[lit-ideas] Re: Seeking the Prime source
- From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:00:04 -0000
Ah the climb down. No proof pending clearly.
The trouble is Lawrence, as I keep saying, commentators like Steyn are
preaching to the converted, espousing vacuous theories that are at the same
time wrong and yet exactly what their audience wants to hear. All of the Steyn
quotes you've transcribed relate to third party anecdotals that appear to
vindicate he's central thesis that Islam is taking over Europe. This isn't
sound academic practice as you well know.
So now it turns out that even as you keep pasting the walls of Lit-Ideas with
Steyn's words you don't actually agree with what he has to say.
The Prime Source in this debate about demographics is, surprisingly enough,
demographics, not political commentary. Try looking on the net for European
census data, do some work, then come back with some results. And a hint, don't
forget the young Eastern Europeans - all most all of child bearing age - that
are streaming into Western Europe looking to work, looking to benefit from
western culture, looking to perpetuate it. Does Steyn mention these new
immigrants at all?
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:17 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Seeking the Prime source
Simon:
Just because I defend Steyn from your ad hominem and from Hari's unfair and
erroneous attacks doesn't mean that I am convinced by all of Steyn's arguments.
We never got past your specious nonsense to consider that matter. The bon
mots and witticisms that I was admiring with the quote from Pope didn't extend
to all of his arguments. Some items are open issues for me that no one has
quite closed. Steyn's writing reminds me of both Pope and Oscar Wilde.
Anyone who was in the habit of reading my notes would recall during my
discussion of Olivier Roy's Globalized Islam that he argued that the Muslim
population explosion was going to tail off long before Islam became a majority.
That seems to be Fukuyama's idea as well inasmuch as he invoked Roy's
arguments (in America at the Crossroads) as some of his reasons for abandoning
the Neocon position as practiced by the Bush Administration. I wasn't utterly
convinced by Roy's arguments, but neither am I utterly convinced by Bawer,
Fallaci, Berlinski and Steyn. On the other hand, all four describe incidents
indicative of a major shift either in favor of or in the accommodation of
Islam. This wouldn't be occurring if Muslims were peacefully integrating into
European society. As to how serious this is, some call it serious and others
say nothing terribly unusual is going on. I have read several comments about
the Dutch abandoning various parts of the Netherlands and moving to Australia
and New Zealand (I've only run across mention of one coming to the U.S.)
because the Muslims have taken over. How many have emigrated and the extent to
which Muslims have taken over in the Netherlands isn't clear to me. This
subject often comes up when Hirsi Ali is discussed -- she is one Dutch lady who
did emigrate to the United States.
Another point mentioned is that while the Muslim numbers are not that
overwhelming, when you make adjustments for age and location, you find that
many cities have as much as a 40% representation, in regard to the young, of
young Muslim men. It is the "youth" causing the trouble, and if we look at
Young Muslims vs Young Europeans, the disparity isn't quite as dramatic as the
naysayers like to emphasize.
As to the four I mentioned, none is the heavyweight that Roy is. The four
are all journalists and Roy is a scholar. I've ordered Bat Yeor's Eurabia.
She has been invoked by all of the four; so it is probably time I went to the
"prime source." :-)
Lawrence
------------Original Message------------
From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, Mar-12-2007 2:49 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Defense Welfare
"The joy of his book is that he is expressing what many of us who think (not
you Simon) have oft thought but ne'er so well expressed."
Thank you Lawrence, you summed it up perfectly. Steyn is producing a product
designed to make money. For that to happen, there has to be an adequate demand.
In this instance, it doesn't matter a jot if the product is pure fantasy
because that's exactly what the market requires.
So I asked you whether Steyn is a Prime Source. Not a primary source since
that typically refers to a first hand document used by historians, but a prime
source in the sense of a principal source of information that you think is
informative, objective and factual. If you do think that Steyn is any of these
things, please say.
Thanks to Judy for including a snippet of Johan Hari's review and
astonishment directed towards Lawrence for rejecting Hari in favour of his hero
Steyn; one of them got a double first in Social and Political Science from
Kings College, Cambridge, the other dropped out of school at sixteen. One of
them became (in 2005) the youngest person to ever be nominated for the
prestigious Orwell Prize for political writing., was nominated twice for the
David Watt Prize, also for political writing, in 2003, was named 'Young
Journalist of the Year' by the Press Gazette awards, which are regarded as the
Oscars of British journalism, in 2000, was named Student Journalist of the Year
by the Times of London, has reported from the United States, the Congo, Iraq,
Israel/Palestine, Venezuela, Rwanda, Syria and Peru and has interviewed Tony
Blair, Hugo Chavez, George Michael, the Dalai Lama, Simon Peres, Martin
McGuiness, Abu Hamza, Chuck Palahniuk and others. The other was awarded the
2006 Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism, recognising the
work of a columnist, editorialist or writer whose work defends and expresses
admiration of the United States and its democratic institutions (clearly
concerned with objectivity).
It's a difficult choice I know but, after a few hours thought, I think I'm
edging towards a choice of reading for the next decade.
Simon
PS. Just thought I'd add this bit, again not naming names:
Since he began work as a journalist, XXXXX has been attacked in print by the
Daily Telegraph, John Pilger, Peter Oborne, Private Eye, the Socialist Worker,
Cristina Odone, the Spectator, Andrew Neil, Mark Steyn (damn, gave it away),
the British National Party, Medialens, al Muhajaroun and Richard Littlejohn.
