- ‘We will outbreed you with the bellies of our women’- update
- “We will conquer your country with the bellies of our women…”
- * Practising Muslims ‘will outnumber Christians by 2035â€²
- ” I hate condoms..”
Common Sense Atheism linked to a video the other day about fertility rates in Europe and in Muslim countries. The point of the video is to say that Europe will be predominantly Muslim within fifty years or less, as a result of low birthrates among native Europeans and high birthrates among Muslim immigrants. I’ve seen these arguments over the past few years. It’s stuff promoted mainly by American Right-wing Christians, often with dire warnings that Europe will be Islamicized within 50 years, and America will stand alone in the world. For example, here’s a sample:
If there is anything that should make Americans’ blood run cold about immigration, it is the sight of Europeâ€”and Britain, the home of Western civilizationâ€”being buried by millions of Muslim colonists. Europe is just hoping against hope that Islam isn’t going to explode into massive rioting (or worse), or impose total cultural Islamification.
* But don’t take my word for it. Watch the video:
Every mosque – factory for Jihad fighters…
Now the triumphs of Tours and Vienna are being trampled by immigrants, entering mostly legally. It’s a wonder the Muslims bother with terrorism at all when demography is working so well for them.
Europe’s swirl down the toilet bowl is little reported in this country largely because the Main Stream Media is not interested in showing it. The top media elites are still stuck on multiculturalism. But the European experience shows what a bogus ideology that is. (Source)
* Of course, there are many kinds of jihad. Some of it might even be Â ‘inner struggle’- but violent jihad and ‘striking terror in the hearts of the unbelievers’ is a constant in 1400 years of Islamic warfare against the world. Â It is also the ‘pinnacle’ of all Islamic teaching. The following forms of jihad are equally dangerous to our future, our culture and civilization:
Litigation Jihad Education Jihad Cultural Jihad Demographic Jihad, Economic jihad Institutional Jihad Media jihad Financial jihad Criminal jihad Thuggery Jihad.
Egyptian Religious Endowments Ministry Official: The Pigs Living Today Are Descended from Jews â€“ And Must Be Slaughtered
But its not only Islamic terrorism, that should worry us: the enormous cost involved with monitoring, the inconvenience of the security requirements, the physical insecurity because of the constant threat of terrorist attacks, hijackings, car-bus-train bombings and the ever increasing numbers of hijabs, burkhas, niqabs, jilbabs on our streets are only the beginning: Houari BoumÃ©dienne, Algeria’s undisputed ruler until his death in 1978, said it clearly In 1974:
Boumedienne said in a U.N. speech: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
To this very day the planned, systematic Muhammedan immigration, infiltration and invasion of infidel countries, the Dar-al-harb, (lands of the infidels) continues unchecked.
We keep treating the enemy like a friend. Why don’t we listen to them? Why don’t our politicians, our elected leaders start listening to us?
According to a May 9, 2009 report in the Jordanian Arabic-language news websiteÂ www.factjo.com, the superintendent of da’wa affairs at the Egyptian Ministry of Religious Endowments, Sheikh Ahmad ‘Ali ‘Othman, has issued a fatwa stating that all pigs living today are descended from Jews and must therefore be slaughtered.
Following are excerpts:
Sheikh ‘Othman: The Jews that Allah Turned into Swine Were the Forefathers of Today’s Pigs
According to the website, Sheikh ‘Othman states in his fatwa that all pigs are descended from the Jews whom Allah transformed into apes, swine and worshippers of Satan, and must therefore be slaughtered. He bases this on Koran 5:60: “Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, [as judged] by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped Satan – these are [many times] worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!”
The report states: “‘Othman argues that this verse [refers] to the people of Moses, and that [Muslim commentators] Ibn Kathir, Al-Tabari and Al-Qassimi bring proof of this in their books. He [also] points out that there are two schools of thought on this among the Koranic commentators: One opinion states that the Jews whom Allah turned into swine remained that way and died without multiplying, while the other says that they did multiply and that their descendants are still alive today.
“In support [of the latter opinion], the sheikh quotesÂ hadiths in which the Prophet describes one of the signs that will herald the arrival of Judgment Day: The Jews will turn into pigs and will then be swallowed up by the earth.”
The report quotes ‘Othman as saying: “I personally tend to believe that the pigs living today are descended from those Jews, and that is why Allah forbade us to eat them, saying, ‘Forbidden unto you [for food] are carrion and blood and swineflesh [Koran 5:3].’ In addition, one of the things that Jesus will do when he returns to earth on Judgment Day is kill all the pigs, and that is proof that they are descended from Jews. All the pigs on earth will be destroyed by Jesus on Judgment Day.”
‘Othman also says that “he who eats pork is like one who eats the bread of an impure man,” and that “the divine religions, [namely] Christianity and Judaism in their undistorted [form], forbid the eating of pork.”
According to the report, ‘Othman claims that his fatwa is supported by some senior Al-Azhar sheikhs, who are afraid to express their opinion in public. ‘Othman is quoted as saying: “I have presented my fatwa to the [Al-Azhar] Academy of Islamic Research, in order to obtain a clear opinion about it, but I have not yet received a [formal] reply. This is because [Al-Azhar] is afraid to issue such a fatwa, which may cause theÂ ulema to be accused of antisemitism.”
Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee Head: ‘Othman’s Statements Are Untrue
The report also presents the response of Sheikh ‘Ali Abu Al-Hassan, head of the Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee. He calls ‘Othman’s statements “untrue,” saying: “When Allah punishes a group of people because they have incurred his wrath, the punishment applies only to them. When Allah was angry with the people of Moses, he turned them [and only them] into apes and pigs. It was an unusual punishment, meant to serve as a deterrent to others. But [those apes and pigs] died, and did not multiply, as Sheikh Ahmad ‘Ali ‘Othman claims.”
Muslims Have Conquered Europe Without Firing A Shot
America Will Be Next, Unless We Wake Up
BY HERB DENENBERG, THE BULLETIN
True or False: In Brussels, Belgium, the capital of the European Union and Belgium, the Socialist mayor presides over a caucus that has a majority made up of Muslims.
True or False: In a few years, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Rotterdam and many other European cities will reach majority Muslim status.
True or False: The Muslim population of the United Kingdom is increasing 10 times faster than the general population.
True or False: British banks have abolished piggy banks, as they might offend Muslims and police in Brussels are enjoined from eating doughnuts during Ramadan.
True or False: Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London, believes it is perfectly acceptable to blow up buses in Tel Aviv, but objects to those blowing up buses in England.
True or False: The British lean over backward to grant freedom of speech to Muslim groups, even as they slander returning war heroes; but they also lean over backward to silence any critics of Islam.
If you answered true to all six questions, you’re tuned into what is going on in Europe. All six are true. This quiz is based on an article by Mark Steyn in Commentary Magazine (May 2009) titled “Israel Today, The West Tomorrow: Acquiescence to extremist Islam’s assault on Jewry and Israel will not save the nations of Europe from a Muslim Fate.”
Mr. Steyn’s thesis is that the Muslims may now be targeting Israel, but their basic objective, for the moment, is to take over Europe … and they are well along in that process, as the six-question quiz suggests.
He wrote a classic book, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, in which he found that Europe is virtually finished as a Western, Christian continent and will soon be under Muslim control. But here is his bottom line, to make sure resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn’t viewed as the magic bullet for peace: “In the end, this isn’t about Gaza, this isn’t about the Middle East; it’s about them [the Europeans]. It may be some consolation to an ever lonelier Israel that, in one of history’s bleaker jests, in the coming Europe the Europeans will be the new Jews.”
Europe thinks when the canary in the mine dies, the miners are safe. In this case, the Europeans are the miners, and if the present trend continues, they will be as dead as the canary in short order.
Mr. Steyn’s book was frightening on two counts. First, it is shocking to understand that Europe is about to become Eurabia, a continent subject to Muslim domination. Second, it is even more shocking that when you study what is going on in Europe, you get the feeling that America is starting down the same path to the destruction of Western civilization. Mr. Steyn’s book came out in 2006, and it painted a grim picture. Now, just three years later, Mr. Steyn’s predictions are proving to be right on target, and the collapse of Europe is continuing at a steady and rapid pace.
Mr. Steyn’s conclusions are backed in another recent article found in Townhall Magazine (May 2009) by Tim Montgomerie titled “Far From United: The United Kingdom’s Government Has Decided To Appease Muslim Extremists and Act Embarrassed About Western Culture. Can Britain Survive?”
The picture he paints is just as grim and bleak as that of Mr. Steyn’s. Just consider his opening salvo. When British troops returned from a tour of duty in Iraq, they were given a homecoming parade by the southern English town of Luton. The people of Luton enthusiastically greeted the soldiers with cheers, smiles and flowers.
But then came what some might be considered to be unexpected if not the incredible:
“But a day of thanksgiving was overshadowed by the loud protests of a group of Islamic extremists. Holding up placards, they accused Britain’s heroic soldiers of being ‘butchers,’ ‘war criminals,’ ‘murderers’ and ‘baby killers.’ By granting the Muslim protestors a right to insult the soldiers, the police were risking a breach of the peace â€” and a breach of the peace did occur. But Britain’s police service always appears eager to bend over backwards for a militant minority within the Muslim population.”
The British give every consideration and every doubt to the Muslim population, including freedom of speech to insult war heroes. But when it comes to critics of Islam, the British are willing to abolish free speech to silence them, if that’s what it takes to appease the Muslims.
They did that by banning the appearance before Parliament of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. The ban came after Islamic Web sites threatened to mobilize a mob protest if Mr. Wilders was granted a right to deliver his warning that Islam is an intrinsically violent religion.
More recently, after the Townhall article went to the printer, the British government banned talk show host Michael Savage from entry as his views were apparently considered too inflammatory. This all shows how far along the British and the rest of Europe are to surrendering to the oncoming Islamic tide. Mr. Steyn and others who forecast the end of Europe as we know it were right on course.
For other excellent books documenting the same trend, see Melanie Phillips, Londonistan; Bat Ye’Or, Eurabia: The European Arab Axis; and Bruce Bawer, While Europe Slept.
Ms. Phillips, who is right on target in her writings, says the British have an unwritten agreement that they would turn a blind eye to Muslim terrorists as long as they did not target Britain. You would think that would have all changed after the London subway bombing of July 7, 2005 killed 50 Londoners. Instead, Britain answered by more appeasement, according to Mr. Montgomerie. This is the kind of hopelessly stupid and irrational reaction that leads people like Mr. Steyn and Ms. Phillips to write the Europeans off as lost to Islam.
