Saturday, June 23, 2007

Un Continent de Perdants

Last month Sappho, the Danish online magazine, published an interview with the German sociologist Gunnar Heinsohn about the ramifications of the demographic implosion in Europe, and the simultaneous demographic explosion of the Muslim population, both in Europe and the Middle East.

I consider Dr. Heinsohn’s cogent observations to be the among the most important scholarly work on the nature of the Great Jihad that the West is now facing. We were fortunate to be able to carry the English translation, “A Continent of Losers”, here at Gates of Vienna.

Now comes word that the blog Insoumission has posted a large portion of the interview in French translation.

So, to our Francophone readers: spread the word to anyone who might want to read Gunnar Heinsohn in French.

If anyone knows of other languages into which the interview has been translated, please send me the links. This piece needs to be disseminated as widely as possible.

Hat tip: Pistache, in the comments.

[Nothing further]


Yorkshireminer said...

This idea has been around for years, it doesn't make it any less valid though. It has been used over the years to explain the Viking expansion the French revolution and the flower power phenomenon of the Sixties. Let me explain.

The Viking explanation is perhaps the most plausible. Most of the viking lived near the coast no part of Denmark is more than about 30 miles from the sea. Fish were a staple of there diet. Favorable climatic condition resulted in a rise in the fish population which resulted in a rise in the native population. The laws at the time meant that the first born son inherited the farm so you had a surplus of health young men, feed on a high protein diet who had work during the spring sowing and the winter harvest. This left them free during the summer. Fast excellent boat which draw about 18 inches and can almost sail on wet grass gave them the mobility. Thor with a few of his mates borrows his dads boat and goes off on a summer cruise to England. Seeing as there weren't any effective police force in England at that time and the chance of him ending in jail were slim he robs and burns a few villages. He arrives back at his village in the late summer just in time for the harvest with a boat full of booty, guess what is going to happen the following year. The result is that next year more boats set sail no only for plunder but for settling as there is spare land to be settled. The younger son has come into his inheritance. An interesting side note is that Island was settled by Norwegian vikings but DNA research shows that the women who helped settle the land were predominantly Irish. It seems that the Norwegian Viking first went to Ireland to find a wife before they sailed for Island. It would be interesting to know how he procured them.

The French revolution is perhaps a little more tricky not because it is not explainable by this theory, but what prompted the demographic growth in the first place. What is known, is that the French population was growing rapidly prior to 1789, so was Britain's, riots were rife, it was a toss up between which mob could out do the other. The Gordon riots of 1780 is perhaps the best example of a mob that almost brought down a Government. The point is that the mobs and riots that drove the French revolution, ended as soon at the leaders of the revolution conscripted the youth into the army to die on the battlefield of Europe in the name of the revolution. This had dire consequences for France later on. The French population in 1815 was around 25,000,000 while Britain was about 9,000,000 100 years later prior to World War 1 they both stood at approximately 40,000,000. The British population had quadrupled that is excluding the fact that Britain accounted for 30% of European emigration while France had not even doubled. The British had effectively neautalised the effects of bulge by absorbing the energys the surplus male population into the rapidly industrializing industrial sector and by emigration, while avoiding the blood letting.

The youth bulge of the sixties was caused because millions of men were miles away for six years fighting instead of -------, I will let the reader fill in the word. What he did do when he came back was to make up for lost time. All the children that should have been born during the 40s were born in the later half. This produced a bulge. This bulge came to manhood in the early sixties. The booming economy was able to absorb their talents. The result was great music, great fashion and the odd riot French style, if you were around in 1968 you will know what I mean.

Demographics has always been an important factor in European history, it is interesting to speculate how and when the booming demographic growth of the islamic population in Europe will affect its history.

How for me is a is a forgone conclusion. Europe is heading for War, the religious philosophy of Islam will brook no equal. Sometime in the not too distant future the Muslims will try and take over. If they succeed we will be quickly heading for new dark age.

The real interesting question is when, and where. I personally think that France is the most likely candidate because it has the most muslims as a percentage of the population. France is leading the pack. France is where the war will begin. When is a little more difficult, but I think that the tipping point will come when the French muslim males between the ages of 18 and 20 equal the no. of indigenous French males between those ages. Under such conditions the muslims will win in a war of attrition. They will quickly be able to replenish their ranks by the far more numerous males in the lower age group. I am afraid we European are in for a rough time.

Whiskey said...

Yorkshire -- recent DNA studies show that the Britons have had very little genetic impact from either the Norman or Danish incursions/settlements. The population remains largely the same neolithic group that had been there since the last major ice age. Researchers were quite surprised by this, as they expected larger population replacement.

As for which nation will experience civil war first, I would nominate the UK and Sweden over France.

France seems to have the determination to fight against Muslim domination, Sarko has told Muslims to assimilate and adopt Jacobin norms or leave. The movie Red Lights seems to indicate a cultural desire to fight for land and women. Yes absolutely Muslims have more young men. But a man in his thirties and forties who had no place else to go can be quite ruthless. And the French will likely simply get rid of Muslims by "invisible" i.e. no media attention deportations and such.

Meanwhile neither the UK nor Sweden have governments who can even see a problem, while the populace seethes as they are told they will be replaced. One of the features of modernization is the lack of young men able to form families. Since women having great economic freedom tend to compete for the highest status men.

Brit soccer hooligans, yobs, thugs, and under-employed slackers with no girlfriend or wife or prospect of same among a Nation of Bridget Joneses is the near counterpart to jihad. I imagine Sweden has the same. Men who don't have the status to form families and see an opportunity, right at home, to attain leadership by overthrowing the old order and not so coincidentally form families.

Europeans have had many names for this. In the Dark Ages it was the Monarchy. More recently it has been called fascism. Generally a hereditary ruler, his court, with nobility distributed around the countryside.

While demography is important, it is not always decisive, otherwise the more populous Muslims would have overrun Europe at Poiters, or at Vienna, or during the Black Death.

As least as important is how unified and motivated forces are, how well equipped, how well led, how well supplied, and how effective they are in killing. Muslim forces big cultural weakness is a desire for raiding and avoidance of shock battle, while Europeans want one big fight or series of fights to annihilate the enemy. I expect a series of shock battles to break out in Europe, likely the UK and Sweden, over women, pubs, booze, and pork.

These are not trivial but central issues to average joes and their interests. Threaten them and they will fight.

[There is also the issue of the older men with sunk property they cannot sell and wives and daughters to protect. I expect self-organization along those lines as the Governments fail like the late Roman Empire.] said...

I support whiskey_199.

The current men in their thirties and forties year are not the men in the same age of the last World War. At the time they was old men, their health was not good, their strenght going down. Not, near all people in their thirties and forties are healthier, stronger, bigger, smartest than their counterpart. And this without requiring drug help. And, being older, they have an advantage against their younger enemies: it is called "maturity".

The muslim will go for an attrition war, sparkling riots to force the kaffir to submit, raiding and terrorizing. But, when the reaction will come, the european will walk with the roman /european way. They will go for major battle, no hollowed ground, no hudna, no waste of time. They will do the same they do with germans after the WW2, the italian and many others. They will be able only to leave a die.

And when they lose the battles, they will be forced to leave; no sea where the jihadist fish can swim and hide.