In a series of posts lasts week ( Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3), El Inglés presented three different scenarios for the near future as Islamization proceeds in Britain. Below is his explanation of his source data, and how he came to his different conclusions.
Some Comments on the Future Scenarios
by El Inglés
As regular readers of Gates of Vienna will already be aware, the Baron has recently posted three scenarios I wrote, in which I envisaged various ways in which the already troubled relationship between the UK and its Muslim population might develop. Certain commenters mentioned that they found the scenarios to be entertaining reads. I am glad that they were not dull in this regard, but must confess that they were not written as entertainment per se. Here, I propose to try and explain exactly why I did write them.
A couple of months ago, I found myself becoming increasingly frustrated with the inexactness of my grasp of what Islam in the UK was, and what it was likely to be in the future. I refer here not to the interminable debates about whether Islam itself is the problem, or what fraction of Muslims are ‘moderate’ and what fraction ‘extremists,’ but to brute demographic, geographic, economic and social realities. How many Muslims (which I take to refer to all people who can be considered at least nominally Muslim) are there in the UK? How many will there be in ten years’ time, or in twenty? How much of a burden are they economically speaking? How over or under-represented are they in our prisons? Where do they live?
At the same time, though I am as concerned about the pernicious effects of Islam in the UK (and, indeed, in other countries as well) as anyone else, I had begun to feel a certain exasperation with throwaway comments to the effect that Muslims were outbreeding us and will have taken over by the end of the century, by which time we will all be paying the jizya. There were a number of reasons for this.
Firstly, the long-term trajectories of key variables in complex systems such as nations simply cannot be predicted with any degree of reliability.
Secondly, this type of comment, which one can see with great frequency on any website examining these issues, and more generally, the type of attitude it conveys, is something that will prevent at least some people of good will from taking us seriously. Even to someone as opposed to Islam as myself, it seems dangerously close to worrying about being abducted by aliens and carried off to another galaxy.
Thirdly, I think that the paths European countries are walking with respect to Islam and Islamization have now diverged to the point that it is simply not meaningful to make general claims as to where ‘we’ are headed. Any ‘we’ that includes Italy, Denmark, France and Belgium is a ‘we’ that cannot be meaningfully analyzed, as it is not in any sense a single unit, subject to being guided in a single direction by a single decision-making process. On the contrary, I think we will very soon see serious diplomatic ruptures between EU states as they try to grapple with the existential threat of Islam in wildly different fashions.
- - - - - - - - -
It occurred to me eventually that I could address all these issues by simply continuing in the vein I had earlier started to explore in ‘The Danish Civil War’ and ‘Surrender, Genocide or What?’. Investigating the above demographic and socio-economic issues in the context of the UK would allow me to construct a fact sheet for Islamization in the UK, on the basis of which I would then be able to generate reasonably plausible best and worst case scenarios for the growth trajectories of the UK Muslim population. By sketching out a scenario in which worst-case demographics combine with worst-case social trends, and another in which best-case demographics combine with best-case social trends, the outer limits of the likely development of the relations between Islam and its host society in Britain would hopefully come into view over the time frame in question. In addition to these two scenarios, I could throw in a curve ball in the form of an ‘off-the-wall’ scenario, which would introduce conceivable yet highly improbable factors in a dramatic fashion.
In this manner, I hoped to introduce a level of realism to my thinking about the likely future of the UK vis-à-vis Islam. How realistic the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios (scenarios one and two) are in their own rights is something that people will doubtless disagree on. But anyone who believes (and such people are legion) that things will somehow ‘work out’ between Islam and the kuffar in my increasingly hopeless and degenerate country should at the very least be required to explain how things will so ‘work out.’ For they will not work out arbitrarily. On the contrary, there will have to be specific developments that make this possible, and I have outlined some of the contenders in the optimistic first essay. If they seem laughably improbable (and most of them do, as Dymphna kindly pointed out), then what conclusions must we draw? If, on the other hand, much of what is observed to take place in the pessimistic scenario seems plausible if the key conditions (i.e. largely unrestricted Muslim immigration on existing lines) are satisfied, then we can hopefully develop a keener idea of what awaits us. I am convinced that the greater the detail with which we imagine the future, the better prepared we will be for it.
I am also hopeful that scenarios of the type I recently devised can give us surprising new perspectives on what we think we know about how the future is likely to unfold. I was surprised to note that, in the pessimistic scenario, the demographic situation in the UK in 2022 looks quite similar to the situation in the Netherlands at present. This is actually a far more optimistic outlook than I expected. Others can, and probably will, take issue with the population projection involved. But even if it errs on the low side, and the relative Muslim population in 2022 should in fact be a couple of percentage points higher, that puts us in, at worst, a French-type situation. Given that things will almost certainly have exploded (forgive the expression) between Muslims and their host society in at least one European country by then, the prospect of a long, slow, demographic takeover of the UK by Islam seems to be virtually nil. The tension surrounding the subject of Islam grows every day. Despite the spinelessness and cluelessness of our politicians, I do not believe things can continue as they are past 2022.
In a similar vein, the optimistic scenario, unlikely though it is, holds out the possibility of the Muslim population of the UK virtually plateauing in the coming years if Muslim immigration is drastically reduced. Though it is too early too tell what type of immigration reform might be forthcoming under the proposed points system currently being discussed, and though the chances of being disappointed in this regard are high, it is not out of the realm of possibility that the future might be brighter than many have feared in this respect. Note that this is specific to the UK, which is predicted to see a notable population rise over the next few decades, much of it due to immigration. Whether this is good or bad in its own right can be debated, but it will certainly serve to dilute the Muslim population of the UK more than in a country like Germany, whose population is predicted to move in the opposite direction over the same time period. I firmly believe we are now at the point where specific details of this nature should be explicitly discussed.
On a slightly different note, as I was writing the pessimistic scenario, it occurred to me that the situation I was describing was vastly worse than the situation in the Netherlands at the moment (insofar as I understand it), despite the projected Muslim population of 5.8% for the UK in 2022 being lower than the current Dutch Muslim population of 6%. My pessimism in this scenario was semi-arbitrary, by which I mean that certain events, such as the Haringey Turkey Shoot, were included because I considered them representative of the type of thing that could happen rather than because I believed they were likely to. Does this mean I have over-egged the pudding slightly? Perhaps. But there is an interesting point to be made in this regard. Some readers may recall that I included the same Dutch military coup in each and every scenario. This was partly to try and conserve my rapidly depleting stores of imagination, but also to try and emphasise the potential importance of neighbour effects.
Let us imagine three different demographic situations for three different European countries with respect to Islam (it does not really matter how historically accurate the figures are):
| 1. | Muslim populations of 6% for France, 3% for the Netherlands, 1% for Norway | |
| 2. | Muslim populations of 10% for France, 6% for the Netherlands, 3% for Norway | |
| 3. | Muslim populations of 16% for France, 10% for the Netherlands, 6% for Norway |
Every country has a Muslim population of 6% in one scenario. Concentrating on this underlying demographic reality and ignoring any and all other differences between the countries in question and their Muslim populations, let us ask the following: are France in the first scenario, the Netherlands in the second scenario, and Norway in the third scenario in essentially the same situation with respect to Islam? I think the answer is clearly no. France, in scenario one, has the option of trying to convince itself that things will ‘work out’ somehow (to use the expression) between itself and Islam, as there are no clear examples of Islam-induced collapse before it. This option is, in our grossly oversimplified set of scenarios, not as available to the Dutch, who will have their eyes fixed firmly on the French example, and even less available to the Norwegians, who will probably have collapsing countries not more than a few hundred miles away to teach them some hard lessons. It is for this reason that I think the seemingly unrealistic escalation in the pessimistic scenario might not actually be so divorced from reality, particularly if there is a crisis in some other European country. This is one of the reasons I very much hope others will consider speculative futures for their own countries. It may be that something unexpected emerges when we consider our respective futures in more concrete terms, and how they might look in light of each other.
For those who are interested, the fact sheet that I put together to base the scenarios on is included below. I only wish I knew more about the structure and doctrine of the British police and army, and about their likely ability to contain various sorts of civil unrest and violence. This would be hugely important information in fleshing out my grasp of how the British state will be able to respond to the problems Islam in the UK will undoubtedly continue to pose us.
The optimistic and pessimistic scenarios were based on the following assumptions, which will become clearer upon reading the fact sheet:
Optimistic
Muslim population of 2 million in 2008
1.25% per annum endogenous growth
Muslim immigration falls to 15,000 per year
Population is 65 million in 2022. Muslim population continues to climb, but only reaches 2,600,000, or 4.0% of whole and is therefore nearly stationary as fraction of whole.
Pessimistic
Muslim population of 2.4 million in 2008
2% per annum endogenous growth
Muslim immigration stays the same, at 60,000 per year
Population is 65 million in 2022. Muslim population continues to climb, reaches an estimated 3,750,000, or 5.8% of whole.
Islamization Fact Sheet — UK
UK Population
2001 census: 58,789,194
Mid-2006 estimate: 60,587,300
Estimate for right now: 61,000,000
Predicted to be 69 million in 2050 by the UN, 75 million in 2050 by the UK’s National Statistics Office
Muslim Population
UK Muslim Population: 1,580,515 (according to 2001 census)
Now 2 million Muslims in the UK according to Home Secretary (2008)
My estimate:
Illegal Muslim Immigrants
Most up-to-date estimate of illegal immigrants is currently 500,000 to 750,000.
Illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly failed asylum seekers and visa overstayers.
Assume that illegal immigrants not included in census (seems reasonable).
Most rejected asylum-seekers are from Muslim countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc.
Legal Muslim Immigrants
In 2006, the UK received 115,000 immigrants from the New Commonwealth, 80% (approximately 95,000) of whom came from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. The fractions of these populations in the UK that were Muslim in 2001 were as follows:
Bangladeshi: 92.5%
Pakistani: 92%
Indian: 12.7%
Sri Lankan: 7%
Now the breakdown for Asian and Asian British population in the UK in 2001 was as follows:
Indian: 1,053,411 (45.2%)
Pakistani: 747,285 (32.1%)
Bangladeshi: 283,063 (12.1%)
Other: 247,664 (10.6%)
Assuming that Other is essentially the same as the Sri Lankan population (which would overestimate the Sri Lankan population), we now split 95,000 up in these ratios:
India — 40375
Pakistan — 30495
Bangladesh — 11495
Sri Lanka — 6650
Now multiply by the Muslim fractions of each of these populations based on 2001 figures:
India — 5128
Pakistan — 28055
Bangladesh — 10633
Sri Lanka — 466
This means that 44,282 Muslims came to the UK in 2006 from the Indian sub-continent. Now immigrants of all generations from this part of the world accounted for 73.7% of the UK Muslim population in 2001. Taking this ratio as being representative of the national backgrounds of all Muslim immigrants in 2006, we can estimate that 60,084 Muslims (net, not gross) came to the UK in this year. If we assume that this number held true for every one of the seven years since the last census, we derive a total of 420,584 new Muslim immigrants net.