You can’t preserve your own culture and values and fight off those who would subjugate you if you don’t believe in yourself. America, England and much of Europe have become self-loathing apologists for their own culture, and can hardly expect it to be preserved against those who believe in their culture and values and who are determined to see it win.
Even in America, we have important centers of America-hating self-loathing in our academic centers, in much of our mainstream media and in the White House. That does not bode well in an ideological war between two cultures and value systems pitting self-loathing apologists of the West against fanatical enthusiast on the other side.
You also can’t preserve your culture and values if you aren’t forming enough families and having enough children to preserve your nation and its power. Europe is ideologically doomed, but it is also demographically doomed. Its population is shrinking slowly, while the Muslim population is exploding. This is classic conquest by demography on the part of the Muslims and death by demography on the part of the Europeans.
You also won’t preserve your culture and values when one of the bastions of our way of life, the churches, are being weakened and are even disappearing in Europe. That continent seems to have surrendered to secularism and religion has gone out of style. In England, for example, the Church of England is in retreat and is in the appeasement mode. The bishop in charge of the Church’s urban ministry opposed the idea of the Church having a duty to convert Muslims to Christianity. The bishops of the Church seem more interested in accommodating Islamic opinion than in bringing their religion to others. The leader of the Anglican Church has spoken with approval of the introduction of aspects of Shariah law (Muslim law) into Britain.
There’s another deadly trend obvious in England but making headway elsewhere in the West â€” the union of the left and radical Islam in the hate America campaign. The Townhall magazine article explains the seemingly strange but solid alliance between the left (including major segments of the Democratic Party) and radical Islam. To make the point the article quotes Michael Gove, a leading Conservative member of Parliament:
“The Left’s enemies are no longer primarily a system, capitalism and its agents such as big business. Instead the principal enemy is now the oppressive West and, in particular, The Great Satan, America and the Little Satan, Israel. The Crusaders and the Zionists … Antipathy towards America, like opposition to Israel, has become the touchstone of radical Left credibility.”
So America has to face the music and fight, as no matter what happens to Israel and other obstacles in the path to Muslim world domination, the final target has to be America. Like it or not, we are marked for subjugation and/or destruction.
If we are to win that war against radical Islam, we have to recognize we’re in a battle, which will not be won by retreat and appeasement. And we will not win if we do not believe in our own values and culture and if we do not try to end the hate-America, blame-America streak that is becoming all too common in our national life. Again, Mr. Gove struck a cord, also sounded by Mr. Steyn. He was speaking of the challenge facing Britain, but America and the rest of the West face the same challenge:
“Unless we retain the moral clarity to know that Western society, its freedoms and traditions, are worth celebrating, deserve to be emulated, and will benefit others by being adopted, then we will find them increasingly difficult to defend at a time of trial.”
Those in the process of appeasing the Muslim onslaught should heed the wisdom of Mr. Churchill, one of the great statesmen of history who understood the folly of appeasement: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile â€” hoping it will eat him last.”
And then for those who won’t stand up to a bully, an aggressor, or a homicidal maniac until it’s too late, they should heed the words of theÂ German theologian, Martin Neimoller:
First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Social Democrats, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Social Democrat.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,Â Â and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew,
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
Rev. Neimoller almost learned his own lesson too late. He supported the Nazis until he finally realized what they were up to. He was sent to the Dachau concentration camp, and was one of the lucky ones to survive and be freed at the end of the war.
Most aren’t that lucky. The sooner you speak up, the more likely you are to escape without catastrophic consequences. Don’t count on being one of the lucky ones.
Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist andÂ consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him email@example.com.
It’s the Demography, Stupid
The real reason the West is in danger of extinction.
ByÂ MARK STEYN
Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries. There’ll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands–probably–just as in Istanbul there’s still a building called St. Sophia’s Cathedral. But it’s not a cathedral; it’s merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate. The challenge for those who reckon Western civilization is on balance better than the alternatives is to figure out a way to save at least some parts of the West.
One obstacle to doing that is that, in the typical election campaign in your advanced industrial democracy, the political platforms of at least one party in the United States and pretty much all parties in the rest of the West are largely about what one would call the secondary impulses of society–government health care, government day care (which Canada’s thinking of introducing), government paternity leave (which Britain’s just introduced). We’ve prioritized the secondary impulse over the primary ones: national defense, family, faith and, most basic of all, reproductive activity–“Go forth and multiply,” because if you don’t you won’t be able to afford all those secondary-impulse issues, like cradle-to-grave welfare.
Americans sometimes don’t understand how far gone most of the rest of the developed world is down this path: In the Canadian and most Continental cabinets, the defense ministry is somewhere an ambitious politician passes through on his way up to important jobs like the health department. I don’t think Don Rumsfeld would regard it as a promotion if he were moved to Health and Human Services.
The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism. Indeed, in its reliance on immigration to ensure its future, the European Union has adopted a 21st-century variation on the strategy of the Shakers, who were forbidden from reproducing and thus could increase their numbers only by conversion. The problem is that secondary-impulse societies mistake their weaknesses for strengths–or, at any rate, virtues–and that’s why they’re proving so feeble at dealing with a primal force like Islam.Speaking of which, if we are at war–and half the American people and significantly higher percentages in Britain, Canada and Europe don’t accept that proposition–then what exactly is the war about?
