Rahul Gupta notes that "the Hindu-Minority population [in Bangladesh] kept on dwindling and now stands at a meager 10.5% of the total population in Bangladesh (1991 census)."
By now the total number of non-Muslims is 8% (and that includes Christians and some Buddhists). That must mean that the total number of Hindus in what was once part of India is down to 5%. Meanwhile, despite the fact that many of those Hindus, those not murdered or forcibly converted, fled to East Bengal in India, including those who did so because they saw no other way out. But in East Bengal, the proportion of Hindus has gone steadily down and the proportion of Muslims steadily up.
And, of course, the same drop in the Hindu population can be seen in Pakistan (formerly West Pakistan), while a rise in the Muslim percentage of the population is observable in India.
It is the same everywhere. It is the same with the Jews and the Arabs -- the Muslim population of Israel goes steadily up. And all the Jews of Israel can think of doing, in response, is to yield territory in order, as they fondly believe, to "retain the Jewish character" of the remaining rump-state -- a state that will be hellishly difficult to defend.
It is true in Lebanon, where the Christians were a few decades ago 60% of the population, and are now about 35%.
It is true in Istanbul, and in Turkey. The city of Constantinople (Istanbul) was 50% non-Muslim in 1914; it is now 1% non-Muslim. The Jews, the Armenians, and the Greeks all left under different and varying pressures. The Armenians were mass-murdered, the Greeks driven out. The Jews, always too few and too weak even to take seriously, live in ever-decreasing numbers. Many have gone to Israel, or Europe, or America. Those that remain keep as quiet as they can, or are sometimes forced by the Turkish government, when it wants to trot out a "Jewish spokesman," to tell the Western world just how fine things are in Turkey.
It is true in Western Europe, where the indigenous Infidel taxpayers are supporting huge Muslim families, in which the wife or wives do not have to work, and every conceivable benefit is given to the immigrants. They receive Western-level medical care, as long as the male doctors do not actually look at the female Muslim patients, and as long as the Muslim men are allowed in to be the intermediary between the women and the doctors, and as long as -- oh, there are so many things that Western doctors, in Germany and France and Italy and Great Britain, have been forced to adjust to in order to accommodate Muslim demands. They receive free education -- in which the threats and menace of Muslim students, when those students are numerous enough, have changed the curriculum. They have prevented, in France for example, the study of the Holocaust, of World War II, of the kings of France, of the history of Christianity in France, in the history classes. They’ve also prevented the study of so many canonical writers, including Voltaire, and Proust, in the literature curriculum. And as for the "prof de philo" and what he or she must endure in trying to get Muslim students to think about the universe -- well, just use your imagination, and think about the effect of Muslim students on French education, students that is with little interest in France, or French history, and certainly not about to sit still either for a dictee from "Atala and Rene," or to sit still for a lecture on "The Declaration of the Rights of Man." The immigrants receive free practically everything, and meanwhile, they breed and breed and breed, as Orianna Fallaci noted, so that in gentle, tolerant, easygoing Netherlands, for example, which had 15,000 Muslims in 1970, now has a million.
It is a phenomenon that must be halted and reversed. Demography, it turns out, is destiny. We owe it not to ourselves (we're not that great, are we?) but to all those who contributed to the civilizational legacy of the West. That is a legacy that could not have been produced in whole or part within Muslim lands. Those who did create it have a right to expect that it will be maintained, rather than that we will fall all over ourselves in confusion and disarray, repeating idiotically, "but there is nothing to be done."
There is plenty to be done, and it can be done if enough people educate themselves on the nature and function of Islam. It is not exactly a mystery.
Well the only people willing to act in Britain are the British National Party but the wise and noble British media has vilified and demonized them. Perhaps we should target all our effort and resources on the western media.
For those interested, the following letter can be used to write on the demography is destiny topic to your senator or other rep.
Dear Senator X,
I am writing in regards to the negative impact of immigration and ask you to vote to stop all forms of immigration. The reasons for this are as follows, with data sources.
Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973. See graph page 18:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf
Women’s wages are below men’s. So women earn less than men did in 1973. The same applies to blacks and Hispanics, all earn less than all men did in 1973.
Labor force participation rates of black men and white men were 80 percent in 1965. Now white men are down to 74 percent and black men to 66 percent:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2006/B40.xls
One-way immigration causes genetic replacement
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1213928
“We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.”
Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.
Copyright notice
The Island Model with Stochastic Migration
Thomas Nagylaki
Department of Biophysics and Theoretical Biology, The University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637
Black and white fertility has fallen in the US since 1800 except during immigration restriction, i.e. the baby boom, see graph:
http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2919
The top1 percent got 20 percent of income before immigration restriction in the 1920’s, got 10 percent during it, and are back to 20 percent. This is a U shape.
http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-06inc.htm
The fertility graph is an inverted U, its higher during low income inequality and is low at each side. You can put the U shaped income inequality graph over the fertility graph and they are a U inverted U shape, call it a fish diagram.
Suppose US population is stable at 300 million. If people live 75 years, 4 million die per year. If 2 million enter, and pop is stable, then there are 2 million births. 2 million births over 4 million deaths is a genetic survival ratio of 1/2. 25 years birth to parent, so in 75 years, 3 cycles leaves 1/8 genes. Even if pop goes to 450mm and 1 million enter, we get a fraction of 5/6 per cycle, which results in genetic extinction.
This happens by lowering wages and is happening already. There is a substitution effect from births to immigrants.
quote
“Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent”
By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03
PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.
As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent.
end quote
Sincerely yours,
Your Name Here
P.S. Labor force participation rates of white, black, Asian and Hispanic men are projected to fall from 2004 to 2014:
http://www.bls.gov/emp/emplab05.htm
You can also copy these into the faxes, the links fit, at
http://www.numbersusa.com/index
There is more to destiny than demographics. The typical American family pays over $12,000 annually to support people who are unable or unwilling to support themselves (compare with national defense at ~$5k). The government has also saddled this family with about a million dollars of unfunded liabilities, growing by $30k per year and accelerating. This bill will never be paid.
Last month’s job report illustrates the status of our democracy:
Added 30,000 health care providers; primarily funded through Medicaid.
Added 35,000 workers in restaurants and bars.
Added 40,000 government workers.
Professional services were unchanged.
Construction was unchanged.
Merchants shed 10,000 jobs.
Manufacturing shed 18,000 jobs.
Add Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas to the list of high income earners living in the Caribbean (other owners include Bush, Clinton, de la Renta, Gates, Bloomberg, Coppola, and the nameless multitudes). Income taxes stateside can exceed 50% for high-income earners, in the Caribbean they are zero. The tax base has grown concentrated at the same time it has grown mobile. When the electorate targets the tax base to feed its addiction, the tax base will leave, causing an economic collapse that will make the Great Depression look mild. From what I gather, Europe is in a more advanced state than the US.
These events will happen long before Muslims make up a quarter of the European population. In the interim, Islam will continue to piss everybody off.
My wife’s grandfather escaped Ireland when Englishmen overran the family farm. He was the only male in the family that survived because he was an embryo at the time. The deal was that if the child was a girl, she could live. The mother jumped on a boat to America instead of waiting to find out.
Western DNA has not changed that much in three generations. Things like having to compete for resources make people change.
6:106 “Stay away from disbelievers.” may take on a new meaning.
Our biggest obstacle is our ultra liberal immigration policies and political correctness that has infiltrated all areas of government in the entire western world.
How do we overcome these obstacles when the mention of halting immigration and specifically Islamic immigration to our countries brings outrage from the brainwashed populace?