Current rates of population growth are 1.8% and 2.1% for Pakistan and Bangladesh. Assuming a very conservative rate of endogenous population growth for the Muslim community in the UK of 1% per annum, the 1.6 million figure for 2001 would have become 1,715,000 through reproduction alone. A slightly more realistic estimate of 1.5% per annum, the 1.6 million figure would have become 1,775,000. Assuming that fertility rates in Muslim communities are not significantly different in the UK to the countries of origin of said communities (i.e. an endogenous growth rate of 2%), the Muslim community would now be 1,838,000 ignoring immigration subsequent to 2001.
Taking the middle figure of 1,775,000 for the expanded 2001 population, the estimate of 420,000 for new immigrants and the guess of 200,000 for illegal immigrants, we generate an estimate of 2,395,000 Muslims in the UK today, ignoring growth in the gradually entering Muslim immigrant population. Taking the population of the UK to be 61 million, this gives a figure of 3.9% for the Muslim population of the UK.
Geographic Distribution
Around two fifths of Muslims (38 per cent) live in London. After London, the regions with the next biggest share of the Muslim population are the West Midlands (14 per cent), the North West (13 per cent), and Yorkshire and the Humber (12 per cent). Even within these regions, Muslims were highly concentrated spatially.
Economic Situation
GDP per capita on a nominal basis was $45,845 in the UK in 2007 according to the IMF estimate (the World Bank estimate is lower, but the CIA estimate is very close). Taking an exchange rate of two dollars to the pound for the year, let us call this 23,000 pounds after rounding up slightly. In 2008, the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith claimed that the economic contribution of the Muslim community in the UK (which she estimated to be 2 million) was £31 billions. Taking 2 million as being correct (and I note that is different to my own estimate above, but use it so as to use both figures provided by her), we can see that GDP per capita for Muslims was £15,500, barely more than two thirds of the national average.
This significant gap can be attributed in part to the age profile of the Muslim community, which, though not that different from other religious groups in terms of the fraction of the population of working age, has a larger fraction of its population of working age in the 16-34 age bracket than in the 35-64 age bracket. However, it is clear educational, vocational and professional achievement is, statistically speaking, much less frequent for Muslims even if this factor is controlled for.
In April 2008, a report published by the Select Committee on Economic Affairs in the House of Lords concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that GDP per capita had been significantly affected one way or the other by immigration overall. Given the very considerable number of other immigrants the UK and the poor economic performance of Muslims in general, it must be concluded that, in their own right, they simply depress GDP per capita by some as yet unknown amount.
This does not include the disproportionate burden they place on the criminal justice system. At present, 11% of the prison population is Muslim (this is discussed further below). The combined annual budget of the Police, the Prison Service, the Crown Prosecution Service is approximately £13 billion. If we (very crudely) take 11% of this figure as representing the cost incurred to the country through Muslim criminality (excluding terrorism), we derive a figure of £1.43 billion, as opposed to the £468 million cost that would be incurred if they made up the same fraction of the prison population as the above estimate of the fractional Muslim population for the whole country (3.6%). It is also worth pointing out that MI5, the domestic intelligence agency, spent 87% of its £200 million budget (£174 million) on counter-terrorism in 2006, the overwhelming majority of which would have been dedicated to the fight against Muslim terrorism. The direct and indirect economic costs of Muslim terrorism itself are not easy to ascertain at present, but presumably run into the hundreds of millions of pounds in the last few years alone.
Crime
Using 2006 data from the Offender Management Caseload Statistics, Jack Straw revealed in the same year that there were 8,243 self declared Muslim inmates. The number represents 11% of all prisoners. If the common figure of 3% given for the Muslim fraction of the UK population is correct, we can see that Muslims are therefore four times more likely (3.996) to be in prison than non-Muslims (on basis of 3% population figure). If the 3.9% estimate I generated above is accurate, then the disproportion falls to a factor of approximately 3.05, which is still fairly considerable.
It has been suggested that the higher number of Muslims in prison may partly reflect the age profile of Muslims in the UK. However, the key demographic in this regard is the 18-34 demographic, and it is not clear that is much larger for Muslims than for other ethnic minorities. In 2001, the 16-34 demographic represented approximately 38% of the Muslim population, 33% of the Hindu population, and 34% of the Sikh population. Though it does not overlap exactly with the prevalent prison demographic of 18-34, it is close enough to make it clear that the problem does not seem to be primarily one of age profiles (assuming the 2001 figures are still reasonably reliable).
The disproportionate financial burden placed on the Police, the Prison Service, and the Crown Prosecution Service by the UK’s Muslim population has already been alluded to, as has the as yet unknown economic cost of terrorism. This leaves unaddressed the economic costs of Muslim crime incurred directly by its victims, be they individuals, corporations, or other types of organization. It would be educational to have a figure here so the disproportion and the excess cost could be calculated in the same manner as above. Lastly it should be mentioned that the disproportionate number of Muslims in prison is accounted for to at least some extent by some unknown number of conversions to Islam inside prison itself. It is not thought that this phenomenon explains more than a small fraction of the difference in incarceration rates.
Police
In 2006, police strength in England and Wales stood at 141,381 police officers, 13,179 special Constables (full police powers, no pay, under authority of regular police when present) and 6,769 PCSOs (very limited powers, largely restricted to patrol, observation and support roles).
56 comments:
My favourite part of this essay: "At the same time, though I am as concerned about the pernicious effects of Islam in the UK (and, indeed, in other countries as well) as anyone else, I had begun to feel a certain exasperation with throwaway comments to the effect that Muslims were outbreeding us and will have taken over by the end of the century, by which time we will all be paying the jizya."
I couldn't agree with you more on this, El Ingles. People who say they are against Islamization but write Europe off as a lost cause really annoy me sometimes. No doubt such people, had they lived during the American Revolution, would have said with certainty that America would not win. My point is that one cannot predict the future based on current trends because current trends are that: current. They change quickly and frequently. Going back the American Revolution example, look at what happened: America was losing for a while. It appeared impossible that we would win independence from England, but look at what happened.
I also am impressed at how much research you put into this. I confess that I was one of the people who thought your essays were entertaining, but now I can see they were much more than just that.
natalie,
thank you very much for your kind comments. i am glad you have enjoyed reading all the essays. they were hard work to write.
El Ingles
PS you haven't won independence yet. we are just regrouping.
I take exception to this line:
'I had begun to feel a certain exasperation with throwaway comments to the effect that Muslims were outbreeding us and will have taken over by the end of the century, by which time we will all be paying the jizya."'
Why, pray tell, do you think this isn't true? A coup? The emasculated, disarmed, denatured men of the west, stage a coup against democracy? A vote? The BNP win an election? Both are equally impossible.
Every day another immigrant enters the UK or another white emigrant leaves the UK, the chances grow dimmer for the UK, not brighter. Millions of british who didn't like immigration and PCism picked up and left for greener soil around the world. Those people will no longer be here to fight for the motherland. Every year you can expect millions more to pack up and leave. The last remaining englishmen will all be the hippy, we are the world, all we need is love crowd who never even see the muslim sledgehammer coming.
You seem to have also forgotten the well beneath replacement birth rates all across Europe, which will increase the muslim proportion of the population by default.
Also you must recall that power belongs to those willing to use violence. Muslims are willing, socialists, conservatives, etc aren't. They lose by default.
Plus you must remember most women, socialists, minorities, gays, etc will all side with the muslims against the evil oppressive white male, to the bitter end. They will not be happy until the very last one of us is dead and gone. Good luck trying to win a majority of votes there!
Not to mention the dysgenic effects of smart women staying single and working while dumb ones crank out babies on welfare reducing the quality of competition with the muslims every generation. Good luck winning the war with a bunch of drug addicted imbeciles who never knew a father or saw a man within ten city blocks.
You say things change too much for predictions to be correct in a century. Au contraire. There are endless trends that have gone on for centuries undisturbed. Empires have been collapsing into smaller nations for centuries now. Globalization has grown for centuries now. Technological progress has been going on for centuries now. Egalitarianism has been progressing for centuries now. A century is not so long--just one lifetime after all.
You could make some argument by pointing out some positive trend that's counteracting the negative trends that lead to muslim victory. But I don't know of a single positive trend that exists on this planet. "rising anger among the electorate" is meaningless unless it translates into votes for the BNP. There is no significant support for the BNP and it doesn't look like there will ever be. Plus you're forgetting the escape valve of white flight. When people get angry about all the muslims, they don't revolt, they move. Either to another non-muslim area in the UK, or out of the UK altogether. They do not stand and fight. White flight has already lost California. What's to stop everyone in the UK from moving clear off the island? That seems a lot more likely than civil war in this day and age.
Watch Children of Men. It is essentially Europe's situation brought to its logical conclusion. No children, no future, no point to living. Will people fight muslims with that kind of despair in their hearts? For whom? For whose sake? Why risk yourself for no gain? Why not just die of old age in peace? Islam is tuberculosis, liberalism is AIDS. An AIDS patient does not jump up and shrug off all its aggressors, bellow a healthy roar and then shatter the chains of prometheus! No sir! An AIDS patient sits around, tired, weak, in pain, wondering how long death will take, and maybe welcomes tuberculosis in their heart. Even if, miraculously, Islamization was stopped, liberalism would just kill us from some other front. In one century the game IS up. No one has even attempted to challenge the core tenets of liberalism yet, and the popularity of those who do will probably still be around 1% by the turn of the century. Too little, too late.
Oh, you British are just too funny ;)
Diamed, neither of us can predict the future with any certainty. Maybe things look bad right now, but you don't know what things will look like in a year. Maybe people will wake up after the next terrorist attack - I'm sure there's one coming, and it's going to be big. There's going to be something that will be the last straw and cause people to react. With regards to demographics, sure we've got crappy birth rates, but we won't feel the consequences for some years to come, so there is time left in that regard to act.
It is fallacious to base predictions solely on current trends. History shows us that current trends change quickly. It is interesting to make connections with trends, but they are not the be-all end-all by any means.
One scenario I've often considered and mentioned several times in passing is one where a small group, let's call them "Patriots", sees the future clearly and comes to the conclusion that the only way to change the current trajectory of what seems to be inevitable is to force the hand of the Muslims. To make them act before their numbers are to the point where Britain is lost. I will get to my scenario after a quick response to Diamed.