We know it’s not really a “war on terror.” Nor is it, at heart, a war against Islam, or even “radical Islam.” The Muslim faith, whatever its merits for the believers, is a problematic business for the rest of us. There are many trouble spots around the world, but as a general rule, it’s easy to make an educated guess at one of the participants: Muslims vs. Jews in “Palestine,” Muslims vs. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Christians in Africa, Muslims vs. Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs. Russians in the Caucasus, Muslims vs. backpacking tourists in Bali. Like the environmentalists, these guys think globally but act locally.
Yet while Islamism is the enemy, it’s not what this thing’s about. Radical Islam is an opportunistic infection, like AIDS: It’s not the HIV that kills you, it’s the pneumonia you get when your body’s too weak to fight it off. When the jihadists engage with the U.S. military, they lose–as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq. If this were like World War I with those fellows in one trench and us in ours facing them over some boggy piece of terrain, it would be over very quickly. Which the smarter Islamists have figured out. They know they can never win on the battlefield, but they figure there’s an excellent chance they can drag things out until Western civilization collapses in on itself and Islam inherits by default.
That’s what the war’s about: our lack of civilizational confidence. As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: “Civilizations die from suicide, not murder”–as can be seen throughout much of “the Western world” right now. The progressive agenda–lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism–is collectively the real suicide bomb. Take multiculturalism. The great thing about multiculturalism is that it doesn’t involve knowing anything about other cultures–the capital of Bhutan, the principal exports of Malawi, who cares? All it requires is feeling good about other cultures. It’s fundamentally a fraud, and I would argue was subliminally accepted on that basis. Most adherents to the idea that all cultures are equal don’t want to live in anything but an advanced Western society. Multiculturalism means your kid has to learn some wretched native dirge for the school holiday concert instead of getting to sing “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” or that your holistic masseuse uses techniques developed from Native American spirituality, but not that you or anyone you care about should have to live in an African or Native American society. It’s a quintessential piece of progressive humbug.Then SeptemberÂ 11 happened. And bizarrely the reaction of just about every prominent Western leader was to visit a mosque: President Bush did, the prince of Wales did, the prime minister of the United Kingdom did, the prime minister of Canada didÂ .Â .Â . The premier of Ontario didn’t, and so 20 Muslim community leaders had a big summit to denounce him for failing to visit a mosque. I don’t know why he didn’t. Maybe there was a big backlog, it was mosque drive time, prime ministers in gridlock up and down the freeway trying to get to the Sword of the Infidel-Slayer Mosque on Elm Street. But for whatever reason he couldn’t fit it into his hectic schedule. Ontario’s citizenship minister did show up at a mosque, but the imams took that as a great insult, like the Queen sending Fergie to open the Commonwealth Games. So the premier of Ontario had to hold a big meeting with the aggrieved imams to apologize for not going to a mosque and, as the Toronto Star’s reported it, “to provide them with reassurance that the provincial government does not see them as the enemy.”
Anyway, the get-me-to-the-mosque-on-time fever died down, but it set the tone for our general approach to these atrocities. The old definition of a nanosecond was the gap between the traffic light changing in New York and the first honk from a car behind. The new definition is the gap between a terrorist bombing and the press release from an Islamic lobby group warning of a backlash against Muslims. In most circumstances, it would be considered appallingly bad taste to deflect attention from an actual “hate crime” by scaremongering about a purely hypothetical one. Needless to say, there is no campaign of Islamophobic hate crimes. If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes. A commenter on Tim Blair’s Web site in Australia summed it up in a note-perfect parody of a Guardian headline: “Muslim Community Leaders Warn of Backlash from Tomorrow Morning’s Terrorist Attack.” Those community leaders have the measure of us.
Radical Islam is what multiculturalism has been waiting for all along. In “The Survival of Culture,” I quoted the eminent British barrister Helena Kennedy, Queen’s Counsel. Shortly after SeptemberÂ 11, Baroness Kennedy argued on a BBC show that it was too easy to disparage “Islamic fundamentalists.” “We as Western liberals too often are fundamentalist ourselves,” she complained. “We don’t look at our own fundamentalisms.”
Well, said the interviewer, what exactly would those Western liberal fundamentalisms be? “One of the things that we are too ready to insist upon is that we are the tolerant people and that the intolerance is something that belongs to other countries like Islam. And I’m not sure that’s true.”
Hmm. Lady Kennedy was arguing that our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people’s intolerance, which is intolerable. And, unlikely as it sounds, this has now become the highest, most rarefied form of multiculturalism. So you’re nice to gays and the Inuit? Big deal. Anyone can be tolerant of fellows like that, but tolerance of intolerance gives an even more intenseÂ frisson of pleasure to the multiculti masochists. In other words, just as the AIDS pandemic greatly facilitated societal surrender to the gay agenda, so 9/11 is greatly facilitating our surrender to the most extreme aspects of the multicultural agenda.
