on the practical. Your analysis, dare I say wishful thinking, with respect to immigration ignores many factors, including the law of unintended consequences.

The pyramid scheme people refer to as enlightened socialism has at its root the basic necessity that there have to be more people working than receiving. Unfortunately your generous social policies, coupled with declining population growth, require a massive influc of new workers as your aging population reaches retirement age. It will no longer be the paltry few million allowed in regularly. Your needs surmoun in excess of 30-40 million new workers in a relatively short time frame. It is unavoidable, unless you imagine some politician will eb the one to tell all those elderly that the government can no longer afford to pay their entitlements.

Those are workers Robert, not their spouses and children. Cut the number to half that, and you are still talking about an influx of incredible proportions once you factor in their immediate families. Thats the good news.

Here is the law of unintended consequences. You require workers so you will be forced to relax immigration policy. People move and want to stay. They dont stay alone for long. They're human, and as humans, they want their families there with them. Their brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, cousins, friends etc etc etc etc etc. That is exactly what happeend in the US in the early 1960's when we chnaged our immigration policies to "allow these guys to bring over the wives and kids"

Now you'll respond that "but we would never allow that." But by that time they represent a significant voting block, and they will get their way. Coupled with the fact that all the liberals will support their right to do so.

And while your population stagnates, they will propogate and supplant you.

The melting pot idea is a wonderful concept. In limited numbers it actually works. But when the communities grow so large that they can become insular, that my friend is the path of least resistance. They wont change, because they will not have to change. But they will eventually change you by sheer weight of numbers. And unlike you and your countrymen, they arent "searching" for a vision to replace the one they are abandoning. They have clear belief systems which are long held and demonstrably effective.

Good luck trying to get them to drop them in favor of some secular humanist clap trap

 

[Robert Jan]

If I projected Rob, some of it was due to earlier mutual conversations, but admittedly some of it was just stereotyping.


Putting aside the "Christinaity thing for a moment (dont wish to get into a religious debate) lets concentrate on the practical. Your analysis, dare I say wishful thinking, with respect to immigration ignores many factors, including the law of unintended consequences.

The pyramid scheme people refer to as enlightened socialism has at its root the basic necessity that there have to be more people working than receiving. Unfortunately your generous social policies, coupled with declining population growth, require a massive influc of new workers as your aging population reaches retirement age. It will no longer be the paltry few million allowed in regularly. Your needs surmoun in excess of 30-40 million new workers in a relatively short time frame. It is unavoidable, unless you imagine some politician will eb the one to tell all those elderly that the government can no longer afford to pay their entitlements.

Those are workers Robert, not their spouses and children. Cut the number to half that, and you are still talking about an influx of incredible proportions once you factor in their immediate families. Thats the good news.

Here is the law of unintended consequences. You require workers so you will be forced to relax immigration policy. People move and want to stay. They dont stay alone for long. They're human, and as humans, they want their families there with them. Their brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, cousins, friends etc etc etc etc etc. That is exactly what happeend in the US in the early 1960's when we chnaged our immigration policies to "allow these guys to bring over the wives and kids"

Now you'll respond that "but we would never allow that." But by that time they represent a significant voting block, and they will get their way. Coupled with the fact that all the liberals will support their right to do so.

And while your population stagnates, they will propogate and supplant you.

The melting pot idea is a wonderful concept. In limited numbers it actually works. But when the communities grow so large that they can become insular, that my friend is the path of least resistance. They wont change, because they will not have to change. But they will eventually change you by sheer weight of numbers. And unlike you and your countrymen, they arent "searching" for a vision to replace the one they are abandoning. They have clear belief systems which are long held and demonstrably effective.

Good luck trying to get them to drop them in favor of some secular humanist clap trap

*the welfare state IS shrinking, at a rather obvious pace. I think you overestimate it's magnitude in the first place too.

*We just put a whole bunch of countries (white and christian if you mind) in the EU that have lots of workers.

*The number of people that live in Europe that actually form closed insular non european communities is small, and shrinking.

 

[jerseyart]

I have to disagree strongly.

That phrase is a favorite of Christians - you'll never hear a Jew say it - to convey and further the Christian doctrine of supersessionsism, as if Christianty somehow supplanted Judaism with an advanced moral development. (ie Jesus)

As you probably know, the real roots of Christianty (and Islam) are entirely secular. There is no continuity whatsoever; an in depth study of both belief systems would leave you to conclude that Christianty is not only an agglomeration of the pagan religions popular at the time Christianity was created, but also "Judaism lite".