Perhaps it is my military background and my brief meeting with some British divers in Jerez, Spain back in 1994 but, in spite of your statement to the contrary, "The emasculated, disarmed, denatured men of the west", I believe there are a lot of real men left in the West. They just won't be found in major urban areas or cities of the West. Those areas are dominated by the effete metrosexuals more interested in their hair than anything that can be termed masculine. Rather, the real men can be found in the small towns, the countryside, and in the US, in the Red states where the infectious disease of multiculturalism and Liberalism haven't found fertile ground to poison the mind and soul.
Even now the bulk of the men in the US military come from Red states.
In Britain I'd wager a lot of real men can be found here. Let's call them "Patriots".
Ok, being a military veteran with a special operations background I have often thought that the aforementioned band of Patriots, perhaps with a well funded anonymous sponsor, acts on a plan to disrupt Islamization process by eliminating the Muslim leadership (thanks to Zenster for "the list") throughout Britain thereby sparking the civil war that is probably inevitable but at a time and place that allows the British to set the initial rules of the game and control the pace and timing of events. Without their leadership the Muslims will embark on a rampage of mindless violence that will result in mass casualties, however, probably fewer in number had the civil war taken place with the Muslims controlling the timing of events. This mass uprising will inevitably bring the military into the conflict to control the violence and probably result in martial law. The demands from the public for harsh action including mass deportations will be swift.
This same plan can be used to eliminate the Liberal enablers who have brought the West to the edge of collapse should the need arise, i.e. if they decide to cling to power rather than run away and hide.
Who knows, perhaps this band of Patriots is at work even now on the plan; building up a network of underground soldiers and financial backers, acquiring and distributing arms, training, and identifying and prioritizing targets.
Feel free to expand on this scenario and take it to a conclusion of your choosing.
My reply to Diamed is that there are lot of "stuck" men who cannot emigrate. Lacking capital, language skills, and possessing criminal records. The street army of criminals. These men are stuck. In addition, there are property owners, various working class men and women, who lack capital and connections. They are also stuck.
So the safety valve is not as strong as you think.
Also, there seems to be an increased struggle between (who'd a thunk it?) Muslim and native men over women. Again, who'd ever have thought men would fight over women? /SARCASM. It's not like *cough Trojan War cough* we've seen that in literature, ever.
Exacerbated by polygamy, and tendency towards violence, this is an undercurrent in much of the fighting.
My reply to both El Ingles and Charlemagne is that we already have a good working model of what happens when both society breaks down, after decades of socialist-type rule, and a base struggle with Muslims happens over territory, women, wealth, and power.
The Balkans!
And that my friends, is the likely future of Britain. Ugly, brutal, fractured, dangerous, but not totally without a path out of darkness. Through brutal but short ethnic cleansing, Croats and Slovenes are largely free of the mess. Perhaps Scots and the Welsh and Northern Irish can be so as well by similar methods, however brutal they might be.
The Serbs have an unhappy lot, battling to maintain historic parts of the Serbian nation, which powerful patrons (the US, KSA, EU) mandate be ceded to Muslims/Kosovars/Albania (much the same thing I guess). This is likely to be the case for England, which will likely have to cede London, much of the North, and a contiguous piece between them by Iran and Pakistan on pain of nuclear attack.
Don't forget, there's always the happy inevitability of outside parties meddling in! /SARCASM.
Naturally, just as it is an affront to ever Serbian that historic parts of Serbia be handed over to the mortal enemies, the Muslim Kosovars, the Albanians, so too will there be nothing but endless war between a "Palestinian" style English set of "militants" and the Muslim rulers of London and the North.
I would imagine first Muslims evacuate the North akin to the Israeli evacuation of Gaza, and then the end-game centering around London. And just as Palestinian nationalism was born by well, hating the Jews/Israelis, where before there was no Palestinian national concept, so too will you likely see a different conception of English patriotism. One about as tolerant and accepting as that of the Palestinians, or Serbians. Territorial struggles do not incline peoples to be multicultural or accepting of others.
In short, I think the models of the Palestinian/Israeli or Serbian/Kosovar-Albanian-Bosniak conflicts, complete with nationalist revanchism, meddling by allied powers, and various terrorist militias providing a whacking great dose of ethnic cleansing is the future for Britain.
Just as criminals and various thugs formed the basis for Mladic's and Milosevic's paramilitary goons, so too will British criminals likely form the basis for various paramilitary organizations. Let me add, the Orangemen, the UDF/UDA, IRA, Provo IRA, etc. have provided the British/English a good working model to follow and plenty of men with know-how and in need of "employment." These are truly "interesting times."
So, then, Whiskey, what you are suggesting is that we should...ahem.....UNLEASH THE SOCCER HOOLIGANS!
Whiskey
you're saying that the u.s. will likely work against the english as they did the serbians. You forget that the english and the americans are culturely a lot closer than the u.s. to the serbs. I somehow doubt that most yanks ever heard of serbia before the yugoslav civil war and also they were probably a lot more suseptable to the msm's version of the situation than they would if a similar civil war were to happen in the uk. Oh and one more thing i think it'd be a lot less palatable to the us population to attack white english speaking brits than a country of slavs who speak a funny language from the wrong side of the iron curtain.
That said it would be a nightmare situation if the u.s. started backing muslims.
The objectino I have to the argument that Europe is "doomed" is that it breaks the law of inevitability. That is: nothing bar death is inevitable if you can see it.
The islamisation of europe is a possibility but it isn't inevitable, no more than the international communist revolution was inevitable. It was a threat - still is a threat - but to say that nothing can stop it is to admit defeat before you've even begun.
There are already fights. They don't get reported, but regular gang battles take place in parts of Manchester now, away from the CCTV cameras that line all the main roads. They happen in back streets, between gangs of muslims and other groups, out of sight and so very easy for the media to ignore. It's just gang fighting at the moment, people with high opinions of their own prowess acting out of fantasy, idealism or just plain old greed and criminal enterprise but, I seem to recall that a lot of civil wars started out in a similar way. John Brown, anyone?
Charlemagne-
I'd have greater hope for the patriot side if it weren't for the fact that Soros et al have clearly caught us napping.
I've come to the belief that only a military coup can save the US.
Read my scenario here.
diamed:
for someone who seems to have commented upon (and therefore presumably read) virtually everything i have written on GoV, you have a remarkably strange set of ideas about what i supposedly believe, and what i have 'ignored.' there are no dynamics, regarding immigration, emigration, or differences in fertility rates, that you refer to that i have not alluded to, directly or indirectly, in one of my essays. you must be aware of this.
your comment is actually a remarkably good example of the 'we're all doomed' genre that i have been criticizing for its sweeping generalizations about the 'inevitable' swamping of a continent of 500 million people by an arabian death cult. yes, things are bad. that is why we are here, discussing them. but your vociferous insistence that it is all over puzzles me. why come here and insist that we are all doomed? would you like everyone to just forget about these issues and wait for what you say is inevitable? is there any chance at all that your predictions of doom are mistaken? if they is, might not the effects of your defeatism be pernicious?
i am amused by your suggestion that we will end up a bunch of kumbaya-singing we-are-the-world hippies AND a bunch of stunted, degenerate, drug-addicted, imbeciles. do these two scenarios not strike you as being contradictory? the lack of rigour in what you say is alarming.
certainly long-term predictions can be reliable. the earth will still be orbitting the sun in 200 years, it is true. but to insist that no qualitatively new dynamics can come into play on these issue in time to save us is bizarre. look at wilders in the netherlands, and the knife's edge they seem to be on there. look at italy. look at switzerland, where certain groups are trying to ban minarets, an initiative which i think is brimming with significance. look at denmark, where the people's party holds over 13% of the vote and is part of the coalition government. and this in only a few years! on what grounds would you advocate surrender (which you do implicitly, not explicitly), with all these developments taking place? you may FEEL that we are doomed, but you cannot KNOW it. you sound like you've given up. that is not how i read your comments in the past.
in closing, i have to comment on your slightly paranoid ideas about how socialists, women, gays, and minorities are out to get us. in the UK, we have significant hindu and sikh minorities, who, by and large, hate muslims. there is significant hostility between black and asian communities in general, rendering your claim that the 'minorities' will support the muslims rather silly. what about the poles, diamed? they are a minority. will they suport the muslims?
declining fertility is a global phenomenon, affecting deeply patriarchal and ethnocentric societies such as japan and south korea even more acutely than it effects us, at least at present. it has not been induced with the evil magic wand of socialist muslim lesbians. even iran is well below replacement fertility levels. pity the remnant of the great persian empire of old, run by a vicious junta of gays, socialists, and radical feminists!
you give too much away, diamed. your comments reveal a deep attachment to ethnocentrism (that's the polite way of putting it), male ascendancy, and the decline of the race. you are entitled to your positions, and i am not so dullwitted as to believe these positions make you a nazi. but your opposition to islam comes across as being secondary for you. mine is primary for me. perhaps that is why we do not see eye to eye.
Diamed is more right than wrong, by logical reasoning. I agree with him.
Natalie points this cant' be so because we can't predict the future and a major terrorist attack would change things, it would "wake peolpe".
Wake up Natalie, a major terrorist attack already happened (several of them) and we don't need to predict the future when we can learn form the past. Look at kosovo, i bet serbs hundreds of years ago could not predict what the steady influx of albanians and decaying serb numbers would result on. Have we learned anything? NOPE. What you need to wake up to is to the perception of the factors who are causing the decadence of the west and ask yourself if they will change spontaneously over time or with a "big" terrorist attack.
Did the major terrorist attacks stop the loss of values, emasculation of men, multiculturalism tendecies of our rulers and general population? Did it made the West more aware of the supremacism in islamic doctrine? Did it made us stop immigration and begin to have babies? We already know demographic evolution is benefiting the third world immigrants, what are we doing about it? We're building "Civilization Alliances"!!!
People will not even begin to effectivelly work for a change until things are real bad. What's "real bad"? It will be when we Europeans are so few that everyone will frequently taste violence in the streets everyday. Now, only a relatively few neighborhoods and zones are bad, when things spread to the point of no place being safe to walk in the streets, then europeans will be AWARE. But by then it will be late, we'll have to manage a balkanized Europe, if we still have any power to manage anything.
Maybe this is to depressing and terrifying, so you still believe in a "wake up". But it won't happen, because for that to happen, people need to be pessimistic, they need to feel as if they were already in bad neighborhood when they hear news about those places in their countries who have become no-go zones. And, people don't do that, like Diamed said our sensible natures will choose flight instead of fight, and flight is not only a physical act, it's also pshychological. The 9/11 in the USA, the bombings in London and Madrid, people just try harder to integrate those things on their lives than to adopt a action/fight posture. Action/fight is hard,dangerous,unrewarding. Because in a still more or less safe country, it's better to enjoy the remaining good things about it than to worry about the things you loss. Unless your a pessimist who feels ahead ahead and assumes the worst, wich is, eventaully loosing everything.