For example, one day in 2004, a couple of Canadians returned home, to Lester B. Pearson International Airport in Toronto. They were the son and widow of a fellow called Ahmed Said Khadr, who back on the Pakistani-Afghan frontier was known as “al-Kanadi.” Why? Because he was the highest-ranking Canadian in al Qaeda–plenty of other Canucks in al Qaeda, but he was the Numero Uno. In fact, one could argue that the Khadr family is Canada’s principal contribution to the war on terror. Granted they’re on the wrong side (if you’ll forgive my being judgmental) but no one can argue that they aren’t in the thick of things. One of Mr. Khadr’s sons was captured in Afghanistan after killing a U.S. Special Forces medic. Another was captured and held at Guantanamo. A third blew himself up while killing a Canadian soldier in Kabul. Pa Khadr himself died in an al Qaeda shootout with Pakistani forces in early 2004. And they say we Canadians aren’t doing our bit in this war!
In the course of the fatal shootout of al-Kanadi, his youngest son was paralyzed. And, not unreasonably, Junior didn’t fancy a prison hospital in Peshawar. So Mrs. Khadr and her boy returned to Toronto so he could enjoy the benefits of Ontario government health care. “I’m Canadian, and I’m not begging for my rights,” declared the widow Khadr. “I’m demanding my rights.”
As they always say, treason’s hard to prove in court, but given the circumstances of Mr. Khadr’s death it seems clear that not only was he providing “aid and comfort to the Queen’s enemies” but that he was, in fact, the Queen’s enemy. The Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, the Royal 22nd Regiment and other Canucks have been participating in Afghanistan, on one side of the conflict, and the Khadr family had been over there participating on the other side. Nonetheless, the prime minister of Canada thought Boy Khadr’s claims on the public health system was an excellent opportunity to demonstrate his own deep personal commitment to “diversity.” Asked about the Khadrs’ return to Toronto, he said, “I believe that once you are a Canadian citizen, you have the right to your own views and to disagree.”That’s the wonderful thing about multiculturalism: You can choose which side of the war you want to fight on. When the draft card arrives, just tick “home team” or “enemy,” according to taste. The Canadian prime minister is a typical late-stage Western politician: He could have said, well, these are contemptible people and I know many of us are disgusted at the idea of our tax dollars being used to provide health care for a man whose Canadian citizenship is no more than a flag of convenience, but unfortunately that’s the law and, while we can try to tighten it, it looks like this lowlife’s got away with it. Instead, his reflex instinct was to proclaim this as a wholehearted demonstration of the virtues of the multicultural state. Like many enlightened Western leaders, the Canadian prime minister will be congratulating himself on his boundless tolerance even as the forces of intolerance consume him.
That, by the way, is the one point of similarity between the jihad and conventional terrorist movements like the IRA or ETA. Terror groups persist because of a lack of confidence on the part of their targets: The IRA, for example, calculated correctly that the British had the capability to smash them totally but not the will. So they knew that while they could never win militarily, they also could never be defeated. The Islamists have figured similarly. The only difference is that most terrorist wars are highly localized. We now have the first truly global terrorist insurgency because the Islamists view the whole world the way the IRA view the bogs of Fermanagh: They want it, and they’ve calculated that our entire civilization lacks the will to see them off.
We spend a lot of time at The New Criterion attacking the elites, and we’re right to do so. The commanding heights of the culture have behaved disgracefully for the last several decades. But if it were just a problem with the elites, it wouldn’t be that serious: The mob could rise up and hang ’em from lampposts–a scenario that’s not unlikely in certain Continental countries. But the problem now goes way beyond the ruling establishment. The annexation by government of most of the key responsibilities of life–child-raising, taking care of your elderly parents–has profoundly changed the relationship between the citizen and the state. At some point–I would say socialized health care is a good marker–you cross a line, and it’s very hard then to persuade a citizenry enjoying that much government largesse to cross back. In National Review recently, I took issue with that line Gerald Ford always uses to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” Actually, you run into trouble long before that point: A government big enough to give you everything you want still isn’t big enough to get you to give anything back. That’s what the French and German political classes are discovering.
Go back to that list of local conflicts I mentioned. The jihad has held out a long time against very tough enemies. If you’re not shy about taking on the Israelis, the Russians, the Indians and the Nigerians, why wouldn’t you fancy your chances against the Belgians and Danes and New Zealanders?So the jihadists are for the most part doing no more than giving us a prod in the rear as we sleepwalk to the cliff. When I say “sleepwalk,” it’s not because we’re a blasÃ© culture. On the contrary, one of the clearest signs of our decline is the way we expend so much energy worrying about the wrong things. If you’ve read Jared Diamond’s bestselling book “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed,” you’ll know it goes into a lot of detail about Easter Island going belly up because they chopped down all their trees. Apparently that’s why they’re not a G-8 member or on the U.N. Security Council. Same with the Greenlanders and the Mayans and Diamond’s other curious choices of “societies.” Indeed, as the author sees it, pretty much every society collapses because it chops down its trees.
Poor old Diamond can’t see the forest because of his obsession with the trees. (Russia’s collapsing even as it’s undergoing reforestation.) One way “societies choose to fail or succeed” is by choosing what to worry about. The Western world has delivered more wealth and more comfort to more of its citizens than any other civilization in history, and in return we’ve developed a great cult of worrying. You know the classics of the genre: In 1968, in his bestselling book “The Population Bomb,” the eminent scientist Paul Ehrlich declared: “In the 1970s the world will undergo famines–hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” In 1972, in their landmark study “The Limits to Growth,” the Club of Rome announced that the world would run out of gold by 1981, of mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and gas by 1993.