Many jewish laws were included in the "new" religion; all the responsibility went away. Jesus "solved the problem". hence, "Judaism lite." What is lost in the transfer is that the focus of this belief system became DEATH, (also true of Islam) whereas with its Jewish predecessor, life was the main focus. Jews donot believe in life after death.

there is no continuity. The term is patently wrong.



it is not hyperbole. Death is the central event of Christianty and Islam, integral to Buddhism, and well...I don;t knwo in Hindusim.

Death is always seen as the gateway to the supernatural.



You're probably more familiar than I am with the Crusades. However, to suggest that the central event of religious / supernatural oppression was the Crusades is inaccurate. For centuries after the fall of Rome, Europe was plunged into dark ages under the rule of the church. Progress simply stopped.

This was only broken by the Renaissance, which resulted from outside intervention; largely from the non-Christian middle east; a place where, for centuries, Jews, Muslims and some Christians got along, and, suprise, made breakthroughs.

Now, as to the other point: If by secular humanists you are referring to lenin/stalin the soviet communists and all their satellites, I agree with you, they were a horrible pox upon humanity.

If you seek to group Hitler and co into that ilk, I will disagree and state that their actions were largely religion-based. The church was only too happy to have a friend in germany after von Bismarck's kulturkampf



The British isles? yes. America's democracy is the result of centuries of progress toward human rights in England, which, not coincidentally, broke from the Pope / church in the 1500s.

back to you.

Matt

Your "lack of conitnuity" theory is an obfuscation. Your premise is incorrect. It doesnt signify , nor does the meaning signify, continuity. It accurately represents a moral evolution from basis to Christian form. This really isnt debatable. You may object to some perceived slight in the term, that I could more readily understand. But to object to the term itself as incoherent is simply grasping to validate ones opinion.

With respect to your "death cult " theory. Im Catholic, and it is Catholic belief that the natural law is imprinted on the soul of man. We know right from wrong, because we were created with that ability. Your pagan morality theory is irrelevant, and actually consistent, with my beliefs.

Now if you want to examine after life theories, then I suggest you reeaxamine your facts. While the afterlife isnt a central point of concern in the jewish faith, it is a part of the faith, albeit in a far less defined way that in Christianity. So if you wish to make some pointless suggestion that Christians are somehow "obsessed" with death, then it only serves to further evidence your own myopic and self serving point of view. We don't strive to die, as you would suggest. We strive to live in such a way that is pleasing to our Creator, and consistent with His covenant with us.

Now the Dark Ages as you call them. How are they in any manner related to the Church? It would be like blaming Christianity for the susbequent chaos which would follow the fall of our own government. Ad Hoc ergo proctor hoc. Its a logical fallacy

And apparently you wish to make this thread into a deliberation of all your historical inaccuracies. Hitler and the nazis were not a Christian friendly belief system. Moreover your allusion to Church complicity somehow in what occured again demonstrates a great deal of histroical ignorance. The Church was not only the strongest voice in opposition to the nazis, it was almost the singular voice in opposition. Ironically enough it was Einstein who when recalling the time stated (paraphrased) that he had always imagined it would be the intellectual elites (your human secularists) who would have risen up in opposition to the nazis. Instead they stayed silent. In the converse it was the Catholic Church, for whom he had never had any particular appreciation, who uniquely and consistently spoke out against the nazis,, often to their own peril

Dont rewritre history for me on that score my friend. All the malicious propaganda you parrot is an injustice to the many tens of thousand of religious who died in opposition to those butchers.

 

[jerseyart]

*the welfare state IS shrinking, at a rather obvious pace. I think you overestimate it's magnitude in the first place too.

*We just put a whole bunch of countries (white and christian if you mind) in the EU that have lots of workers.

*The number of people that live in Europe that actually form closed insular non european communities is small, and shrinking.

Bor you are missing the point completely I said entitlements, not welfare. You are thinking fat lazy bastards collecting a check to sit on their ass, and Im talking systemeatic health and financial entitlements for the retired.

And they all, with the exception of a few slavic nations, have the same problem as you.

TRhats because you have yet to experience the large influx that will occure. Not if, but will.

 

[jerseyart]

And Rob

I did get a chuckly at the irony of your clinging to hope to the few countries that you see as offering a potential alternative. Ironic isnt it that your greatest hope was that a fundamentally Christian nation such as Poland or one or two others is your best chance of avoiding annihilation of your culture