You choose to look at all the thing who MIGHT change. I look at things as they ARE GOING RIGHT NOW. And that includes not only as they are going but also as the indications that anything will change are going. The answer is NOTHING relevant and effective.
el wrote:
"your comment is actually a remarkably good example of the 'we're all doomed' genre that i have been criticizing for its sweeping generalizations about the 'inevitable' swamping of a continent of 500 million people by an arabian death cult. yes, things are bad. that is why we are here, discussing them. but your vociferous insistence that it is all over puzzles me. why come here and insist that we are all doomed? would you like everyone to just forget about these issues and wait for what you say is inevitable? is there any chance at all that your predictions of doom are mistaken? if they is, might not the effects of your defeatism be pernicious?"
I know you wrote to Diamed, but since my post is kind of in line with his, i'll take that critic is also weel directed at me.
Pessimism and defeatism are not the same, a pessimist (based in rational thinking) assumes we are heading for the worst case scenario of all possibles (again with really good facts to support that). A defeatist asumes we can do anything, battle is over.
I'm a pessimist, not defeatist. I believe we are going in the PATH to defeat but are not there yet. This is important because many people will not really care about the problems if you just simple add the choice "maybe it will or... Maybe it won't". If i am to believe anything and to adopt an attitude, i will go more like the present momentum than prematurely assume the momentum will change.
you are right when you say that pessimism and defeatism are not the same. but pessimism, taken far enough, becomes difficult to distinguish from defeatism, and i think diamed's position is closer to the latter.
you talk as if nothing has changed in european attitudes to islam since the 9/11 attacks. this is absurd. everything is changing, but the change starts at the ground level and percolates upwards from there. of course our politicians are pathetic and gutless, completely incapable of dealing with the qualitatively new actor that islam is. but qualitatively new actors are emerging on our side too, while the muslim population of europe is still in the low single digits as a fraction of the whole. i gave you developments in the netherlands, denmark, italy, and switzerland, and the tone and nature of the debate is shifting everywhere, even in the ridiculous UK, which is a disgrace to the civilized world. even in sweden, the anti-immigratino sweden democrats are of the verge of entering parliament for the first time.
by all means engage in pessimism. i am not an optimist myself. but insisting that we can extrapolate current trends into the distant future and assume that no new actors or dynamics emerge, whilst ignoring the evidence of those actors and dynamics already emerging, is an odd approach.
until 9/11, no one gave a toss about islam in the UK. now it's on the agenda, in the papers, all the time. you cannot say that no one is waking up. even your ridiculous 'civilizational alliances' in spain (que tonto!) are a sign of the deep unease felt by the most clueless, cowardly european politicians, such as zapatero. that these people have been forced into such absurd initiatives is a sign of how much progress we are making.
El Ingles,
Thank you very much for your series, a huge effort. Of all the articles I liked this last one the most. Presenting figures as you do is the way to do it, because then they can be rationally discussed. I've also been working on models and whenever I find a rainy weekend I will crunch some numbers and compare them to yours. How much have you been looking at historical data for Britain? It's important to compare models to real data.
Here's an example. In the movie Fitna (at 10:18) there is a diagram of the growth of Muslims in the Netherlands. In 1990 they were 458,000 and 2004 they were 944,000. I.e. they are more than doubling in the same time period as you are using (14 years). Now this is a very quick and simple model, but if we assume the same rate of increase, the number of Muslims in Britain would be closer to 5 million in 2022 (2.06*2.4 = 4.94). So your pessimistic model looks more like moderately optimistic to me. A pessimistic model to me would be one where the rate of increase goes up substantially, thanks to the "love" of the new Mediterranean Union, or the admission of Turkey into the EU.
5 million Muslims in 2022 7.7%, which is right between today's percentages of the Netherlands and France. You already discussed this, and also how the percentage will carry more weight in the future context of our continent. But I would like to add how the Muslims concentrate into cities and into certain cities. E.g. the city of Bradford has 25% Muslims today (75,188 out of 293,717). I compare it to the population of the city rather than the borough, since I assume it's going to be more relevant (are there any Muslims living in the country side of the borough?). With a doubling, 25% goes up to 40% till 2022. And when we approach such levels, white flight will become an important factor and we can assume even a higher percentage. Bradford and and some other cities will literally be swamped by Muslims by 2022, and some areas of London already are. This will be an important part of the picture in 2022.
Also by 2022, both Europeans and Muslims will have become aware of where this exponential growth is leading. When it's still in low numbers, people do not pay attention. So this will add to the conflict dimension. Muslims will have taken over a number of cities (which we can assume to be ruled by Sharia by then) and people will be aware of that violent conflict is unavoidable, if it's not already ongoing to full extent.
swede,
i'm glad you liked the essays. i actually adopted an approach very similar to the one you laid out. the official muslim population of the UK in 2001 census was 1.6 million. the current home minister has estimated in to be 2 million now. this is 25% growth in seven years. if we assume a similar growth profile for two lots of seven years, we get 2 million turning into 3.125 million by 2022, which is why the scenarios ended in that year. however, because i estimate the muslim population of the UK to be 2.4 million right now, i used this figure instead of 2 million, to get an actual projection for 2022 of 5.8% (based on a UK population of 65 million in that year, which is largely guesswork as the UN and UK government predictions for 2050 are 69million and 75 million respectively. hopeless!).
anyway, there are so many unknowns compounding each other that firm ideas of the future are, of course, impossible to generate. but i am glad you agree that, as i suggested in this summary, the UK is looking at, at worst (and i fear the worst is at least reasonably likely, but still) a french-style situation in the UK in 2022.
now that is bad, to be sure, but at least we have an idea of where we are heading. i have no idea what the netherlands might look like in 2022, in an optimistic scenario or a pessimistic scenario or any other type of scenario. this is troubling. i think we need to start visualizing things in more detail.
the geographical concentration of muslims is a key factor in what will happen in the future. blackburn is over 25% muslim, mainly pakistani. i saw some footage from a documentary a little way back, and it's disgusting, genuinely obscene, all these savages parading around in the streets shouting through megaphones. white flight is undoubtedly ongoing at some rate, and pakistani immigrants will of course be attracted there, completing the cycle. i think the north will be a flashpoint for whatever happens in the UK, and no notions of the future of islam in the UK can fail to take the virtual takeover of parts of the north of england into account. but this could work to our favour, however callous that may sound.
the hideous thing about the UK is the lack of any political party that is anti-islam without being racist/fascist. that will have to come. i cannot understand why no prominent politician in the UK will criticism islam in its own right! it is very frustrating and disturbing.
el wrote:
"i gave you developments in the netherlands, denmark, italy, and switzerland, and the tone and nature of the debate is shifting everywhere, even in the ridiculous UK, which is a disgrace to the civilized world. even in sweden, the anti-immigratino sweden democrats are of the verge of entering parliament for the first time. "
But i do see those developments, and i am happier to see them more than i would for not seeing them.
But i see them as a good start, rather them definitive solutions. These shifts are volatiles since we are still eroding demographically and in values system, while the muslims and others are steadilly increasing numbers and influence, buildings more mosques, lobbying strong, etc... We can't afford to look upon on those developments and give in to tougths "you know what? We might just be alright". I won't pursuit and condemmed people who do this, why would i? But i can disagree, can't i? Real victories are observance of real gains, like population balance and core of values built on our educational systems who raise people to stand for their nations, who do not compromise and do not have problems in closing down the borders to some other nations.
Now, i look at this developments and say good, now more . I don't say "wow things are ACTUALLY changing" i'll say at most "things appear to be changing or they look on their way to change".
Why am i irritatingly reserved on my enthusiasm? Well because there is too much at stake. It's like saying that maybe the rainforest will survive because so much more people nowadays are aware to the deforesttion and loss of biodiversity then there were decades ago. This when a France sized area of rainforest still burns up every year... So hooray fot "positive developments", i we need results who shows us the developments really meant something.
El Ingles,
It seems that the Muslim population is growing slower in Britain than in many other European countries, such as Holland, France, Sweden, Spain. Which would seem logical considering that Muslim immgration started so far back, and you are still only at 4%. I don't know how the family reunification laws look like for you (this is a major source), or the birth rates (the other major source). But the queston is if not this will be harmonized (to use a pretty word), with other European countries, thanks to the EU and thanks to the radicalization of the Muslims.
Or the figure of 2 millions is just like the figure you gave in your part 2 -- "official statistics maintained that the UK Muslim population was in fact no more than 3 million" -- a lie! And the real increase in 7 years has been from 1.6 to 2.4 millions, i.e. 50% in 7 years. Well, no that's top high to be realistic. But your increase rate of 25% percent can certainly be questioned. There was probably a part of a lie (or omission) already in the 1.6 million figure. But it's reasonable to assume that the share of the lie gets bigger and bigger the more time elapses and the worse the figures get. And then a proper increase rate couldn't be found by comparing those figures.
@jose:
we are basically in agreement. i do not think there is that much difference in our positions.
bear in mind that both denmark and the netherlands have reformed their family reunification laws. in the netherlands, i have read that the number of muslims entering the country annually as spouses has halved recently. i am not sure how reliable this figure is, but clearly change is underway. ask the gypsies who got firebombed out of their camps in naples.
@conswede:
yes, the 25% in seven years can be questioned. the difficulty is knowing whether one is using similiarly-derived figures to try and extract a growth rate. the 1.6 million is the census figure, the 2million an unofficial home sceretary estimate. that means the government sees 25% growth in seven years. now if their estimate of the growth rate is correct, even if the numbers themselves are too low, then my estimate looks strong. if not, then it looks a lot weaker. but we must work with what we have.
the frightening truth is that even the government, with all its resources, does not know. i have seen estimates for the somali population of the UK varying from 90,000 to 250,000, though they were made at virtually the same time! the criminal negligence of the government is astounding.
remember as well that the difficulties are all compounded by illegal imigrants, who, by definition, do not show up in official statistics.
"too high"!, not "top high" of course.
El Ingles,
This was not directed to me, but I like to answer anyway, since you have repeated this thought before:
by all means engage in pessimism. i am not an optimist myself. but insisting that we can extrapolate current trends into the distant future and assume that no new actors or dynamics emerge, whilst ignoring the evidence of those actors and dynamics already emerging, is an odd approach.
First part of my answer, very briefly:
I do not share your optimism here. The problems are created and growing at a higher rate then the awareness and counter-actions (even though they have gotten quite a momentum since 2001, quite as you say).