None of these things happened. In fact, quite the opposite is happening. We’re pretty much awash in resources, but we’re running out of people–the one truly indispensable resource, without which none of the others matter. Russia’s the most obvious example: it’s the largest country on earth, it’s full of natural resources, and yet it’s dying–its population is falling calamitously.The default mode of our elites is that anything that happens–from terrorism to tsunamis–can be understood only as deriving from the perniciousness of Western civilization. As Jean-Francois Revel wrote, “Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself.”
And even though none of the prognostications of the eco-doom blockbusters of the 1970s came to pass, all that means is that 30 years on, the end of the world has to be rescheduled. The amended estimated time of arrival is now 2032. That’s to say, in 2002, the United Nations Global Environmental Outlook predicted “the destruction of 70 percent of the natural world in thirty years, mass extinction of species. .Â .Â . More than half the world will be afflicted by water shortages, with 95 percent of people in the Middle East with severe problems .Â .Â . 25 percent of all species of mammals and 10 percent of birds will be extinctÂ .Â .Â .”
Etc., etc., for 450 pages. Or to cut to the chase, as the Guardian headlined it, “Unless We Change Our Ways, The World Faces Disaster.”
Well, here’s my prediction for 2032: unless we change our ways the world faces a futureÂ .Â .Â . where the environment will look pretty darn good. If you’re a tree or a rock, you’ll be living in clover. It’s the Italians and the Swedes who’ll be facing extinction and the loss of their natural habitat.
There will be no environmental doomsday. Oil, carbon dioxide emissions, deforestation: none of these things is worth worrying about. What’s worrying is that we spend so much time worrying about things that aren’t worth worrying about that we don’t worry about the things we should be worrying about. For 30 years, we’ve had endless wake-up calls for things that aren’t worth waking up for. But for the very real, remorseless shifts in our society–the ones truly jeopardizing our future–we’re sound asleep. The world is changing dramatically right now, and hysterical experts twitter about a hypothetical decrease in the Antarctic krill that might conceivably possibly happen so far down the road there are unlikely to be any Italian or Japanese enviro-worriers left alive to be devastated by it.
In a globalized economy, the environmentalists want us to worry about First World capitalism imposing its ways on bucolic, pastoral, primitive Third World backwaters. Yet, insofar as “globalization” is a threat, the real danger is precisely the opposite–that the peculiarities of the backwaters can leap instantly to the First World. Pigs are valued assets and sleep in the living room in rural China–and next thing you know an unknown respiratory disease is killing people in Toronto, just because someone got on a plane. That’s the way to look at Islamism: We fret about McDonald’s and Disney, but the big globalization success story is the way the Saudis have taken what was 80 years ago a severe but obscure and unimportant strain of Islam practiced by Bedouins of no fixed abode and successfully exported it to the heart of Copenhagen, Rotterdam, Manchester, BuffaloÂ .Â .Â .
What’s the better bet? A globalization that exports cheeseburgers and pop songs or a globalization that exports the fiercest aspects of its culture? When it comes to forecasting the future, the birthrate is the nearest thing to hard numbers. If only a million babies are born in 2006, it’s hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2026 (or 2033, or 2037, or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management and Queer Studies degrees). And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they’re running out a lot faster than the oil is. “Replacement” fertility rate–i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller–is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you’ll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada’s fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That’s to say, Spain’s population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy’s population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria’s by 36%, Estonia’s by 52%. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: In the 2004 election, John Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates; George W. Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans–and mostly red-state Americans.
As fertility shrivels, societies get older–and Japan and much of Europe are set to get older than any functioning societies have ever been. And we know what comes after old age. These countries are going out of business–unless they can find the will to change their ways. Is that likely? I don’t think so. If you look at European election results–most recently in Germany–it’s hard not to conclude that, while voters are unhappy with their political establishments, they’re unhappy mainly because they resent being asked to reconsider their government benefits and, no matter how unaffordable they may be a generation down the road, they have no intention of seriously reconsidering them. The Scottish executive recently backed down from a proposal to raise the retirement age of Scottish public workers. It’s presently 60, which is nice but unaffordable. But the reaction of the average Scots worker is that that’s somebody else’s problem. The average German worker now puts in 22% fewer hours per year than his American counterpart, and no politician who wishes to remain electorally viable will propose closing the gap in any meaningful way.
This isn’t a deep-rooted cultural difference between the Old World and the New. It dates back all the way to, oh, the 1970s. If one wanted to allocate blame, one could argue that it’s a product of the U.S. military presence, the American security guarantee that liberated European budgets: instead of having to spend money on guns, they could concentrate on butter, and buttering up the voters. If Washington’s problem with Europe is that these are not serious allies, well, whose fault is that? Who, in the years after the Second World War, created NATO as a postmodern military alliance? The “free world,” as the Americans called it, was a free ride for everyone else. And having been absolved from the primal responsibilities of nationhood, it’s hardly surprising that European nations have little wish to reshoulder them. In essence, the lavish levels of public health care on the Continent are subsidized by the American taxpayer. And this long-term softening of large sections of the West makes them ill-suited to resisting a primal force like Islam.