There is no doubt in my mind that the world is entering a phase that will make the worst post apocalyptic movies look like fairy tales with a happy outcome. Where is this world heading today, if we allow Europe to become Islamic we in North America will be next. Judging some trends I see here I think it's apparent we've started sooner than I even thought.
Pope Paul VI many decades ago in his encyclical Humanae Vitae prophesied what would happen if Christians ignored the traditional Judeo-Christian morality that enjoins believers to "be fruitful and multiply."
He was scorned, villified, insulted and --even by Catholics--ignored.
Now we are reaping the whirlwind created by all those ignorant, narrow-minded secularists who are too stupid to understand the simple demographic facts that are leading the Western World into self-genocide.
Stop blaming the Moslems for what is happening. They are doing what comes naturally-multiplying. The problem is the Western World's greed, narcissism, and rampant feminism, and homosexualism-- all promoters of Western self-genocide
Hugh,
"easygoing Netherlands, for example, which had 15,000 Muslims in 1970, now has a million."
Geez, that's 985,000 muslims in only 37 years. Thats ridiculous. No country can survive that much birthrate-it's impossible. Before long, every country in the world is going to be exactly like palestine. When that happens, where will the muslims get financial aid from?
It is hard to post on such issues without residual liberal feelings of guilt, but so be it. The bottom line is that if there were complete assimilation to Western values, this would not be a factor. But only and idiot or fool would argue that Muslim immigrants to the West, be it Europe or the US, are assimilating as effectively as previous immigrant groups. It is obvious to anyone with a brain not infected with the disease of political correctness that Muslims are not assimilating at a significant clip. So, absolutely, yes, the West is becoming Islamicized.
It's a simple question: more Muslims + low Muslim assimilation rate + Muslim activism and identity politics (fueled and funded by organizations like CAIR in the US and MPAC in the UK) = greater Islamicization of Western societies. That means more and more accommodation and step-by-step institution of Sharia law.
It is a very small step from pre-prayer footbaths at universities to special Sharia courts to deal with Muslim issues, as you already see in Canada.
Wimbledon Womble,
Exactly, but what can "We the people" do about this?
Those sneaky infidel genetic engineers would never think of innoculating themselves and their own people and then unleashing a virus that sterilize those trying to outbreed them, would they?
Demographics is only destiny if those who are being overwhelming by the tsunami of the Ummah dare not strike back.
So, imagine if the muslims are taking over a huge nation like India with a billion plus population simply by breeding, does Europe stand a chance ?
The successful islamic strategy of demographic warfare, the manipulation of liberalism in democratic societies to advance islam is a source of despondency to me.
How can this be countered to preserve civilization as we know it ? We owe it to posterity to think about this sincerely and attempt a solution.
mrockroll1969: I wish I had the answer. Vigilance. Telling other people about what you see. Raising awareness. Hoping that one day there will be a force equal to CAIR in money and motivation to take on the issues. But, beyond that, taking the long view, I think we are all right. We have seen the quality of life and the great things the West can offer. We are relatively free and very well-off, compared to the rest of the world that is either emulating us to catch up or is rejecting us. Islam is rejecting us. It has nothing positive to offer humanity. It has only resentment, hatred and absolutism. The last point, absolutism, appeals to some people, but not many, IMHO, unless you have the weird configuration of cultural currents that led to Nazi Germany. We're not there. I wish we could rid ourselves of this distracting crap now, but I don't think they have any chance of winning. It's kind of just a question of how long we will put up with this. Will we let them drain our economy and resources for 5 years or 10 year or 50. They have no chance of winning and achieving a global Caliphate. It's just a question of how much painful drag they are going to have on us. The sooner more people wake up to Islamism or radical Islam or orthodox Islam or whatever you want to call it, and it's peculiar demands, the sooner it will become something that no longer has any sway over our society. I guess just telling people about what you think, in terms that don't seem alarmist or paranoid, is the best we can do. I would be confident, though, that in the long run (which may be years or centuries - I sure hope sooner than later), we don't have to worry, since this kind of totalitarian crap has always met its end if you look at history.
Well, Pat Buchanon, Hugh Fitzgerald and myself are in complete agreement on this one. Demography IS destiny.
Numbers don't lie. But they do mislead, at least insofar as Western Europe is concerned. The existing percentages are bad enough, but if one accounts for age, the implications for the future are even more frightening. Europes native population is old and getting older; the young are disproportionately immigrants, and the immigrants disproportionately Muslim.
The writing is on the wall for all strategic planners: Europe's future is an Islamic one, and there is every possibility it will be more fanatical and militant than what we see in the Middle East (particularly if the last gasp of the Christian Europe entails a violent convulsion).
Europe will some day be a hated enemy of the USA. This is one of many reasons Americans must reconcile themselves to - and even embrace - their own Latin future. We've been conferred a gift that is essentially an accident of geography (much like the Arab oil bonanza). Our future majority will be Christians....but Spanish-speaking. We must transcend our cultural and linguistic prejudices. This is OUR demographic destiny.
Non-Westerners need to stop f-cking.
Europe will some day be a hated enemy of the USA. This is one of many reasons Americans must reconcile themselves to - and even embrace - their own Latin future. We've been conferred a gift that is essentially an accident of geography (much like the Arab oil bonanza). Our future majority will be Christians....but Spanish-speaking. We must transcend our cultural and linguistic prejudices. This is OUR demographic destiny.
Posted by: Cornelius at July 28, 2007 11:51 PM
Your lamentable predictions are quite depressing. I refuse to concede to the Mexicans or the muslims, but you're free to surrender and make deals with them.
Your bleak forecast for America hardly sounds like a "gift" to me. Would you explain why you think America is the property of Mexico and its people, and why we should allow Mexicans to overrun our country and turn it into another third world garbage dump?
It seems that every nation on earth except America is entitled to its sovereignty; many nations desire to remain ethnically pure (Japan, Saudi Arabia to name two) and I never hear a word of condemnation or accusations of "racism." Whites are the only true minority in the world, but the social engineers have decreed that no country should have a white majority and they're working overtime to make that happen. Why?
Europe in the future is going to be an islamic state,if the european dhimmis do not act against the barbaric mohammedans.Russia has already more than 20% muslims in their backyard and growing very fast.Infidel population birth rate is very low in russia among the lowest in europe and america has to deal with islamonazis with nuclear weapons in russia.Muslims will not hesitate in using nuclear bombs as opposed to communists in soviet union who knew the consequences of using nuclear weapons.Muslims have no love for life as demonstrated by them everyday in iraq,afghanistan,pakistan and all kinds of islamistans.They will use the nuclear weapons as early as they get hold of them.Russia's huge nuclear arsenal with about 16000 warheads is more than enough to destroy the world many times and muslims are waiting for the opportunity when they outbreed the infidels in russia and europe and get hold over the nuclear bombs and blow themselves up for the pleasure of satan(allah).
Wimbledon Womble I am in agreement with almost everything you've stated, but I'm not sure about the Sharia courts in Canada.
As a Canadian I have not heard that they have been given the right do this. I know that they were originally told they will have Sharia courts in Ontario, but someone had a second thought on that and pulled the plug on it a couple of years ago.
What did disturb me was that the day news hit Sharia law was shot down in Ontario, former Chief Justice Wallace Oppal, the current Attorney General in British Columbia stated he would welcome Sharia courts in BC.
This man is a scary freaking idiot, and I find these comments down right frightening in light of the growing Muslim community in BC.