Second part of my answer:
Social science is tricky since the theory itself is part of the world we study. If someone discovers a sure way to win money on the stock market, after a while all the big players will have adapted to this knowledge and you won't win that money any more. This doesn't mean that the conclusion was wrong.
Same with the exponential growth of the Muslims. If nothing is done it will in itself lead to a Muslim take-over during this century. I will claim that it will happen, and that the only thing that would stop it is the general awareness that it is about to happen. So it's not until it's seen that the conclusion is correct, that it can be invalidated. In such a situation the projection is not at all an odd approach, but the very correct mental focus.
And no, not even the actors we speak about here generally have this awareness yet.
And nobody has even started thinking of the next step of the problem. How the exponential growth of Muslims is not only over-populating Europe but our very planet, and how we facilitate it (I'm touching upon it here).
@conswede:
optimism and pessimism are relative terms and would have to be discussed more in context. but i cannot agree with your characterization of the dynamics of the system.
let us assume that the muslim population has grown by 50% since 2001 (i.e. let's be pessimistic). do you think concern/alarm/hatred/disgust directed towards islam by non-muslims in the UK has grown by more or less? well, it was essentially non-existent, despite the heads-up given us by the salman rushdie affair. and now it is an ever-present factor, still not expressed as concretely as i would like, but growing nonetheless. it has not grown by 50%. it has grown by a good couple of orders of magnitude, and there wouls seem to be no reasons to think the growth rate will decline any time soon.
i will read your linked comment now.
I wrote:
The problems are created and growing at a higher rate then the awareness and counter-actions
I should add: still.
I'm an optimistic pessimist. Which translates into: It's all gonna end fine, but it's gonna hurt like sh*t first.
El Ingles,
do you think concern/alarm/hatred/disgust directed towards islam by non-muslims in the UK has grown by more or less?
...
it has not grown by 50%. it has grown by a good couple of orders of magnitude, and there would seem to be no reasons to think the growth rate will decline any time soon.
Well, you seem to be ahead of the rest of us there. I do not see much of this at all in e.g. Sweden, Spain or Holland.
Every time I discuss this with Fjordman we come to the same conclusion, that, yeah, it's you Brits that will react first. I think the revolt, the counter-revolution if you wish, will start in Britain.
And you have spoken about Britain all the time of course. I have more thought in terms of whether it's a good model for the rest if Europe. But Britain is different, and in more than one way. And my bets are on you in becoming the pioneer in the really strong counter-reaction.
El Ingles,
the change starts at the ground level and percolates upwards from there
If you could find a way of describing (painting the picture of) what's happening at the ground level in Britain and the extension of it, it could create a lot of hope among people.
A lot of people being p*ssed off, is good news in this context :-)
@swede:
i like your characterization of your position. it would describe me quite well too, though i think pessimistic optimist would be a better way of putting it. :)
i certainly HOPE the counter-revolution starts in the UK. will it? i don't know. if you read the guardian or independent, you will quite regularly read extraordinarily defensive pieces about how islam is not a threat, and muslims are being treated hideously, and so on and so forth. some this is fairly standard muslim whining, to be sure. but much of it is clearly heartfelt. the rising tide of hostility towards islam in general (which fills me with a fierce, animal joy) is undeniable. look at the comments on the latest islamic outrage as reported on any newspaper website to see what is building up, even at the guardian website. also, right-wing tabloids, which can be a bit unpleasant, to be sure, are giving front-page exposure to an awful lot of islamic bullshit at the moment, some of it actually quite minor.
it is interesting that you pick spain, sweden, and the netherlands as the three countries that you do not see similar trends in. sweden and spain, sure. spain seems to be the most hopeless country there is in at least some regards. but the netherlands? what about wilders? i thought he had 9 out of 150 seats in the dutch parliament, and was on course to double that total at the next election? and he has spoken explicitly about repatriation, if i am not mistaken. what about the outbreak of firebombings and so on when theo van gogh was murdered? please understand that i am not trying to contradict you here, just interested in our different impressions.
it has occurred to me to try and create an islamization index, like the failed states index of the heritage foundation. that could be a good way of trying to give a semi-quantitative picture of the varying degrees of uselessness of european countries. i will think about it some more.
I do not think the West has seen a major terrorist attack yet. We've had some bad ones, of course, but nothing that is what I would consider truly major. By major, I mean a nuclear attack. And I definitely think it's coming. Iran will have nuclear weapons, if it doesn't already. No Western country seems to have really tried to stop their acquisition of such weapons.
I think some here underestimate people's reactions to a nuclear attack. The vast majority of people are uneducated about Islam and do not take it seriously. That's quite a folly for us: not taking our enemy seriously. But I do believe a major, major attack will have people wake up to the threat. If you disagree, that's fine, but I do sincerely believe that.
Though there is a difference between pessimism and defeatism in general, people who hold pessimistic or defeatist opinions about the future of the west both seem to think the same thing: we're screwed, we're going down because of bad birth rates, let's get out of Europe while we can. They seem to almost want to go down without a good fight, and I don't like that at all.
My dear European pessimists (and American ones too), first off: if Europe falls to Islam, than the world will fall. It's that simple. America will eventually fall as well, and then it's all over. For those of you who like to cite birth rates, yes, the west has a bad replacement rate; however, we won't actually suffer the consequences for some years to come, which does give us a bit of time.
I am neither a pessimist nor an optimist: I consider myself a realist. Realism is the most accurate way to look at the world, though it is sometimes mistaken for pessimism or optimism. Looking at the world realistically, most people are ignorant about Islam. They may not consider it a threat because of what they don't know. But if these people can be made to see the threat, they will act, and the most probable way they will see it is through a nuclear attack by the terrorists.
Though the Western world has produced some of the finest developments in art, architecture, literature, science, etc., it also has an extremely bloody history. Europe has fought so many wars, both at home and abroad. Look at what the Spanish did to the natives of South America and what the English did to the natives of North America. The West has never shied from fighting bloody wars throughout its history. I don't think we're just going to go down without a fight--it's simply against what has happened throughout our entire history.
Of course, Islam isn't just going to go away. It too has a bloody history and will fight to the death. But that doesn't mean we can't win against it. Superiority in numbers only matters in a traditional military conflict, like World War II. Our war against Islam isn't a traditional war, so traditional advantages may not necessarily apply. The will to fight and win matters, as does understanding the enemy. When we really come down to it, people are not just going to surrender to Islam just because a bunch of elitist left-wing politicians want them to. People don't like to change, and Islam would be a huge change for the West.
That is why I see hope for the future of our great civilisation. We may have a hard, bloody battle in front of us, but I do think we stand a chance of winning.
'declining fertility is a global phenomenon, affecting deeply patriarchal and ethnocentric societies such as japan and south korea even more acutely than it effects us, at least at present'
This is where I disagree. Declining fertility is only affecting countries that have given women the right to work, vote, abort, divorce, marry who they choose (remember arranged marriages used to be the norm all the way to 1800's!), etc. Fertility levels are fine in Islamia, latin america, and africa because there men still pretty much rule with an iron grip. They do not consult what women want or like and women have no say in even their own bodies. Therefore babies keep coming, while our spigot has run dry, because we ask nicely for women to do their primary duty in life and they refuse to do it--and then we apologize and crawl away somewhere to die. This isn't to say I want an Islamic/African model, it just means between the two theirs is clearly better because their population is growing and ours is shrinking by half every generation.
Then when you take into account the fact that our birth rate is actually worse than 1 child per two women, because the birth rate is drastically skewed towards dumb people who can't figure out how to use birth control or get a high-paying job or a college degree, and therefore the replacement rate of our elites, as opposed to our criminals and impoverished, is probably more like .5 or less -- you start to realize the full cost of women's emancipation, socialism, gays, and all the rest. We are losing the people who can maintain our level of civilization, who have the knowhow and sophistication to run something as complex as the modern world. Once they're gone, they won't be back for tens of thousands of years (evolution will have start over from scratch finding the smart genes by trial and error). It will be a dark age like no other.
'i am amused by your suggestion that we will end up a bunch of kumbaya-singing we-are-the-world hippies AND a bunch of stunted, degenerate, drug-addicted, imbeciles. do these two scenarios not strike you as being contradictory? the lack of rigour in what you say is alarming.'
Couldn't both be there? And both equally incapable of resistance? The people you want are leaving England by the millions as we speak, there's no sign they're going to stop leaving. What scenario would have them come back in any future timeline? They're gone. The poles are leaving too so don't count on them.
'rendering your claim that the 'minorities' will support the muslims rather silly'
It sounds silly until you look at the democratic party, an alliance of single women, minorities, socialists and gays that is opposed solely by white men and white married women (I'm speaking in generalities here but basically accurate), that has been gaining ground and pushing through its agenda onto America for the last 60 years, and is about to elect Obama president with the liberal-democrat Mccain as the only competition. That alliance has not broken apart ever since it formed and the handouts and rights the democrats assure them means it will never break up so long as there's wealth to be plundered. Don't forget, bolivia, an extremely poor country, still has a socialist alliance that uses the vote to plunder the wealth of the wealthier white districts. IE no matter how poor you get socialists will still win votes on the basis of plundering anyone who is even a little wealthier. This alliance has no reason to break up since it's so rewarding and thus it won't.
As to your excitement about Europeans turning more conservative, I cannot say that's hopeful either. The use of 'cordonne sanataire' means they'll never take power even if they win 49% of the vote. Birth rates, emigration and immigration make winning harder every year. And the national front used to win a lot more votes than it does now, ie these votes go up and down, they do not seem to trend upward. Even supposing the BNP took power tomorrow, I cannot see it combating the birth rate, dysgenics, democracy, 'soulless capitalism' (for lack of a better name), feminism, non-muslim immigrants, etc. IE an even MORE radical party would have to be founded AND win the majority of the votes to stop what's coming.
You're right that my tone has changed to complete despair, I'm sorry about that. But to say it's a 'throwaway comment to give up on Europe' just because it neglects the 1% chance or so of success seems more silly than a gung-ho "we will overcome" that neglects the 99% chance of failure.
Islam has to be defeated globally, not locally, if we want the final victory. And the Muslims have to be expelled completely, until the last man, because a Muslim enclave in a non-Muslim country means troubles for ever (see Kosovo and Bosnia).
The West is now spineless and blind. Even a nuclear attack won't change the things too much: supposing Iran or any other Muslim country would use nuclear weapons, the West might strike back with a similar attack, invade and change the government of that country while still repeating the mantra "it has nothing to do with Islam. We all know it's the religion of peace".
But if Islam defeats and conquer the West, which is very probably, the Muslim world will face other super-powers. Such as China or Russia or a Chinese-Russian alliance. As we know, both the Chinese and the Russians don't give a crap about humanitarian sensitivities when dealing with their enemies. Basically, they will apply the Chechnya method all over the Muslim world, dozens of times more effective than in Chechnya, because the USA or the EU won't be there anymore to care about the human rights of the poor oppressed Chechens/Muslims.