There is no “population bomb.” There never was. Birthrates are declining all over the world–eventually every couple on the planet may decide to opt for the Western yuppie model of one designer baby at the age of 39. But demographics is a game of last man standing. The groups that succumb to demographic apathy last will have a huge advantage. Even in 1968 Paul Ehrlich and his ilk should have understood that their so-called population explosion was really a massive population adjustment. Of the increase in global population between 1970 and 2000, the developed world accounted for under 9% of it, while the Muslim world accounted for 26%. Between 1970 and 2000, the developed world declined from just under 30% of the world’s population to just over 20%, the Muslim nations increased from about 15% to 20%.
Nineteen seventy doesn’t seem that long ago. If you’re the age many of the chaps running the Western world today are wont to be, your pants are narrower than they were back then and your hair’s less groovy, but the landscape of your life–the look of your house, the layout of your car, the shape of your kitchen appliances, the brand names of the stuff in the fridge–isn’t significantly different. Aside from the Internet and the cell phone and the CD, everything in your world seems pretty much the same but slightly modified.
And yet the world is utterly altered. Just to recap those bald statistics: In 1970, the developed world had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30% to 15%. By 2000, they were the same: each had about 20%.
And by 2020?
So the world’s people are a lot more Islamic than they were back then and a lot less “Western.” Europe is significantly more Islamic, having taken in during that period some 20 million Muslims (officially)–or the equivalents of the populations of four European Union countries (Ireland, Belgium, Denmark and Estonia). Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the West: In the U.K., more Muslims than Christians attend religious services each week.
Can these trends continue for another 30 years without having consequences? Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world.
What will Europe be like at the end of this process? Who knows? On the one hand, there’s something to be said for the notion that America will find an Islamified Europe more straightforward to deal with than M. Chirac, Herr Schroeder & Co. On the other hand, given Europe’s track record, getting there could be very bloody. But either way this is the real battlefield. The al Qaeda nutters can never find enough suicidal pilots to fly enough planes into enough skyscrapers to topple America. But unlike us, the Islamists think long-term, and, given their demographic advantage in Europe and the tone of the emerging Muslim lobby groups there, much of what they’re flying planes into buildings for they’re likely to wind up with just by waiting a few more years. The skyscrapers will be theirs; why knock ’em over?The latter half of the decline and fall of great civilizations follows a familiar pattern: affluence, softness, decadence, extinction. You don’t notice yourself slipping through those stages because usually there’s a seductive pol on hand to provide the age with a sly, self-deluding slogan–like Bill Clinton’s “It’s about the future of all our children.” We on the right spent the 1990s gleefully mocking Mr. Clinton’s tedious invocation, drizzled like syrup over everything from the Kosovo war to highway appropriations. But most of the rest of the West can’t even steal his lame bromides: A society that has no children has no future.
Permanence is the illusion of every age. In 1913, no one thought the Russian, Austrian, German and Turkish empires would be gone within half a decade. Seventy years on, all those fellows who dismissed Reagan as an “amiable dunce” (in Clark Clifford’s phrase) assured us the Soviet Union was likewise here to stay. The CIA analysts’ position was that East Germany was the ninth biggest economic power in the world. In 1987 there was no rash of experts predicting the imminent fall of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself.
Yet, even by the minimal standards of these wretched precedents, so-called post-Christian civilizations–as a prominent EU official described his continent to me–are more prone than traditional societies to mistake the present tense for a permanent feature. Religious cultures have a much greater sense of both past and future, as we did a century ago, when we spoke of death as joining “the great majority” in “the unseen world.” But if secularism’s starting point is that this is all there is, it’s no surprise that, consciously or not, they invest the here and now with far greater powers of endurance than it’s ever had. The idea that progressive Euro-welfarism is the permanent resting place of human development was always foolish; we now know that it’s suicidally so.
To avoid collapse, European nations will need to take in immigrants at a rate no stable society has ever attempted. The CIA is predicting the EU will collapse by 2020. Given that the CIA’s got pretty much everything wrong for half a century, that would suggest the EU is a shoo-in to be the colossus of the new millennium. But even a flop spook is right twice a generation. If anything, the date of EU collapse is rather a cautious estimate. It seems more likely that within the next couple of European election cycles, the internal contradictions of the EU will manifest themselves in the usual way, and that by 2010 we’ll be watching burning buildings, street riots and assassinations on American network news every night. Even if they avoid that, the idea of a childless Europe ever rivaling America militarily or economically is laughable. Sometime this century there will be 500 million Americans, and what’s left in Europe will either be very old or very Muslim. Japan faces the same problem: Its population is already in absolute decline, the first gentle slope of a death spiral it will be unlikely ever to climb out of. Will Japan be an economic powerhouse if it’s populated by Koreans and Filipinos? Very possibly. Will Germany if it’s populated by Algerians? That’s a trickier proposition.
Best-case scenario? The Continent winds up as Vienna with Swedish tax rates.
Worst-case scenario: Sharia, circa 2040; semi-Sharia, a lot sooner–and we’re already seeing a drift in that direction.
In July 2003, speaking to the U.S. Congress, Tony Blair remarked: “As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible but, in fact, it is transient. The question is: What do you leave behind?”