I posted a link a couple of times now to the Muslim day at Playland amusement park, and just today a middle eastern man called in a bomb threat to the BC Ferries shutting down the ferry system and prompting the search of Ferries and hundreds of cars.
I don't know about you but it seems like they're crawling out of the wood work everywhere we go these days.
"Stop blaming the Moslems for what is happening. They are doing what comes naturally-multiplying. The problem is the Western World's greed, narcissism, and rampant feminism, and homosexualism-- all promoters of Western self-genocide"
Stop blaming gays and feminism. A stable birthrate is best for the environment and for the reality of most people's lives these days. Where people are having fewer than 2 children, tax policies can help, especially ones that help parents work part-time. This is quite successful in New Zealand. If people are collecting welfare just so they can keep breeding beyond replacement, the welfare system must be revised.
If a country wants fewer immigrants of any persuasion, immigration policies can be a lot stricter than they currently seem to be in Europe.
Deacon John M. Bresnahan -
Maybe the Catholic leaders should 'be fruitful and multiply'?
The Catholic church takes it's most devout out of the gene pool. How stupid is that?
Western countries are making it very hard for families to have a stay at home mom and working with children is a very hard juggling act for families. How many moms would have more children if they didn't have to be employed? A lot more.
Susanp
because for some reason the left hates white people, or atleast white men. In there minds white men will always be the oppressers and everyone else will always be some type of victim.
I guess it makes sense to them that the fewer of us that are around the better world it will be.
"because for some reason the left hates white people, or atleast white men"
Here we go again with the left-bashing. I have little difficulty imagining some jihadist logging on to this website (hey, don't knock their caves--they're outfitted with the finest stuff Bin Laden's bloated wallet has to offer), seeing us snipe at one another, and laugh. We need unity, not sweeping (and false) generalizations.
P.S.--I assure you that, once again, I don't hate myself, my being a liberal notwithstanding. On the contrary, I am truly amazing in every imaginable way.
SUSAN: "Your bleak forecast for America hardly sounds like a "gift" to me. Would you explain why you think America is the property of Mexico and its people, and why we should allow Mexicans to overrun our country and turn it into another third world garbage dump?"
RESPONSE: Two reasons. 1) The federal government does not have the will or inclination to secure our borders and 2) Like Europeans, Americans are not having babies; if all illegals in the USA were expelled tomorrow, we would have a labor-shortage that would result in spectacular wage-inflation that would simply ruin the US economy. These are the fruits of our welfare system (removing an entire class of Americans from the labor force), and our blatant disregard of the civilizational imperatives of pro-creation.
SUSAN: "It seems that every nation on earth except America is entitled to its sovereignty; many nations desire to remain ethnically pure (Japan, Saudi Arabia to name two) and I never hear a word of condemnation or accusations of "racism." Whites are the only true minority in the world, but the social engineers have decreed that no country should have a white majority and they're working overtime to make that happen. Why?"
RESPONSE: Saudi Arabia is hardly "ethnically pure." In fact, a majority of its residents are non-Saudi. As for Japan, its current aging population of 130 million will likely fall to 50 million by the turn of the century. What do you believe will happen to all the unused housing and infrastructure? That it will sit abandoned and decay? Hardly. Immigrants from the Philippines and Indonesia will be inundating Japan in the decades to come.
Rest assured, I'm no fan of Mexico, and I believe that Mexican irredentism poses a unique threat to the territorial integrity of America...(I don't feel similarly alarmed at immigration from other Latin American countries).
But the writing is on the wall. Hispanics WILL be a majority in the USA country sometime in this century. You can gnash your teeth or worse, live in denial, but it will happen. It is an unfolding historical process, based primarily upon the crippling effect affluence has on fertility.
I'm an Anglo. I love the English language. I lament the day it becomes the second language in America. But I'm rational enough to see that day coming. And I'm indeed thankful that our future majority will not be Muslim.
I gotta agree with Cornelius on that last comment. Mexicans, at least, have tequila. Muslims would ban all alcohol. So take your pick.
Lili I believe there is merit to your argument about westerners need to have more children and that taxes and programs can help this.
However in places like Europe they have gone to the point beyond no return. No taxation program on earth can turn around the utter civilizational destruction that has already taken place. We have been brainwashed in the west to be consumers and to buy the next greatest and latest thing. We have been brainwashed through our socialist educational systems that we are to blame for the worlds ills. We cannot overcome these things overnight, and tie that in to the fact that we have set womans rights to another level that it would be impossible to turn around and say, hey get back in the bedroom and make babies, forget about that career.
In Greece the government there has taken these steps, and the Orthodox Church has made unprecedented remarks to Greeks that they should have babies whether married or not. They see the looming dangers, but it's way too late. These remarks were made in the country that has the best fertility rate in the Mediterranean, yet its rate has been described as impossible to recover from. Greece needs to go to the next level and come up with incentive programs for expatriate Greeks to return with their families and stop immigration from non Christian countries.
Using New Zealand as an example is not the best example, it is an isolated island at the bottom of the earth with only 4 million people and basically no measurable Muslim population. Come back to me when New Zealand gets a 1% Muslim population and see how different attitudes will be there also.
The fanatic: You're right. It's an ongoing issue that hasn't been implemented yet. Sorry for besmirching Canada in this way. I hope opposition will remain to this implementation of Sharia law.
Muslims activists seem to know no restraints on their behavior. They keep pushing and pushing. I do think they are overplaying their hand. They are pushing too hard, too soon, which means people are waking up before demographics give them a decisive victory through numbers in Canada, the US and Europe. Let's hope this is the case and that people wake up, despite the pervasive PC indoctrination in the West.
On the other hand, I am concerned by this recent Koran flushing incident in New York. It was an immature and silly act, but apparently, the guy who did it is facing two felony charges. It is truly absurd how, in NYC, of all places, the MSA and CAIR can intimidate the NYPD and NY DIstrict Attorney into this.
On the other hand, this may once again be a case of overplaying their hand, which means the guy will get off and the Muslim "activists" will once again be revealed for the totalitarian anti-Western fanatics they are.
I still think the tide is turning against these fools while there is still time. It is not yet the eleventh hour in the West.
With very strict constraints on immigration from Muslim countries (e.g. only letting in those who are persecuted for being apostates) combined with monitoring of and laws against undo Gulf State involvement in Western affairs (including oversight or ban on funding of activist organizations by these foreign interests, monitoring foreign-funded Wahhabi involvement in mosques, etc.) this thing could be turned around. Then we just need to become more independent energy-wise from the Gulf States and just let the fester in whatever rotten societies they wish to have. A separation wall. That is an answer.
Will it come to pass? I don't know, but the fact that Muslims seem so willing to push and push and overplay their hand again and again in the West makes me hopeful that people will wake up before it it is too late.
Hugh,
Remember the two questions of Russian intelligentsia: "who is to blame?" (kto vinovat?) and "what to do?" (chto delat'?)? Thanks to you we know the answer to the first one. Now what about the second?
Wimbledon Womble I truly hope you're right about us not having reached the 11th hour yet.
For myself I look at this as if I'm about to see a car crash and there's nothing I can do about it.
No matter how many people I speak to here in Canada, they instinctively pull away as if what I'm telling them is intended to harm them. Very few people I speak to on a regular basis are open minded enough to even listen, but I have made inroads with some. I only hope to build on those small victories and see if people will start to wake up to this problem.