'Prince' Turki Al-Faisal, the Saudi Ambassador to Britain, has accused Johann
of "waging a private jihad against the House of Saud". (He's right). Johann has
been called "a Stalinist" and "beneath contempt" by Noam Chomsky, 'Horrible
Hari' by Niall Ferguson, "an uppity little queer" by Bruce Anderson, 'a drug
addict' by George Galloway, "fat" by the Dalai Lama and "a cunt" by Busted.
PPS Anytime Lawrence wants to demonstrate, statistically, how Europe will
become a Muslim continent by 2050 I'll be glad to comment. And no, I've no
intention of buying Steyn's book, Lawrence will have to provide the proof of
his assertions.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 6:12 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Defense Welfare
Simon:
All your twitty chatter about Steyn's education causes me wonder about
yours, Simon. I have no idea what you mean by "prime source." Source of what?
When I entered graduate school, the obligatory first course was "Techniques
of Literary Research." One of the first things we learned was the difference
between a primary and a secondary sources.
I suspect you don't mean primary source, but what the heck do you mean?
Consider the Wikepedian definition of "primary source": "The nature of a
primary source depends on the historical problem being studied. In political
history, the most important primary sources are likely to be documents such as
official reports, speeches, letters and diaries by participants, and eyewitness
accounts (as by a journalist who was there). In the history of ideas or
intellectual history, the dominant primary sources might be books of philosophy
or scientific literature. A study of cultural history could include fictional
sources such as novels or plays. In a broader sense primary sources also
include physical objects like photographs, newsreels, coins, paintings or
buildings created at the time. Historians may also take archaeological
artifacts and oral reports and interviews into consideration. Written sources
may be divided into three main types."
a.. Narrative sources or literary sources tell a story or message. They
are not limited to fictional sources (which can be sources of information for
contemporary attitudes), but include diaries, films, biographies, scientific
works, and so on.
b.. Diplomatic sources include charters and other legal documents which
usually follow a set format.
c.. Social documents are records created by organizations, such as
registers of births, tax records, and so on.
In the study of historiography, when the study of history is itself subject
to historical scrutiny, a secondary source becomes a primary source. For a
biography of a historian, that historian's publications would be primary
sources. Documentary films can be considered a secondary source or primary
source, depending on how much the filmmaker modifies the original sources."
Someone could engage in a project and use Steyn as a "primary source."
Steyn is a journalist, after all, and has seen, heard, and witnessed a number
of things that he has written about, but again, I don't think that's what you
mean. But what the heck do you mean, Simon?
Lawrence
ps: It hasn't escaped me that neither you nor Andreas has directly
responded to any of the issues that Steyn has raised, All you can manage,
apparently, is ad hominem attacks and innuendo. The poorly educated Steyn,
however, isn't afraid to tackle issues. The joy of his book is that he is
expressing what many of us who think (not you Simon) have oft thought but ne'er
so well expressed.
------------Original Message------------
From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, Mar-12-2007 9:27 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Defense Welfare
"There's a line conservatives are fond of when they're discussing welfare:
what's batter [sic] for a man -- to give him a fish or to teach him to fish for
himself? That goes double for defense welfare."
I'm sure this mst be an error in transcription, but it's good. Very good.
As for Steyn, I rang him up and challenged him to a yorkshire pudding
making competition (a cook off). Though he whipped well, his batter wasn't
better, his fat wasn't hot enough and so his puddings weren't crispy. Pointless
really, but he talked well and his supporters in the front row lapped it up.
Even it if was half-baked.
So Lawrence, for the second time, do you seriously consider Steyn a prime
source? Is he, for you, as important a commentator as say Ann Coulter? Or will
you come clean and admit you read him for his comedy value?
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: Lit-Ideas
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 2:18 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Defense Welfare
Andreas accused me of being a recipient of welfare because I served in
the Marine Corps and worked in America' Defense Industry. There's no reason to
belabor the nonsensical nature of that view, but there is a sense in which
Defense Welfare exists. I am not the recipient of it, but our European allies
are:
"As for America's 'friends, there's another paradox of the non-imperial
hyperpower: the United State garrisons not remote ramshackle colonies but its
wealthiest allies, thereby freeing them to spend their tax revenues on
luxuriant welfare programs rather than on tanks and aircraft carriers and thus
further exacerbating the differences between America and the rest of the free
world. Like any other form of welfare, defense welfare is a hard habit to
break and damaging to the recipient. The peculiarly obnoxious character of
modern Europe is a logical consequence of America's willingness to absolve it
of responsibility for its own security. In 1796 George Washington wrote to
Alexander Hamilton: 'The nation which indulges towards another an habitual
hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to
its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it
astray from its duty and its interest.'
"That neatly sums up the Euro-American relationship: the United States
has become a slave to its habitual if largely misplaced fondness for Europe,
while Europe has become a slave to its habitual if entirely irrational hatred
for America. There's a line conservatives are fond of when they're discussing
welfare: what's batter for a man -- to give him a fish or to teach him to fish
for himself? That goes double for defense welfare." [Steyn, p 159-60]
I don't know about that, Steyn. Do we really want to trust those wackos
with weapons again?
Lawrence
Other related posts:
