Their fathers messed up America while pretending to improve
it. When they grew up, they found the place so messed up; they had no choice
but to turn their backs on it and not try to fix it.
Considering the practicality of the situation, that was a
wise decision to make given that they inherited no skill from their fathers
that would qualify them to fix the country. And so they wondered what they
could do, having no skill to fix the country, and no country worth fixing in
the first place as far as they were concerned.
That, in fact, was also the conundrum that motivated their
fathers to give up on America ,
having discovered they messed it up so very badly. However, not to sit idly,
the fathers pretended they could fix the Middle East and Asia; also pretended
they could fix Africa and Latin America . Their
problem was that everywhere they went with their ideas; the locals told them to
buzz off and never show their faces around here again. The refrains they often
heard everywhere they went sounded like this: “Yankee go home,” and “Gringo not
welcome here”.
Unwilling to be subjected to a similar fate, the sons gave
up on those places and searched for a more hospitable place where to go. They
dreamed of a place that would make them feel welcome and allow them to practice
their unskilled intrigues without being rebuffed or sent away. They found Europe to be such a place … or so they thought. That's
the question they are mulling at this time, trying to determine if there are
European opportunities they can tackle, thus help build a society that will
withstand the winds of change blowing from the East and from the South.
Two of the sons wrote an article each, and had them
published on the same day, July 7, 2017 in the same publication, National
Review Online. Max Bloom wrote: “Migrants Won't Solve Europe's Demographic
Problem.” Noah Daponte-Smith wrote: “The Second European Migrant Crisis
Begins”.
To make themselves sound useful and essential to fulfilling
a task that remains unfulfilled, each writer starts his piece with a
declaration to the effect that Europe is in
bad shape and that it needs his advice. Max Bloom starts with this: “A massive
influx of refugees from the Middle East
appears unlikely to provide the economic boost the continent needs as it
contends with an aging population and low birth rates”.
As to Noah Daponte-Smith, he starts his article with this:
“After a pause, the continent once again must confront an unwanted influx on
its borders.” The two White Knights, riding their high horses, have now
legitimated the effort they are about to undertake in a chivalrous attempt to
rescue the Europeans from a calamity they fail to see, but one that's gathering
on the horizon.
In making his point, Bloom paints the picture of a Europe that needs immigrants because it does not replace
itself: “The costs to health care and pensions will increase while tax revenues
decrease. The savings rate will decrease too, which will slow the economy. The
effect could be fiscal catastrophe,” says he. And he paints a picture of the
Middle Eastern refugees as being “unskilled, uneducated, and with poor language
skills … the jobs they will find are likely to be low-paying, menial labor”.
His point is that despite the looming catastrophe, the
Europeans will resent having refugees among them. He seems to imply that they
would rather grow old and penniless than share a prosperous economy with
descendants of refugees. As to the refugees, they will forget the horror they
left behind and start resenting the menial jobs they will be offered, Max Bloom
seems to say. Because of those difficulties, he concludes that Europe is making a mistake taking-in the refugees. Maybe
the young man should do himself a favor by going to the Statue of Liberty in New York , and read the
inscription about the poor and the huddled masses. And he could read a book or
two about the boat people, some of whom were doctors and engineers, yet were
happy to sweep the floor for a living … away from the bombs and from Agent
Orange.
As to Noah Daponte-Smith, he makes an argument that departs
from what used to be the conventional wisdom just a year and a half ago. The
reflexive response at the time was to invoke the typically American argument of
the genitalia: “They are raping their women” howled the uninformed ignoramuses
of our continent. But look what Smith is saying now: “For a time it looked as
if the European Union might not survive … In 2017, however, the last remnants
of Europe 's paroxysm seemed to fade away”.
This done, he strains himself to develop tangential
arguments that give the impression, the problem that never was, can flare up
(again). And so, he puts the onus on “Merkel and Macron, the experienced old
hand and the ambitious neophyte [to] forge intra-European cooperation” and save
Europe .
You see, my friend, it is a good thing he is telling them
this because they didn't know they had a problem, let alone one that could be
solved through cooperation.