The fanatic: Yes, I know what you mean. Most people seem to be living in a "I'm okay and You're okay" mode. We've grown so accustomed to our self-centered "don't rock the mode" lifestyles that we refuse to see anything ugly around us. We just want to be able to live our lives in happy and ignorant oblivion. It's a function of consumerism and middle class apathy. As long as I can do the little things that make me happy, the rest of the world just doesn't matter. But more and more there will be encroachments on freedom and, in a more basic sense, common sense, that will cause the suburbanites living in their glorious isolation to wake up.
One day, Mr. Joe Suburbia will get a letter from the local school board saying that his son, Joe Jr., is being disciplined for harassing a Muslim student because he brought a ham sandwich to lunch and offered a bite to little Mohammed. It is almost at this level of absurdity, so we have no reason to believe that this is in the offing soon. At that point, Mr. Joe Suburbia will wake up and say: what's wrong here? My son wanted to share his sandwich with his friend, but his friend turned him in to the authorities because it was a ham sandwich.
This may seem absurd. But we are just about there. We are in an era of absurdity. And when things get too absurd, people start to get jarred from the comfortable insulated little worlds. Then, they say: I mad as hell and I can't take it anymore.
In the end, common sense is our ally. Until then, just keep telling people about what you see in a low-key sort of way. E-mail links, etc. I have seen the same thing. A lot of people tune it out, at first, or they recoil, but then they come around as they see this stuff is really happening. Be patient and be persistent.
People seem to have a pretty amazing ability to deny themselves from reality. Maybe that's why the trivial pursuits of Lindsay Lohan of Paris Hilton are so popular. You watch TV, and you want pure entertainment. If you are going to hear anything unpleasant, it's kind of satisfying to hear about some insignificant idiot's DUI. It's a really challenging and horrible thing to consider that there are masses of people who want to overturn everything we stand for, kill our kids, burn down our houses, extort us for every cent we have, etc.
But that's where we are. It's coming to pass. Political correctness is just the ultimate "see no evil" pacifier. The PC programming we get in society may be less a result of liberalism than a result of a pathological fear of anything challenging, any real thought, criticism, etc. to distract us from our destiny of being quiet and happy middle class consumers.
But it's simple. If we just go back and ask questions about things, we come to understand that there is stuff going on that is not all honky dory.
Liberalism may be a part of the denial problem, but I am convinced so is raw "feel-good" consumerism. I am not saying that I am against capitalism in any sense. I think capitalism is a wonderful tool to motivate people and get the best out of people's efforts. I am saying that there is something related to our obsession with super models and beautiful people that causes us to also avert our eyes from those in our midst who want to kill us or sue us. We want to believe everything is simple: life is an easy thing.
Life is not an easy thing. We cannot buy ourselves happiness by buying some great product any more than we can buy ourselves security and peace by ignoring the Islamist threat that is around us.
The mainstream media is not just a bunch of liberals hoping to program us to liberal beliefs. They are also liberal businesspeople who want to us to ignore anything unpleasant and buy, buy, buy.
I don't see things as simply anymore as liberal vs. conservative. But I think true conservatism, with an abiding respect for the individual and for capitalism as a means for individuals to get profit from producing products of real value, is the way to go.
We need to question everything, but not as childish rebels. We need to question everything as thinking people. Does it make sense that Newsweek whitewashes Islam while selling copy and all the products in its pages? Maybe we should not buy the Newsweek magazine and not buy the products advertised in Newsweek.
Ask questions. Whether it leads you in a "liberal" or "conservative" direction does not matter.
I agree entirely with Wimbledon Womble--a very cogent, insightful comment. It's refreshing to see something like this on this website, in contrast to the normal liberals-versus-conservatives slugfest I've been seeing.
If an Australian may offer some thoughts on the argument about Spanish versus English in the USA...
I would like to remind people of just a few things that Spanish Christianity has given the world.
St Teresa of Avila. St John of God. St Dominic. Ignatius Loyola.
Victoria (Spanish Catholic composer). Velasquez. Cervantes. El Cid. Rodrigo: the Concierto de Aranjuez. The Missa Criolla: find it. Listen to the Sanctus and that soprano voice chanting 'santo santo santo', so that you are lifted right out of your chair. The Missa Flamenca.
Bartolomeo las Casas.
Look. You can demonise all Latino immigrants as a mortal threat to Anglo America's 'cultural' or 'racial' integrity, and write them off as a stalking horse for jihad, or how they're all going to turn into Muslims, it's hopeless, they're horrible stupid peons, and how AWFUL if my grandchildren all grow up talking ...ugh! dirty, uncivilised Spanish, the language of, oh, that stupid fellow Cervantes...
Or the Catholics, at least, can roll up their sleeves in all those little Catholic parochial schools and get to work to re-connect these people to their glorious Spanish Catholic heritage, which is different from, but neither better nor worse than, say, the Polish Catholic heritage or the English and Irish and Italian Catholic heritage. If all of those can contribute to, and co-exist within, the Catholic Church in America and in the world, then surely Hispanic Catholics can find a place.
Inoculate those Mexican and Puerto Rican immigrant kids against Muslim daawa by telling them about Spain's 800 years of misery under the vicious tyranny of warring Muslim dynasties; and the heroism of those Spaniards who eventually fought the thrice-accursed Muslims to a standstill and booted them out (mistreating the Jews was wrong; defeating the Moors and booting them out was thoroughly justified and justifiable). Teach them about the other peoples who suffered Muslim occupation and took heart from the Spanish example. If state education won't do it, then Catholic schools and Catholic universities should most assuredly be doing it.
Instead of Anglo and Latino cursing each other and fighting over whose culture and language is 'better' [any sensible linguist and historian, and certainly any properly instructed Christian will answer: NEITHER] those who are Christian should be praying together, and everyone, Christian or not, should be mapping out a joint campaign to defeat the daawa, sharia and jihad in both Americas, North and South.
And for heaven's sake, don't either Anglo or Latino forget the Native American peoples whose languages have been, historically, hated, despised and deliberately silenced in the name of political convenience, national unity/homogeneity/purity, and the supposed inherent spiritual and intellectual superiority of 'the English language' or 'the Spanish language' or 'the Portuguese language', in both continents. They will suffer even worse under the Muslims...
I remind you that the real in-depth conversion to Christianity of, say, the Quechua and Aymara is only happening NOW, after the recent translation of the Bible into their mother tongues. I have to say that from a Christian POV it is an offence against grace and a flat denial of the lessons of Pentecost, for any Anglo-American Christian to demand that a Navajo or an Ojibway MUST forget who they are, and pray, worship and read the Bible ONLY in English, English, English! - or for a Spanish-speaking Christian in, say, Mexico or Peru, to demand that people whose mother tongues are not Spanish must always and everywhere pray, learn and worship in Spanish, Spanish, Spanish! (That is to commit the same sin as the Muslims, with their ruthless imperial exaltation of Arabic).
Please remember, all 'English-only English-first English-forever no-other-languages-to-be-spoken-on-North-American-soil' Yankee English supremacists (and Spanish-supremacists, too!) that in WWII the obscure, despised, the-sooner-they-become-extinct-the-better native languages became one of America's greatest assets. Navajo code-talkers. (Hint, hint, all who wish to defeat jihadist eavesdroppers).
Why do I think this way?
I am a Christian, and a Gentile. According to the Bible there is exactly one 'chosen people' that has been told it will be a nation before God forever. It's the House of Israel, that is, the Jews. There is one holy land - the land of Israel. YHWH, once He gives a promise, never rescinds it. Now, a lot of people disagree with these ideas - secular atheists certainly will - but the fact remains, since this is what I believe, it relativises my identity as an English-speaking Australian. I can't pretend that MY nation is eternal, or that it is the one through which God has saved the world. My patriotism has to be tempered with a big dollop of humility. (And humility is NOT self-hate).