So, as always, there's a bad news and a good news, for both pessimists and optimists. The good news: Mecca will be finally nuked. The bad news: but not by the West.
@diamed:
well, it is interesting to hear your position spelled out slightly more thoroughly. of course you are right that the islamic world has much higher birth rates than us on average. but i think that this is one of the inevitable consequences of economic development. i don't know what lies on the other side of this demograpic transition. but i don't think there's much way round it short of remaining in poverty and squalor.
your despair in that last post is palpable. certainly america seems to be in a bad way. the complete lack of real opposition to mass illegal mexican immigration is remarkable and incomprehensible (at least to me). maybe you are finished, if you'll forgive my bluntness. i suspect that parts of europe have more civilizational energy left than much of america, which is not something i would have said a few years ago.
by the way, white flight out of the country is certainly not a good thing. but arguably it will simply accelerate the arrival of the crunch point. let us just hope there is a crunch point!
the great difference between the states and europe is that you share a very long border with a hopefully disfunctional third world country that used to own about a third of your country, and vast swathes of your own population seem to have no real notion of what their country is or why it should not be compatible with huge waves of unassimilable mexicans. could it be the case that many americans don't really feel that america *belongs* to them? i hope not, because that attitude will ensure in fairly short order that it doesn't.
Secondly, this type of comment, which one can see with great frequency on any website examining these issues, and more generally, the type of attitude it conveys, is something that will prevent at least some people of good will from taking us seriously. Even to someone as opposed to Islam as myself, it seems dangerously close to worrying about being abducted by aliens and carried off to another galaxy.
I agree that it is vital to keep discussions grounded and—wherever possible—fact based. Alarmism or gloom-and-doom prognostications just plain wear thin after a while. Nor do they provide any real sustinence for those seeking useful answers. People who stumble across this web site need to walk away armed with functional tools that they can bring to bear in subsequent discussion and argument. This is why I posted my ”What the Hedgehog Knows” article. It provides a factual analysis of existing trends that can help people form working opinions. Your own ongoing points make the need for this even more clear.
On the contrary, I think we will very soon see serious diplomatic ruptures between EU states as they try to grapple with the existential threat of Islam in wildly different fashions.
I would enjoy very much one of your tea-leaf articles about the EU’s fate as it tries to herd an increasingly feline group of nations all chafing under different degrees of social unrest and government complicity with Islam.
If they seem laughably improbable (and most of them do, as Dymphna kindly pointed out), then what conclusions must we draw?
Exactly! Even despite my own accusations of an overly “roseate” view, your work still stands on its own merits. The reason being that people who happen to embrace whatever delusional notions as you may have outlined need to see them shredded in the meat grinder of realistic appraisal. I’m confident that you have knowingly done this. That you managed to do so without the usual spite or malicious glee that many other anti-liberal commenters resort to demonstrates a very respectable degree of balance and journalistic ethics.
I am convinced that the greater the detail with which we imagine the future, the better prepared we will be for it.
The exacting nature of your essays leave no doubt about this. They are models of dedicated effort intended to brace everyone for what is to come.
Does this mean I have over-egged the pudding slightly?
Even if you did, the proof was in its imminent digestibility. (Great verbal image!)
It is for this reason that I think the seemingly unrealistic escalation in the pessimistic scenario might not actually be so divorced from reality, particularly if there is a crisis in some other European country.
Quite so. Latecomers to the EU’s Islamic donnybrook will have some rather stark object lessons paraded before them prior to joining the fray.
The disproportionate financial burden placed on the Police, the Prison Service, and the Crown Prosecution Service by the UK’s Muslim population has already been alluded to, as has the as yet unknown economic cost of terrorism. This leaves unaddressed the economic costs of Muslim crime incurred directly by its victims, be they individuals, corporations, or other types of organization.
I wish there were an equally accurate way of assessing the cost burden I noted in my article with respect to skyrocketing birth defects among Muslim unions due to consanguineous marriages. In light of how over-taxed the National Health already is, the disproportionate societal drain will certainly equal—if not vastly exceed—that of Muslims in the criminal justice system. To wit: on a per diem basis, providing post-natal ICU medical treatment is probably an order of magnitude more expensive than high-security jail lockup.
Charlemagne: … a small group, let's call them "Patriots", sees the future clearly and comes to the conclusion that the only way to change the current trajectory of what seems to be inevitable is to force the hand of the Muslims.
This scenario enjoys an outstanding degree of likelyhood, if only because Muslims seem congenitally predisposed to overreaching themselves. That Islam so viciously antagonizes nuclear-armed Western nations while its own atomic larder remains conspicuously bare is solid proof of their idiotically precipitous nature.
… the aforementioned band of Patriots, perhaps with a well funded anonymous sponsor, acts on a plan to disrupt Islamization process by eliminating the Muslim leadership (thanks to Zenster for "the list") …
Now that I know about your special ops background, Charlemagne, you are more than welcome.
Without their leadership the Muslims will embark on a rampage of mindless violence that will result in mass casualties, however, probably fewer in number had the civil war taken place with the Muslims controlling the timing of events.
Regardless of other probabilities, this is a guaranteed fact. High Context Muslim culture thrives on information hoarding and making oneself indispensable. Those same leaders are the only ones with sufficient discipline and training to sequence events in their favor. Removing that lever would trigger a cascade of Muslim hostilities into disorganized and incoherent actions that are far easier to deflect or suppress. Withness how Israel’s swift elimination of Yassin and Rantissi has left Fatah and Hamas clawing at each others throats to where they can barely get in a rocket launch edgewise.
El: why come here and insist that we are all doomed?
Because constructive, critical analyzin’ be hard!
El Ingles,
I think we need to go deeper into philosophy to sort out the concepts at this point:
"One of the things we’d always like to remind ourselves before we went in to any job was ‘expect the unexpected’. Always sounds like good advice , except of course, if you are expecting the unexpected, well then, it isn’t really unexpected anymore, is it?, and that leaves you vulnerable to the truly unexpected... because you’re not expecting it." - Bruce Willis during the rolling end credits of Bandits
So the pessimistic optimist would think that he's got the unexpected covered, which leaves him vulnerable, while the optimistic pessimist is confident that he has missed something unexpected, that will hit him in the head.
PS. I wonder if Lawrence Auster would have gotten that one?
I'd say 99% of americans don't think america belongs to them!
You have the 'get rid of borders' crowd which includes big business and the marxists. Then you have the 'america is an idea' crowd who think america belongs to anyone who supports the constitution anywhere on earth. Then you have the groveling 'we stole this land and need to give it back crowd,' the 'we are a nation of immigrants' crowd who thinks just because there was once immigration into the USA, there must always be. Just look at the marxist slogan on our Lady Liberty:
'With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" '
Ugh! Have you ever heard of a more suicidal wish than to exclusively look for poor, wretched, teeming, homeless people to come populate your country??? And yet that stands proudly as the symbol of America. We Are sunk. Everyone is saying 'apres moi, le deluge.' It is still easier to ignore the problem than confront it. Which is all well and good for them, but what about the children?
'Most Latino population growth is due to births, rather than immigration. As a result, the school-age population in many areas will have a higher percentage of Latinos than the overall population. In California, 43.8 percent of all children age eighteen and under are Latino; 40.5 percent in Texas; 50.8 percent in New Mexico; and 36.1 percent in Arizona.'
This is just the latinos! Not counting blacks and asians! There is no next generation of european america! That's why no one cares about the children--no one had any!
A country teaching homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle to its kindergartners has not taught women their primary duty in life is to give us bright beautiful children! To create the next generation of our people! This is so far from public discourse that I doubt our women have even thought of it, not once, in their lives! You can bet they would just start giving some speech about how they're no breeding cows and they demand respect and equality and girl power and don't you look down on us blah blah Blah blah blah. How sick can a culture be before it is terminally ill? How many horrible ideologies can be supported simultaneously until like a groaning giant the ship of state overturns? It's not that we have made one minor mistake about Islam--we are mistaken about everything on earth, from top to bottom, and hurting ourselves with every single mistake, all at once, simultaneously. All I can think of is the 4th age of hinduism (kali yuga?), the elimination of Good itself, to even approximate today's world.
I hope, at least, that a remnant of a remnant will survive all of this, and learn from it. But that's my hope now. Not 'we'll turn this all around in the next 20 years' like your crystal ball dared to say.
Diamed,
Lady Liberty is French, isn't she?
However, you are a pessimistic pessimist. That means that you are expecting all unexpected things to all happen at the same time, including those we truly cannot expect... because they are the truly unexpected, which we can't expect (even though we should), but you do it anyway.
Put on a good helmet instead.
I cannot fault Diamed's reasoning which is based on observation, not imaginative scenarios. There is something systematically wrong in the West, not random bad luck, and not the beginning of a slippery slope but well down the slide.
Think about the news, biased though the MSM is. We in the blogosphere scour the world for other sources and still the hopeful news is outnumbered at least ten to one if not more.
Look at the global warming scam. Even as huge holes in the science have been exposed despite the best efforts of the propaganda machine, and any thinking person can see that it is merely an income redistribution scheme, socialist Welfare on a global scale, all the leaders of the free world bar none have jumped onto this destructive bandwagon. Even George Bush didn't hold out and both of his successors have drunk the rancid Kool-Aid. Even as their own eyes and ears are seeing that warming has stopped and that the big gurus didn't even predict that, but pretend they know what's happening in a hundred years. They're still all acting as though the Emperor is not running around starkers.
Look at Western courts. A judge making a reasonable judgment based on facts and the constitution is a rarity.
Look at police forces, in the Euro zone spending more time harassing law-abiding citizens for thought and speech crimes than controlling criminals.
Look at the two-pronged idiocy of encouraging women to stop doing the one thing only they can do, have children, in order to work at some meaningless job and substituting for the missing children immigrants who have no intention of assimilating but are colonizing for Allah or La Raza etc. Immigrants who consume more in welfare, health care, education costs than they will ever repay in taxes.
Look at Ezra Levant's and Mark Steyn's gallant battle for free speech in Canada, while the Conservative in Name Only federal and liberal provincial governments rain down millions more tax dollars to fund the kangaroo courts calling themselves Human Rights Commissions.
Look at how close Islamic law jihadis are to getting any criticism of Islam banned through the UN, EU, and every Western Nation's legal system and human rights machinery.
The thousands of fatwas and curses pronounced by Muslim leaders on infidels have been countered by a single reasoned criticism from the Pope who had to withdraw it amid the usual destruction and killing by the "religion of peace". Meanwhile the British Archbishop promotes Islam and sharia full time while Christians the world over are persecuted by Muslims.