Excellent question. Britannia will never again wield the unrivalled power she enjoyed at her imperial apogee, but the Britannic inheritance endures, to one degree or another, in many of the key regional players in the world today–Australia, India, South Africa–and in dozens of island statelets from the Caribbean to the Pacific. If China ever takes its place as an advanced nation, it will be because the People’s Republic learns more from British Hong Kong than Hong Kong learns from the Little Red Book. And of course the dominant power of our time derives its political character from 18th-century British subjects who took English ideas a little further than the mother country was willing to go.A decade and a half after victory in the Cold War and end-of-history triumphalism, the “what do you leave behind?” question is more urgent than most of us expected. “The West,” as a concept, is dead, and the West, as a matter of demographic fact, is dying.
What will London–or Paris, or Amsterdam–be like in the mid-’30s? If European politicians make no serious attempt this decade to wean the populace off their unsustainable 35-hour weeks, retirement at 60, etc., then to keep the present level of pensions and health benefits the EU will need to import so many workers from North Africa and the Middle East that it will be well on its way to majority Muslim by 2035. As things stand, Muslims are already the primary source of population growth in English cities. Can a society become increasingly Islamic in its demographic character without becoming increasingly Islamic in its political character?
This ought to be the left’s issue. I’m a conservative–I’m not entirely on board with the Islamist program when it comes to beheading sodomites and so on, but I agree Britney Spears dresses like a slut: I’m with Mullah Omar on that one. Why then, if your big thing is feminism or abortion or gay marriage, are you so certain that the cult of tolerance will prevail once the biggest demographic in your society is cheerfully intolerant? Who, after all, are going to be the first victims of the West’s collapsed birthrates? Even if one were to take the optimistic view that Europe will be able to resist the creeping imposition of Sharia currently engulfing Nigeria, it remains the case that the Muslim world is not notable for setting much store by “a woman’s right to choose,” in any sense.I watched that big abortion rally in Washington in 2004, where Ashley Judd and Gloria Steinem were cheered by women waving “Keep your Bush off my bush” placards, and I thought it was the equivalent of a White Russian tea party in 1917. By prioritizing a “woman’s right to choose,” Western women are delivering their societies into the hands of fellows far more patriarchal than a 1950s sitcom dad. If any of those women marching for their “reproductive rights” still have babies, they might like to ponder demographic realities: A little girl born today will be unlikely, at the age of 40, to be free to prance around demonstrations in Eurabian Paris or Amsterdam chanting “Hands off my bush!”
Just before the 2004 election, that eminent political analyst Cameron Diaz appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show to explain what was at stake:
“Women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. .Â .Â . If you think that rape should be legal, then don’t vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body,” she advised Oprah’s viewers, “then you should vote.”
Poor Cameron. A couple of weeks later, the scary people won. She lost all rights to her body. Unlike Alec Baldwin, she couldn’t even move to France. Her body was grounded in TerminalÂ D.
But, after framing the 2004 presidential election as a referendum on the right to rape, Miss Diaz might be interested to know that men enjoy that right under many Islamic legal codes around the world. In his book “The Empty Cradle,” Philip Longman asks: “So where will the children of the future come from? Increasingly they will come from people who are at odds with the modern world. Such a trend, if sustained, could drive human culture off its current market-driven, individualistic, modernist course, gradually creating an anti-market culture dominated by fundamentalism–a new Dark Ages.”
Bottom line for Cameron Diaz: There are worse things than John Ashcroft out there.
Mr. Longman’s point is well taken. The refined antennae of Western liberals mean that whenever one raises the question of whether there will be any Italians living in the geographical zone marked as Italy a generation or three hence, they cry, “Racism!” To fret about what proportion of the population is “white” is grotesque and inappropriate. But it’s not about race, it’s about culture. If 100% of your population believes in liberal pluralist democracy, it doesn’t matter whether 70% of them are “white” or only 5% are. But if one part of your population believes in liberal pluralist democracy and the other doesn’t, then it becomes a matter of great importance whether the part that does is 90% of the population or only 60%, 50%, 45%.
Since the president unveiled the so-called Bush Doctrine–the plan to promote liberty throughout the Arab world–innumerable “progressives” have routinely asserted that there’s no evidence Muslims want liberty and, indeed, that Islam is incompatible with democracy. If that’s true, it’s a problem not for the Middle East today but for Europe the day after tomorrow. According to a poll taken in 2004, over 60% of British Muslims want to live under Shariah–in the United Kingdom. If a population “at odds with the modern world” is the fastest-breeding group on the planet–if there are more Muslim nations, more fundamentalist Muslims within those nations, more and more Muslims within non-Muslim nations, and more and more Muslims represented in more and more transnational institutions–how safe a bet is the survival of the “modern world”?
“What do you leave behind?” asked Tony Blair. There will only be very few and very old ethnic Germans and French and Italians by the midpoint of this century. What will they leave behind? Territories that happen to bear their names and keep up some of the old buildings? Or will the dying European races understand that the only legacy that matters is whether the peoples who will live in those lands after them are reconciled to pluralist, liberal democracy? It’s the demography, stupid. And, if they can’t muster the will to change course, then “What do you leave behind?” is the only question that matters.
Mr. Steyn is a syndicated columnist and theater critic forÂ The New Criterion, in whose January issue this article appears.