Then, there's Pentecost - the word of God given in many languages. Although many in the crowd at Jerusalem that day surely knew Hebrew; though most probably knew Latin and/ or koine Greek; the revelation was given not in these 'common' languages, but in the mother tongues, even the dialects, of all persons present. You don't have to share my belief in this account, to see that a logical consequence of that belief is that I, myself, CAN'T absolutise the claims of any one language - not even the Hebrew of the TaNaKh, or the Greek of the Gospels.
The church doesn't replace or supersede the House of Israel. The church exists in and through many nations, languages and empires, many of which she has already outlived; she cannot be assimilated to, or exclusively identified with, or 'cornered' by, any one of them. (Separation of church and state!).
Rejoice in your Spanish/ American, or your Anglo-American identity - or for that matter, your mestizo Native-American/ Anglo or Native American/Latino identity. Or even your Ojibway or Quechua identity, for it too can be humbly dedicated to the Biblical God, who may well grant to it to create things at least as glorious as the mystical writing of Teresa of Avila or the sermons of John Donne.
But, I beg you, don't take your ethno-linguistic identity, whatever it is, and turn it into an idol. If you're a Christian, don't buy the idea that, say, English-speaking Christianity is somehow superior to Spanish-speaking Christianity. It isn't. It's different. Not better, not worse. Different. Like St Teresa of Avila is different from St Thomas of Canterbury.
And at present, squabbling over whose language and ethnic group is 'better' is wasting energy that would be better spent defending everyone (Spanish, English, Native American) against the totalitarian onslaught of Islam.
Keep the immigration debate simple - NO MORE MUSLIMS (except for bona fide apostates) even if they were born in the UK of pure English stock [i.e. to 'revert' parents] and speak only English!
Is ANYONE translating Robert Spencer's books into Spanish?
"In Greece the government there has taken these steps, and the Orthodox Church has made unprecedented remarks to Greeks that they should have babies whether married or not. They see the looming dangers, but it's way too late. These remarks were made in the country that has the best fertility rate in the Mediterranean, yet its rate has been described as impossible to recover from."
What? There's no such thing! If people start to have babies again, how is it impossible to recover from? People will only go extinct if they have NO babies. A low birthrate means a low population, but the fact is that there will still be babies being born, and that alone negates the concept of extinction.
People aren't having babies because life is too complex. Child-care bills, education, health insurance, utilities, mortgages, taxes, childproofing, this and that syndrome and chemical and drug and allergy affecting children... the list goes on. Modern life needs to be streamlined, we need to return to the simplicity of old times, where people could have six kids on a single income and thrive. We don't have less money, we just have greater expenditures... many of them unnecessary. I guarantee, if there was a comprehensive reform that provided the conditions for surviving on one income, there'd be more kids in no time.
RESPONSE: Saudi Arabia is hardly "ethnically pure." In fact, a majority of its residents are non-Saudi. Posted by Cornelius
There are thousands of foreign workers in Saudi Arabia, but they are temporary and not entitled to citizenship, even if they wanted it. They don't marry Saudis or even socialize with them except in rare and unusual circumstances. They are there to do the jobs Saudis won't do and are segregated from the general Saudi population. 90% of the Saudi population (excluding foreign workers) consists of ARABS, and they intend to keep it that way.
My brother worked in SA for twenty-five years and I am quite confident that my information is accurate, but you can look it up if you wish.
Holy Wart you answered your own question by saying that we need to go back to being able to live off of one wage and have six kids.
The problem we face is that our economies are such that we will not be able to afford large families again, and one wage won't make it.
My wife and I have 2 kids and would love to have more, but the pressures of paying our mortgage and having money to put away for our kids future is eating up everything we have.
The reality is that we in the western world are natural hard workers and are used to making sacrifice, but our enemies have grown up in tribal environments and have used our welfare systems against us as one example.
The statement I made about Greece's fertility rate was paraphrased from an excellent article I read last year, the link below is to that link and it fits what this post is about perfectly.
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20061023_134898_134898&source=srch
"Remember the two questions of Russian intelligentsia: "who is to blame?" (kto vinovat?) and "what to do?" (chto delat'?)?...we know the answer to the first one. Now what about the second?"
-- from a posting above
A. Dealing with Islam
1) Identify the weaknesses that at present do, or potentially could, divide and demoralize the Camp of Islam.
2) There are three main fissures: sectarian, ethnic, and economic. Two of those three -- the sectarian fissures between Sunni and Shi'a, and the ethnic fissure that divides Arabs, whose supremacism is endorsed and reinforced by Islam, from non-Arab Muslims (in Iraq those happen to be the Kurds) -- are present in Iraq, and should have long ago been understood, and properly exploited.
The third great fissure is economic: between the rich Arabs (and Muslims) and the poor ones. The Infidels have permitted the rich Arabs to get away without making an issue of their complete failure to share their wealth, either with any non-Muslims (except those African leaders who were bribed to cut relations with Israel after the Six-Day War, and some also bribed to embrace Islam)or with poor Muslims. And thus it is that we, the Infidels, have been pouring huge sums into the pockets of Muslims, whether it is the $60 billion that the Americans alone have supplied to malevolent and hostile Egypt (described as an "ally"), the tens of bilions poured into Pakistan (nearly $30 bililon, if one counts debt relief, since 9/11/2001, from the United States alone), the billions that continue, despite the fact that most of the money disappears, and what remains is used to suport the local Arabs who are notning more than the permanent shock troops of the Islam-wide Lesser Jihad against embattled, imperilled Israe, which the Western world, instead of berating and constantly criticizing, ought to be moving heaven and earth to support -- for reasons that go beyond the natural sympathy the well-informed will no doubt have toward Israel, a sympathy not to be undone by the BBC, Le Monde, Robert Fisk, or Eric Rouleau, or a cast of thousands i the media who, without knowing a thing about Islam ro the history of the war being waged on the Infidels and the Infidel nation-state of Israel, have swalloed hook, line, and ridiculous sinker the Arab propgaganda about the "since-time-immemorial" tillers of the soil, the so-called "Palestinian people," because they also involve the survival of the rest of the West, and the danger of allowing a Muslim triumph, by Slow Jihadists if not Fast Jihadists, over Israel that will whet, not sate, Arab Muslim appetites, and endanger the other lands of the Bilad al-kufr, especially those in Western Europe.
End, everywhere, the Jizyah of foreign aid by Infidels to the Muslims. End it, period. Full stop. And again and again suggest that, given the supposed solidarity of the umma al-islamiyya, the Saudis and Emirates and the Kuwaitis and Qataris and all the others, with their gigantic fortunes, should be put to the test: it is they, not American and British and French and Italian and Canadian taxpayers, who should be contributing to the Muslims, but the recipients of the largest transfer of wealth in human history, the rich Arabs who have done nothing to deserve, nothing to merit, the ten trillion dollars they have received since 1973, nor the ten trillion they are likely to receive in the next decade or two.