I could go on forever. There is not one paradigm you could name where the odds are not strongly against us. Even our temporary superiority in weaponry and military is useless because we lack the will to use it ruthlessly.
Diamed is right. It's too much, all at the same time, all the opposite of what needs to happen for Western civilization to survive.
The tag team of fifth column leftists and Islamists are beating us bloody. Small consolation that they'll turn on each other eventually. Both have disastrous recipes for life which reduce the masses to serfs laboring for a pampered elite. Hello China.
Even our temporary superiority in weaponry and military is useless because we lack the will to use it ruthlessly.
Right. The biggest enemy of the West is not Western liberalism, but Western humanitarianism. This is the thing the West needs to get rid of.
Why did NATO intervene in Yugoslavia a decade ago? Why did they bomb Serbia? Because otherwise the Serbs would have won the war. The path to win a war against Muslims when they are already in our midst in large numbers is ruthlessly using the military superiority for what is called "ethnic cleansing", not more, not less. When the West is mentally prepared for that, the war is won. If it is not, other people who cannot accept their own slavery and extinction will do the dirty job.
The essays of El Ingles are always very interesting. My major point about them is that they don't factor in the rate of technological change.
2022 is around 14 years in the future. Now, if we look at 1994 (14 years in the past) we can see a very different technological picture.
No cellphone, no ubiquitous surveillance cams, very few INTERNET connections, less personal computers, no whole genome decoding, no electric vehicles, no rapid prototyping, etc.
The effect of technology progress is not neutral. The technological progress help more the people with high IQ and less the people with low IQ. And we know that the Muslims have a median IQ sometimes 20 point lower than the median (usually because the come from population with lower IQ and because many converts are lower IQ people - jail inmates).
So, given the technological development in the next 14 years, what will happen in Europe with the Muslims?
Will the development of Unmanned Ground Veicles (UGVs) for cargo transportation will reduce the need of low IQ, low skilled workers? Will this hit more the Muslim or the Europeans?
The current demographic trends show that the fertility is free falling in Saudi Arabia and in all the muslim nations. In the '70 Saudi Arabia had 7 children/woman, not it have 3.3 children woman Where this will stop? Iran have 2 children/woman, Algeria and Morocco 2.2 children woman and their trend are falling.
What will happen if the Muslim's countries will stop to produce emigrants? What will happen to their economies when they will have much more old people and less youngs (like us) but without our wealth?
I agree with the two previous speaker, and will add to Armance: we will become prepared.
I like this discussion because more and more people are saying what I have been saying for a few years now.
Laine says: "There is something systematically wrong in the West, not random bad luck". Oh yeah. Boy, do I agree about that. I have been speaking about that for years, and tried to analyze the roots of it (check my blog). "Something is systematically wrong in the West" is my middle name.
But the problem with Diamed is that he's overwhelmed by it and seems to have already given up. He exaggerates and thereby contradicts himself, etc.
Regarding ethnic cleansing, the country of Israel is based on that, the country of United States is based on that. As Benny Morris says "there are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing."
Armance wrote:
"The path to win a war against Muslims when they are already in our midst in large numbers is ruthlessly using the military superiority for what is called "ethnic cleansing", not more, not less."
Well, war is always hell. Even if it's not against Muslims. And you always have to be ruthless if you want to win. Remember the carpet bombings of German cities, the nuking of Japan, etc. Such is war.
The ironic thing here is that the war situation we talk about here is 100% created by Western humanitarianism. Such is Western humanitarianism, it's nature and it's outcome. They are the worst war criminals in the history of our civilization.
Anyway, back to "something is systematically wrong in the West". European civilization is not rotten to the core. Otherwise Fjordman wouldn't have so much good material for his articles about European civilization. But certain aspect, certain core aspects of what is the Christian West (but not necessarily the core of European civilization) is deeply systematically wrong. And we have come to a point in history when it has come to it's final and most pathological, as well as expanding, phase. It's like the last phase of rabies. It's like watching Linda Blair, in the movie The Exorcist, in her last and worst phase of satanic fits, before the exorcism bites and she is cured.
The West will be cured. The lethal and idiotic Western humanitarianism will be exorcised away from European civilization. Sure we will face some major catastrophes first. Maybe we will even fall into a Dark Age for a century or so (that's my worst case scenario). But we will have a renaissance, and stand up new and revitalized. And we will create Pax Romana, by the means of Carthaginian peace. First in Europe, and then around the world.
And that's all I want really - peace!
Peace, everybody!
Regarding ethnic cleansing, the country of Israel is based on that, the country of United States is based on that.
Compare the United States to South Africa. Settlers going there with a bible and a gun finding a new home for their families.
If only the Boers had done like the Americans and ethnically cleansed their new land properly, they would, just like the Americans, be very differently judged today (well, today it's all too late of course).
I know most Indians died from diseases. But nevertheless: Compare North and South America. In Latin America there is a high presence of Indian ethnicity mixed up with the population. In North America however, they have been effectively ethnically cleansed. And the North American Indians were not more prone to die from the new European diseases. Instead it's about how the North Americans were systematic in their ethnic cleansing, while the South Americans were not.
The one who does the most ethnic cleansing before the time is up is the winner. The South Africans are the big time losers here, they were not alert at all with ethnic cleansing when they had the opportunity.
Americans have two choices: either they must be proud of how their country is built on ethnic cleansing, or they might as well give it away to someone else (Well, ouch, this is of course what they are actually in the process of doing. All while policing the rest of the West to make sure they do the same.)
With "the two previous speaker" above, I was referring to Laine and Armance. It's strange, because when I wrote my post I couldn't see the post of Extropolitca. Is there something strange with the updates (e.g. from non-Google accounts) or is it just me having sloppy local updating?
@swede:
your second and third to last posts are fantastic. not nice, but fantastic. the exorcist comparison is great.
Regarding ethnic cleansing, the country of Israel is based on that
If only.
El Ingles,
No, not nice :-)
Thanks! Once I'm finished with Auster I will start blogging about these things again.
Vince,
If only
Well, originally it was, but then they wimped out. Quite as the rest of the civilized world. Benny Morris have great things to say regarding this. The Wikipedia page used to be full of his best quotes, but now that one kind of wimped out too.
El Ingles,
the exorcist comparison is great.
Thanks. I have used it many times. There are actually two sides of how I used it here.
One side about this incarnation of European civilization being in its final phase. Here's a similar image I have used:
"We are witnessing the historical demise of Christianity. When a star dies, in its last phase it expands into a red giant, before it shrinks into a white dwarf. Liberalism is the red giant of Christianity. And just as a red giant, it is devoid of its core, it expands thousandfold while losing its substance and is about to die."
The other side is about how we’re all possessed by the PC demon and don’t realize it. And how it can be cured only by exorcism (this is what I'm normally engaging in when people refer to me as "rude"). Here I wrote about Charles Johnson:
"He's possessed by his hallucination of Nazi ghosts. He's in a self-righteous witch hunting rage mode. The best way to understand him is to think of Linda Blair in The Exorcist. This is what PC does to people. There's nothing special about Charles here. He's not driven by anything different from the average leftist. They have just as good motives as Charles (or had initially), it's the force of the PC gravity that sinks them. And as you can witness, this is happening to Charles now. He's melting down."
El Ingles,
Through Spaphanen I found two news articles that related, in a highly interesting way, to our discussion specifically about Britain:
WE FEAR RIOTS IN BRITAIN
Failure to address the risks of unchecked immigration could spark riots, warn MPs
Notable quotes:
IMMIGRATION is the single biggest cause of public concern, an influential group of MPs warned yesterday.
They are so worried that they told the Government it must act urgently to defuse tensions before the concern boils over into riots.
...
A report by the Labour-led Communities and Local Government Committee found that fears over high immigration stem from 'genuine anxieties' and not from 'racist or xenophobic sentiments.
Very good indeed. So which scenario is this? The one with a lot of riots, or the one where they are avoided, or a little of both? :-)
Oh come on Swede, you the Nietzschean nominalist and vitalist who refers to "the Jewish God" as though it were an "invention" of the Jews to help them deal with life in exile. The God you yet refer to as though he really exists. You haven't even read the Old Testament. The "Jewish" God revealed himself to the Hebrews, but God is not himself a Hebrew. As it happens Israel perished as a result of impiety, if you read Jeremiah (you probably haven't).
In Jeremiah is found an account of the twilight days of a decadent and evil Israel; the White-Dwarf if you will, with The Lamentations as the Neutron star of Israel.
But, of course, with a Nietzschean hermeneutic and Vitalist epistemology, it is all just an invention. There is no truth, just a web of associations wed to a spastic meat-puppet. This is belief that lead you to suggest putting Christians in re-education camps to change their thoughts. And that isn't a clear sign of the Satanic inspiration of Nietzsche then what is?
But Nietzsche was not just a philosopher, he was a poet also, with a poetry that possessed a power that was more than human. The very writing of Thus Spake Zarathustra was supernaturally inspired. Walking alone through the mountains of Switzerland, Nietzsche had been filled with an inspiration that he said had not been known since the time of the ancients. He would write huge portions hastily in one sitting, as if they came not from himself and he was only affixing them on paper. He Called himself "a mouthpiece or medium of an almighty power." This infernal power emerges as Satan naked by all the bastard ideologies and atrocities inspired by Nietzsche. This same "universal" and "ancient spirit" of "Oneness" is also the Pentecost of the New-Age.
Atheism, true existential "I am an Island" atheism burning with hatred of a seemingly unjust or unmerciful god, is a spiritual state; it is a real attempt to grapple with the true god Whose ways are inexplicable even to the most believing of men, and it has more more than once been known to end in a blinding vision of him Whom the real atheist truly seeks. It is Christ Who works in these souls. The Antichrist is not found in the great deniers, but in the small affirmers, whose Christ is only on the lips. Even mighty Nietzsche, in calling himself Antichrist, proved his intense hunger for Christ.
So quite as some of us have pointed out, Britain is not dead -- just in a coma. But the vital signs are still fine.
Surely Britain takes the prize in the category of most deranged politeness. Being imprisoned in their culture of politeness they have an amazing talent for taking dhimmitude fawning to superlunar levels.
But in terms of numbers and inflow, as have been discussed here, Britain is far from being worst off.
France wins the Islamization prize in the category of highest numbers.
Sweden and Spain are competing for the prize of speediest inflow, as well as in other categories.
And Britain is the winner in the category superlunar dhimmitude fawning.
But there is another side of Britain. While many Western countries have become essentially socially homogeneous, Britain retain many aspects of its legacy as a class society. The rage of the working class is a power to count on. And this is a force that does not even register with the foreigners who only read about Britain in the newspapers. But it starts bubbling up now.