When we not only transfer wealth from the Camp of infidels to the Camp of Islam, but also exhibit signs of fearing what might happen -- yes, what might happen? -- if we were to cut such aid, we show that we Infidels are behaving in classic dhimmi mode. And when the Arab recipients behave as if such aid is theirs by right, that we must give it to them, and that if we cease we are engaged in an "economic boycott" or an "economic siege" -- as the "Palestinians" complained about the temporary halt in aid (my, with what alacrity was that aid promptly reinstated to the Slow Jihadists of Fatah, who are different not in goals but only in tactics and timing, from the Fast Jihadists of Hamas). The attitudes exhibited toward this huge and continuing aid to oil-deprived Muslims, by both the donor Infidels and the recipient Muslims, simply repeats the classic attitudes of the dhimmis paying their "protection money" so that they might continue, under Muslim rule, to be "protected peoples" -- protected, that is, from the Muslims themselves and what they would otherwise do if the Jizyah was not forthcoming.
At every step the Infidels should harp on the vast sums that the rich Arabs (and Iranians get) and on their miserliness, their incredible luxe, and decadence. Let pictures go all over the Internet showing the lives of those Al-Saud, Al-Sabah, Al-Thani, Al-Maktoum, Al-Khalifa -- showing them gambling in Monte Carlo, or Las Vegas, or London. Showing their hotel suites, with the gold bathroom fixtures that they put in for their summer villegiature in Monte Carlo (taking over whole floors, and even wings, of hotels). Show those yachts. Show those boatloads of Western call girls being ferried out to those yachts. Show the Al-Saud in Belgravia or Mayfair, and make sure that the poor Arabs in Cairo or Ramallah or Amman take a good look. Pit Arab against Arab. At the very least, the ending of all aid will save us, the Infidel taxpayers, money. Whether or not the rich Arabs come through, at all, for the poor ones, is not our affair. Our business is otherwise: to increase intra-Arab and intra-Muslim resentment. It can be done. After all, it requires only a dissemination of the truth.
These, then, are the three fissures that, within Islma, need to be exploited.
But there is something else: a propaganda war. We need all over the West to have leaders meet, and not necessarily privately, with defectors from Islam -- to meet with, to speak openly with, to have the testimony taken before Congress of, such people as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Ibn Warraq, and Ali Sina. Why have no presidential candiates, perhaps especailly Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, not met, and talked at length with, Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- and let that fact be known publicly? Why have no Republican candidates taken the time to be seen talkinig to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or Ibn Warraq? Shy? Afraid of what the Saudis might think? What?
The propaganda war consists more than in allowing Sunni-Shi'a hostilities to grow rather than to attempt to tamp them down, and more than appealing to non-Arab Muslims to recognize that Islam is, and always has been, a vehicle of Arab supremacism, linguistic and cultural and political, that causes whole peoples, forcibly converted, to forget their own pasts, their own histories, to abandon their own cultures, languages, ways of thought.
The propaganda war also consists of this: making the connection between the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of societies and states suffused with Islam, and the tenets and attitudes of Islam itself.
Does Islam encourage depotism? Of course it does, for in Islam there is no theory of political legitimacy, as there is in the modern advanced democracies, that locates a ruler's or a regime's legitimacy in the expressed will of the people. Instead, such legitimacy is not needed by a despot -- he need only be a good Muslim, or one accepted as such, that is someone who is attentive to the will expressed by Allah in the Qur'an (as, for Sunnis, gloosed by the Sunnah, which consists mainly of what is written in the Hadith and the Sira).
Does Islam limit economic development, so that despite the ten trillion dollars received by Muslim states in OPEC, not one has managed to develop a modern economy, and only those few states that have managed to constrain Islam -- Turkey and Tunisia and Lebanon -- have managed, to some extent, that feat. Inshallah-fatalism, and the habit of mental submission that throttles human initiative and enterprise, both contribute to the failure of even the most fabulously rich Arab states from developing modern economies, or ending their helpless dependence on foreing workers, wage slaves all.
Does Islam contribute to social backwardness? It does because it consigns to permanent inferiority all non-Muslims (Muslim support for pluralism extends only to the West, because only in the West can pluralism now be usefully turned to Muslim account), and for women. This has consequences for the moral legitimacy -- of any society, and Arab societies are cruel, with people largely incapable of looking forthrightly at the causes of their moral disarray, or primitive state of development -- because Islam cannot be examined, Islam cannot be questioned or criticized.
Does Islam contribute to intellectual paralysis? Of course it does. Islam is a Total System. Ideally, a Mulsim needs no other source of information. The lack of curiosity about other societies, demonstrated by the long historical disinterest, and even today the failure to see non-Muslim societies as anything other than the source of money, and goodies of one sort or another, and the primitive belief that "science" is nothing much of interest, but merely the means to the end of acquiring military technology on a par with that of Infidels (no Muslims seem to think that the last thousand years of failure to produce anything of moment in science is a source of embarrassment -- as long as Western gewgaws can be bought, with the oil revenues for which the Arab and Muslim recipients have done nothing).
Much was made two years ago about the U.N. report, compiled by "Arab intellectuals," noting that the nearly two dozen Arab states translated fewer works into Arabic than did the small nation of Greece. The miserable state of Arab education was noted; the joke universities; the textbooks full of distorted histories based on Islam. The habit of mental submission, and of a faith that offers not only Total Regulation of Daily Life but also a Total Explanation of the Universe that Muslims must not openly question. But those supposedly “bold” and “truth-telling” “Arab intellectuals” who wrote the U.N. report ended up with predictably blaming the affront of Israel (that is, of Israel’s continued existence) and local despots for this lack of Arab curiosity, this mental paralysis. But it is Islam’s discouragement of free and skeptical inquiry that explains the intellectual failures of Muslim, whether living in Dar al-Islam or, as some do nowadays, in Dar al-Harb. Only those who have successfully constrained, within themselves, the power and tug of Islam, manage to engage in the enterprise of science, rather than technology, which is a different thing.
That’s a start in figuring out how to deal with Islam.
B. Dealing With Infidels
Infidels should be made to understand that they are custodians of, they each possess a small share in what is a collective inheritance: Western science, art, philosophy, literature, everything that has made the West the West. They are not allowed to, must not permit themselves out of laziness and decadence, to simply yhield that up, in a fit of absent-mindedness or diseased “tolerance.” They owe it to those who created that legacy, and to those who should, by rights, be permitted to inerhit that legacy from them (their own children, or if not their own, then the children of others whom they should regard as their own posterity, and worry about, instead of taking a dismissive après-moi-le-deluge attitude).
They should recognize the nature of Islam, and that will require a collective effort at self-education, since Muslim apologists and moneymen have managed to infiltrate, and take over, so many academic centers and departments devoted to Islam, and since it is very difficult to engage in public divulgation of certain home truths about Islam – hard to find outlets that are not censored or self-censored, hard to avoid being pigeonholed or baselessly vilified.
Those who run for office should be asked by interviewers, by questioners in those “ordinary-citizens-ask-questions” appearances, to tell us much more about what they have studied, and what they know, about Islam. There are ways to tell the truth in a slightly oblique manner, if some are still shy about discussing “Islam” head-on. Discuss “jihad.” Discuss the “dhimmi” and the “Jizyah.” The first candidate to use such words – “Jizyah” and “dhimmi” – will have done a great service, political and pedagogic, by forcing his opponents to follow suit. It may understandable why so many knew so littleabout Islam in the Western world, up to 9/11/2001. But after that date, everyone had a duty to study. No policies, and certainly no major wars premised on misunderstandings about Islam, should have been continued, or newly undertaken, without such study.
But who, among those in the Executive Branch or Congress or now running for office, does one find whose knowledge of Islam, the tenets and attitudes and atmospherics of Islam, satisfy? Who has demonstrated a knowledge of the long history of Jihad-conquest and subsequent subjugation of non-Muslims? Who has grasped, who has spoken, about the danger not merely of “terrorism” (good god, that has received quite enough attention) but of the other, much more important instruments of Jihad: campaigns of Da’wa, the non-stop building of huge numbers of mosques (and madrasas) all over the Western lands, including imposing mosques, designed to flaunt Muslim power and permanence, in Paris, London, Rome, and many other sites? Who has discussed the role of the Unbeliever in Islamic teachings, and the permanent state of war – though not at all times active warfare, when such would not be in Islam’s best interests – that must exist between Believers and Infidels?
The political figures who discuss this become political figures no longer, but statesmen; the journalists who grasp this, and do their best to inform a largely ignorant public, will deserve a wide following.
And there is much more to be done, including understanding that certain measures that we have been taught are simply “unthinkable” – such as expulsion of those whose presence simply creates a situation for us, the Infidels, that is not only much more unpleasant and expensive, but that forces us, at every point, and forever, to defend our own legal and political institutions, our own social arrangements, our own conception of the polity which is based on the rights of the individual and not on the collectivism of Islam, and that furthermore insists upon freedom of speech and freedom of conscience that is unkwown, and what is more, impossible, in Islam. There is no way that the Western world, taking seriously, and observing as best it can the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, can permit large numbers of people who do not accept a single one of the important provisions of that Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but rather, owe their allegiance to a quite different Muslim version, the “Cairo Declaration of Human Rights,” that manages to fatally vitiate the sense and intent of the original. It is not possible to ask Westerners to endure a large and growing population that constitutes a threat to one’s physical survival, and to the civilizational survival of Infidels.
It makes no sense. And a knowledge of history would offer a guide as to what happens in places where Muslims and non-Muslims live, not together, but in the same land, and the inevitable diminishment in the proportion of non-Muslims, and steady rise in the proportion of Muslims – in Pakistan and Bangladesh, in Lebanon and Iraq, in Egypt and Israel, in France and Italy, slowly but inexorably. One need not wait to experience the consequences in one’s own country: one can study the history, ancient and modern, of societies that disappeared. It is happening now. And it does not have to happen at all.
"Muslims activists seem to know no restraints on their behavior. They keep pushing and pushing. I do think they are overplaying their hand. "
Winbledon, the thing is that if you DO stop them living as they will, they actually DO change at least a little. It is debated here about the victorious demographics of muslims and the scrappy demo's of Europe, but the debate assumes that the muslim birthrate will remain skyhigh. That may not be the case. There's not A country in the world with rising birthrate; Iran itself has a birthrate of scrappy 1.7. Naturally, while the birthrate was very high in the past the population will continue to grow. It is however forecasted that (of all places) Iran will have a birthrate of 1.4 in just 10-20 years.
Actually, the birthrate among Europe's muslims is higher than the rate on the other side of the mediterran. Some highlights:
Iran 1.71
Algeria 1.86
Tunisia 1.73
Indonesia 2.38
Morocco 2.62 (sinking rapidly)
These are examples of muslim countries reaching just the replacement rate or even below it, and there is no reason to assume they would not continue sinking. To see these countries as a demograpic threat as such - as shear numbers - is an overstatement. However,
Pakistan 3.71
Irak 4.07
Libya 3.21
Syria 3.31
Pakistan & Co are a headache, but also these are sinking. There is reason to believe to that the first group will be in a midst of an economic crisis in 2025; right as well it is thinkable that the headache group has sunk to somewhere 2.0 in 2025. That the muslim world itself becoming middle aged may have some moderating effect on the politics; right now there are young men and women jihadists can waste as a suicide bomber but who knows how things look like 2025.
So much about the muslim world itself; it is depressing to see it being energic and youthful but the trend is towards smaller families no matter what and so there is a chance that jihad and caliphate are ideas of yesterday in 2025. A chance, make no mistake, a chance.
Then comes the muslim fertility in Europe. THAT is a lot bigger problem than the muslim world itself; I once read the muslim fertility being 3.1 in the Netherland versus 1.4 for native Dutch. What one can do ?
The oh-so-racist Denmark has a law which prohibits foreign nationals under 24 years of age to marry. The law was drafted to halt arranged marriages but it has had a moderating effect on fertility, too. That stands to reason; a muslim girl who escaped the arranged marriage at the age of 16 can now get herself a profession. Good for them. Muslims are now more keen on getting education than earlier, Denmark's PC days.
The latest figures gave a fertility of 1.75 for danes and 2.1 for foreign backgroud. Which 90 % means muslims. As I see it the muslim birthrate will equal the danes in just few years. No wonder the mullah's are fuming - the expected demographic takeover fizzles.
So there are things one can do to prevent this demographic takeover, but be so sure everything you do will face a PC storm. The 24-years rule is no juridical beaty, but both the Danes and muslim women benefit. Very few muslims protest in real; the only ones harping at 24-rule are the mullahs and PC media and - perversely - human rights activists.
I repeat a chance, make no mistake, a chance.
Maybe I'm alone here but it doesn't matter to me if in the future people are speaking Arabic or Spanish. If we lose our country then does it matter who it's lost too? It's still gone.
Do you think the Romans sat around hoping to be conquered by the Visi-goths instead of the Huns? The result was the same either way. The Romans are gone, and they cannot come back.
Nations can rebuild from wars, bad economies, bad leaders, and even the bubonic plague, but after the culture and language are lost there is no recovery.
How can anyone can call themselves an American and yet not care whether or not America even exists in the future?
Guitarbob,
The fact that in the future America will have a Spanish-speaking majority doesn't necessarily mean we will have "lost" our country...unless one associates the ideals upon which America was founded to an exclusively Anglo identity.
SusanP made specific reference to Mexico in her protestations to my offerings. She is right, Mexico poses a unique challenge to America's territorial integrity for two reasons: 1) the shear number of Mexicans emigrating to the USA and 2) the fact that America annexed over half of Mexico after the War of 1848...(Americans may have forgotten all about this, but Mexicans surely haven't). The more affluent Mexico becomes, the greater the pull of irredentism among Mexicans and Mexican-Americans living in the USA.
I'm a strong proponent of securing our borders, but I have no illusion that the American economy could function without immigrant labor. A rational immigration policy would not only put strict limits on the number of Muslims admitted, but would emphasize admitting Latin immigrants from countries other than Mexico in order to dilute the Mexican component in our immigration base...(and in an ancillary motive, to drive a political wedge between Mexicans and other Latin immigrants).
But of course none of this is in the cards because of the political, economic and cultural environment prevailing in America. It's a bit like Hugh Fitzgerald and all the solutions he advocates on these pages vis-a-vis our fight against Islam. There's not a chance in hell that the vast majority of them will ever be implemented. He may be right most of the time, but that's besides the point.
Historical processes are under-way, augmented and accelerated by today's technology. All of our hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing won't change it. Europe is being Islamized (as is the Muslim world itself incidentally), and America is becoming Hispanic. This is fact. It is based more than anything else on demography...(read Mark Steyn's 'America Alone' if you're in the mood to be depressed).
My only point is that our fate is infinitely preferable to Europe's.
Our culture is based off of British culture, we are a former British colony after all, and our ideals are based off of this culture. If we were a Spanish, French, or German colony our culture and way of life would be very different.
So yes of course American culture is exclusively Anglo, and if future immigrant groups do not learn our language and embrace our culture, then they will never be Americans, even if they call themselves that.
What else defines Americans other then our culture? Our location? If a Frenchmen gets off a plane in new york is he istantly American? Of course not.
What about our form of government? There are other democracies in the world. Is every citizen of Greece an American because they have a democracy? Of course not.