So I have here mentioned two aspects of the "stiff" British culture, and one of them is to their advantage here.
PS. I might have been wrong about Holland before, and I do not really have enough clinical data to build a case. But if there is something to it, it's how they miss the sort of working class that could deliver this sort of substantive rage.
PPS. I have always thought of John Cleese in Fawlty Towers as the other side of the coin of British politeness. As Freud said, what is pushed down is bound to burst up somewhere else.
Swede --
I realize that you are speaking about Europe, but let us draw back for a moment to include other regions on the bloody borders.
Of all the nations that have a Muslim minoriity, India probably has the most serious problem. The last percentage I heard was 13.4%, which amounts to about 140 million people, making India the third largest Muslim country in the world, after Indonesia (214 million) and Pakistan (157 million).
The conflict there is entrenched, may centuries old. British-style PC and denial are widespread among the well-educated elites. According to one of my Indian contacts, the Counterjihad movement in his country is not as advanced as in Europe.
I recommend the Bharat Rakshak forum for information on India. The topic is immense, and hard for us outsiders to grasp.
Baron,
I used to follow India much better 4-5 years ago when I hanged out at the Faithfreedom forum. Many Hindus there back then.
And for sure there is much rage there. Furious rage. And not only under the surface. But the magnitude of their problem is huge. And as you point out, the same problem with the well-educated elites (Education destroy good common sense).
Conservative Swede writes, "...Britain takes the prize in the category of most deranged politeness."
Politeness is more English than British - and an Englishman's politeness is not always what it seems -
Consider Kipling's Et Dona Ferentes:
IN EXTENDED observation of the ways and works of man,
From the Four-mile Radius roughly to the Plains of Hindustan:
I have drunk with mixed assemblies, seen the racial ruction rise,
And the men of half Creation damning half Creation’s eyes.
I have watched them in their tantrums, all that pentecostal crew,
French, Italian, Arab, Spaniard, Dutch and Greek, and Russ and Jew,
Celt and savage, buff and ochre, cream and yellow, mauve and white;
But it never really mattered till the English grew polite;
Till the men with polished toppers, till the men in long frockcoats,
Till the men who do not duel, till the men who war with votes,
Till the breed that take their pleasures as Saint Lawrence took his grid,
Began to “beg your pardon” and—the knowing croupier hid.
Then the bandsmen with their fiddles, and the girls that bring the beer,
Felt the psychologic moment, left the lit casino clear;
But the uninstructed alien, from the Teuton to the Gaul,
Was entrapped, once more, my country, by that suave, deceptive drawl.
As it was in ancient Suez or ‘neath wilder, milder skies,
I “observe with apprehension” when the racial ructions rise;
And with keener apprehension, if I read the times aright,
Hear the old casino order: “Watch your man, but be polite.
“Keep your temper. Never answer (that was why they spat and swore).
Don’t hit first, but move together (there’s no hurry) to the door.
Back to back, and facing outward while the linguist tells ’em how—
“Nous sommes allong ar notre batteau, nous ne voulong pas un row.”’
So the hard, pent rage ate inward, till some idiot went too far...
“Let’em have it!” and they had it, and the same was merry war.
Fist, umbrella, cane, decanter, lamp and beer-mug, chair and boot—
Till behind the fleeing legions rose the long, hoarse yell for loot.
Then the oil-cloth with its numbers, like a banner fluttered free;
Then the grand piano cantered, on three castors, down the quay;
White, and breathing through their nostrils, silent, systematic, swift—
They removed, effaced, abolished all that man could heave or lift.
Oh, my country, bless the training that from cot to castle runs—
The pitfall of the stranger but the bulwark of thy sons—
Measured speech and ordered action, sluggish soul and unperturbed,
Till we wake our Island-Devil—nowise cool for being curbed!
------------
We're not done for yet us English. Slowly but surely our hackles are beginning to rise - you can see it everywhere. Even the MSM and the politicians are being forced to recognise it, but of course their efforts to smooth things are making matters worse (for them!).
Zimbabwi politics came to Sheffield last night the 16th of July.
It does not tell the whole story of the cars daubed with red paint smashed car windows and females threatened with having their faces slashed with knifes.
The Publican that made his premises available after the chosen venue was threatened with fire bombs. his refusal to be cowed by these thugs.
I witnessed in my own area of South Yorkshire that which sickened me to my very soul.
All this just to prevent a BNP meeting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lyr43PELo
I find the article Behind the Crytal ball very interesting indeed.
I ask myself were all the stats greatly underestimated then where would we be?
This article written 29 years ago in 1979 states quite clearly that in Britain at that time one million muslims resided.
With a large influx over the last decade and with high birth-rates 2 million only almost 30 years later seems to require an enormous leap of faith to believe.
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/197901/muslims.in.europe-the.presence.htm
Then we have to contend with the government stats on the actual population of Britain.
They repeating that we've reached 60 million.
In the 50s we were approx 47 million around 1955.
The birth- rate at that time was rising infact the only year that it failed replacement was in 1978.
Notorias for lying and fixing stats to suit themselves like with the now mantra that crime is falling.
While others admit that the UK population is now 77 million plus!
is the statistic that dare not speak its name, though eventually it must. It has huge ramifications for the civil and political life of this country, the health of the equity markets and, most immediately, the residential property market. So don't forget you read it here first: the population of the UK is presently somewhere between 77 and 80 million.
Were all the above stats accurate how would the picture change?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20071028/ai_n21077082
BNET Facts on a plate.
Both the Gaurdian and Independent newspapers are minority reading, the Gaurdian given the name Al Gaurdian in the UK.
The Express and The Times, especially the comments section is a far better guide to the feelings of the British people.
Gates,
This article written 29 years ago in 1979...
It says:
"Of a total of 5.4 million, 1.9 million live in France, 1.5 million in West Germany, 1 million in Britain, 500,000 in Italy, 350,000 in the Benelux countries, 40,000 in Scandinavia, 25,000 in Spain and some 5,000 each in Austria, Portugal and Switzerland."
With a normal growth rate, the number of Muslims would have doubled twice in this period. I.e. the figure for Britain today would be 4 million Muslims. But what is reported is 2 millions.
Especially notable and interesting is how the authorities claim that from 1979 to 2001 the number of Muslims only grew from 1 to 1.6 million, in 22 years! Even with an El Ingles slow sort of growth rate (25% in 7 years), that should have taken them up to 2 millions in this time. And if we go back 22 years in time instead, what was the number of Muslims? I guess in just the tens of thousands. Then it jumped up to 1 million. So did the growth rate actually suddenly halt like this, or are the authorities fiddling with the figures?
In the case of France a quadrupling of 1.9 gives 7.6. And what is reported today is 6.2 million Muslims. A 22% difference from expected growth while in Britain the government figure deviates with 100%.
Germany goes from 1.5 to 3 millions according to official reports. However, with normal growth rate they would be a 6 millions (another 100% deviation).
Then look at Sweden and Spain. 22 years ago we had 40.000 in Sweden. Today we have 400.000 (according to our government, it surely is much higher). That's not a doubling, as the Brits claim about themselves, or a quadrupling, which is more likely what happened in Britain, but a tenfold increase of the number of Muslims.
Only Spain might be worse.
If I want to believe in that there are 2 million Muslims in Britain today and not 4 millions; that the 2 million is a real figure and not just something the officials say to keep things calm; then I would like to hear how Britain have dealt with immigration and integration so very differently than France and Holland to make them have only half the growth rate. What did Britain do so very differently, in order to make this huge difference? Especially in the '80s and the '90s when the Muslim presence in Europe grew rapidly, the change is incredibly low in Britain. What was the magic that was applied? Or is it just as prosaic as: fiddling with the figures.
Figures of Muslim population in Europe. Take it for what it is. (Hmm, just noted that it says 1.5 million Muslims for the UK here! 1 to 1.5 in three decades, well...)
My last impression of London was when I passed through Heathrow in a longhaul trip. Looking at the people around me I honestly wasn't able to tell that I was in Europe. I'm not exaggerating.
@conswede:
the 1 million figure for 1979 has no source. it's just a number in an article on some saudi website. it doesn't mean anything. i'm not saying i know what the exact figures are, but that 1 million has nothing to back it up.
as for the different growth profiles in different countries, well, isn't that what we'd expect? i would be more surprised to see all muslim populations growing in the same way. you said yourself that sweden has seen insane growth, way beyond most other countries. i just think the UK is at the bottom end of the spectrum.
by the way, the 1.5 million for the UK in 2006 is completely wrong. according the the census in 2001, five years earlier, it was a shade under 1.6 million, and that would have underestimated it if anything. by all means let's debate the figures, but not on the basis of numbers off random websites! i think you have to start with official figures (censuses, etc.) and ask yourself how the numbers might be underestimated by government. anything else is just guesswork.
El Ingles,
the 1 million figure for 1979 has no source. it's just a number in an article...
Are you sure it's just a number in an article? What's the proper figure otherwise? All the figures in that quote looked reasonable compared from what I know from extensive immigration studies of Europe.
Anyway, there's a project for people like us. Gathering all such figures, vetting them and publish, in order to get a good overall view.
i just think the UK is at the bottom end of the spectrum.
Why would it be so? You give no explanation. The only reference you make is to government figures which can easily be faked. There is both the motive and the opportunity, and you yourself hold this sort of faking as being very likely, judging from what you write in your essays.
Would you be at all surprised if it's announced next week that the number of Muslims in the UK are not 2 millions but in fact 4 millions?
by all means let's debate the figures, but not on the basis of numbers off random websites!
I think you didn't look at that website very carefully. It's a collection of many sources, and everything is traceable. If you have a better site with aggregation of such figures, by all means, post it here and now.
Your reaction is like saying that all of Wikipedia is junk, because you found one error (actually *I* found it and already pointed it out).
i think you have to start with official figures (censuses, etc.) and ask yourself how the numbers might be underestimated by government. anything else is just guesswork.
As far as I know most countries do not have official figures for the number of Muslims. For how many countries have you found such figures?
And sometimes an image says more than a figure. My experience at Heathrow was amazing, being a cross section of the society as it is, I honestly was not able to tell that I was in Europe. Next time I will take a film clip.
Here's another collection of figures:
BBC: Muslims in Europe: Country guide
So Sweden should have had 300,000 Muslims in 2005? I don't buy it. I don't remember when they used that figure the first time, but it was used many years in a row, all while there were at the same time a steady inflow of new Muslims. Just doesn't add up.
Now the politicians have upgraded the figure and talk in terms of 400,000. But that has stayed the same for a few years too, all while there has entered at least 100,000 new ones (e.g. we take in more Iraqis than the rest of the whole West). So this does not add up either.
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.