Culture defines a country, and a good economy is not worth the price of a nation. Besides some people say that illegal immigration hurts the economy more then it helps.
I understand your point about being better off then Europe, but I don't believe we should just surrender to being a third world dumping ground. The U.S. deserves better then that, and we should do all in our power to protect our country from every threat, even if the one we're facing is less threatening then the one facing Europe.
The west doesn't have to surrender, we're not the Roman empire just yet.
GUITARBOB: "So yes of course American culture is exclusively Anglo"
RESPONSE: Utter nonsense. Our culture is an amalgum of many...a melting-pot in its truest sense (no reference to the political construct of "multiculturalism" that so many of us here so justifiably deride and despise). This is reflected in our music, our literature, our cuisine, and in a thousand-and-one other ways.
GUITARBOB: "...but I don't believe we should just surrender to being a third world dumping ground."
RESPONSE: With you all the way brother. But let's be honest, even the short-term political trends auger against a coherent immigration policy: The Dems look to not only gain the Whitehouse next year, but to consolidate their control over congress...(nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong), and as we all know, the Dems are illegal-alien friendly. As for the long-term, just look at the demographic of US primary schools...and you'll get a glimpse of the future.
GUITARBOB: "The west doesn't have to surrender, we're not the Roman empire just yet."
RESPONSE: On the contrary, we resemble in many respects Rome in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. We've lost control of our borders, the "barbarians" are not just at the gate, they've kicked it down and are tending our lawns, doing our laundry, filling all those millions of service sector jobs that comprise the other half of the information-age economy and that naturalized Americans are so loathe to do themselves.
I appreciate where you're coming from my friend. The difference between us is that I've come to accept the unhappy realities we face. My desire is to see us incorporate our future Hispanic majority into the values that have long defined us as a people. It won't be as hard as it seems; devotion to family, entrepreneurship and a strong work ethic are deeply ingrained in the Latin ethos. It is the corrupting values promulgated by the Anglo Liberal/Left - the welfare state, the assault on traditional values, pacifism, and worst of all, the tribal politics of multiculturalism - that threatens to derail the integration of Latins into the American mainstream.
People once feared the arrival of waves of Irish, Jewish and Italian immigrants from Europe in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, but they integrated without major problems. The challenge is greater now because the shear number of Latin immigrants militates against the necessity of integration. But the real problem is that previous generations of immigrants were encouraged by the schools and universities to become "good little Americans." This generation is being encouraged by our own Liberal/Left to reject integration and retain their ethnic identity.
I agree, American culture is a mix of many different influences, but the core values and ideal of the country, the ethics on which it was founded, its driving beliefs, come from the Anglo-Saxon majority.
Even if you look at American schools, the fact is that the population under 20 is 60% non-Hispanic white - a majority, and far larger than any other group. Also, people make the mistake that the non-white sector is monolithic - it's not. It's part black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander and Arabic. Not one of those groups is a large bloc on its own, and many of them don't even like each other.
The future projections for America are based on a continuing low white birthrate - that could change; continued high illegal immigration from Mexico - which many Americans are growing increasingly impatient with, and will demand action on soon; and continued high immigration from other parts of the world - which might not continue as other countries become more affluent and American attitudes towards immigration harden.
In addition, most second-generation Hispanics are English-dominant (75%), another 19% are fully bilingual, while only 6% are Spanish-dominant. English is the most important language in the world and Hispanics know it is in their best interest to learn it, not just for their life in the US, but for any hope of doing business with the rest of the world. Cubans in Florida, for example, overwhelmingly want their kids speaking English. Denying bilingual education can increase this trend.
Finally, I just can't see white Americans giving up their position. They are one of the few white societies on this earth, surrounded by a Hispanic sea. They will react soon enough when they feel sufficiently threatened. Nobody wants to see their culture go under. It's just the way of the world. White Americans are no different from anyone else in this respect.
Holy Wart
There is a difference, unlike other people we get labelled racists when we defend our culture.
The Japanese can keep their country both culturally and ethnically Japanese, and so can the Mexicans, and nobody labels them racists.
But we get called racists just for asking immigrants to learn our language.
There really should be a blog about this.
Please, people, who cares what colour our descendants might be? Go back far enough, back through the African gate, and the (fully human) homo sapiens ancestors of all of us are a tiny group of brown-skinned people, maybe only a few thousands (the geneticists are convinced that the human species came through at least one very narrow bottleneck - we are, all of us, Native Americans, Native Australians, Europeans, Africans, Asians, almost indistinguishable at the genetic level, we are so homogeneous.)
Who cares what language our descendants might speak? 2000 years ago, English did not exist. Hell, if you try to read an Old English text from even 1000 years ago, you have to learn it as a foreign language (I have). 2000 years ago Spanish had not yet been born from a Latin Creole.
All that matters to me is that we should defeat the jihad - so that our descendants, and the children of all non-Muslim societies, whatever colour they are, whatever language they speak, may be neither deluded, brainwashed, fanatical Mohammedans nor miserable dhimmis.
I'm a Christian. I regard the defence against the jihad - the maintenance and extension of an Islam-free zone - as the highest priority of any non-Muslim government, because even if it must resort to extreme violence (as the Knights of Malta had to do) it is an act of love not only for present but for future generations who will thus live freer lives, and, indeed, for future defectors from Islam, future apostates, who will have somewhere safe to run to.
Look: if your white Anglo grand-daughter married a Quechua / Spanish mestizo, but he was a faithful and devout Catholic Christian, and they produced about a dozen kids who went off to Mass every Sunday...and six of whom enlisted in the army and fought off the Mohammedans...do you really think that would be something to gripe about?
HOLY WART: "Finally, I just can't see white Americans giving up their position."
RESPONSE: I agree with Guitarbob here; white Americans appear only too eager to cede their rights and prerogatives to minorities. This eagerness is reflected in our laws, in our school admissions policies, in the curriculum of our universities, in our corporate culture, pervading virtually every facet of our social structure. The magic word is "diversity" and it has long ceased being a means to an end - a colorblind society - and has become an end in itself.
HOLY WART: "Cubans in Florida, for example, overwhelmingly want their kids speaking English."
RESPONSE: Have you ever been to Miami? It's hard to find a shop where the salesperson or waitress speaks English.
HOLY WART: "Even if you look at American schools, the fact is that the population under 20 is 60% non-Hispanic white - a majority, and far larger than any other group."
RESPONSE: I'd like to see your sources for that figure.
HOLY WART: "Also, people make the mistake that the non-white sector is monolithic - it's not. It's part black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander and Arabic. Not one of those groups is a large bloc on its own, and many of them don't even like each other."
RESPONSE: All this is true. But Hispanics WILL be the majority later in this century, this is a certainty.
HOLY WART: "In addition, most second-generation Hispanics are English-dominant (75%), another 19% are fully bilingual, while only 6% are Spanish-dominant."
RESPONSE: I don't know how accurate these figures are, but if true, they are a source of optimism.
Dumbledoresarmy,
Agree with one caveat: Islam is not the only sociological evil on the horizon. Communism, fascism, etc., are all capable of staging a comeback (though Islam certainly deserves our attention at this particular juncture of history). But your essential point is a good-one...it's the survival of the culture, not language or ethnicity, that is important. And in describing American culture, its most virtuous and valuable facet is individual freedom.
Holy Wart, the web-site below estimates that in 3 short years, 38 percent of Americans under 18 will be non-white.
http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9214/coping.htm
It's an encroaching reality, one we must come to terms with.