Saturday, June 11, 2011

Camp of the Saints: How Many Infidels?

Lampedusa refugees #15

In the comments on last night’s “Camp of the Saints” post, Hesperado raised an interesting question:

While I commend Baron’s “Camp of the Saints” installments for their reportorial excellence, there seems to linger an analytical problem: namely, the negligence of the possible fact that many, or most, of these refugees may be non-Muslims fleeing Islam. (Again, this is distinct from the issue of whether the West is obliged to expend time, effort and money saving them by trying to assimilate them.)

Hesperado’s concerns are worth addressing, and I can only hope that my response may have helped repair any prior “negligence”:

In diagnosing an “analytical problem”, you are making several errors.

One of them is to assume that just because I do not discuss a particular topic or fact, I am not aware of it or do not take it into consideration. This is untrue: I have simply chosen not to discuss the likely inclusion of Christians and idol-worshippers among the Mediterranean refugees, given the countries from which some of them have allegedly fled (e.g. Côte d’Ivoire).

However, when I use the term “cultural enrichment”, it refers to all Third World immigrants who enrich our Western countries. Muslims do by far the most damage, but some of the other enrichers, especially those who live as oppressed minorities in majority-Muslim countries, are almost as bad.

Ask the “persons of Swedish background” who live in Södertälje — they will give you an earful about the gangs and predatory criminal behavior of the Assyrian Christians who have been imported into their town. It seems that Christians in Mesopotamia have picked up many of the cultural traits of their Muslim overlords.

In any case, based on multiple media reports, the majority of the “Camp of the Saints” migrants — somewhat over 20,000 — are Tunisians, and are thus overwhelmingly Muslim. The other countries involved — mainly Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Chad, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Senegal, and Mali — have populations that are 99%, 91%, 97%, 54%, 50%, 100%, 65%, 94%, and 90% Muslim, respectively. African countries from further south, such as Nigeria, Gambia, Côte d’Ivoire, and Burkina Faso, have contributed fewer migrants to the exodus, but even those have Muslim populations of 50%, 90%, 40%, and 55% respectively.

Since the bulk of the migrants are from North Africa, it’s safe to assume that the vast majority are Muslims. Of those from further south, a modest number are likely to be non-Muslims. If those oppressed by Islam are fleeing their oppressors, they may well be over-represented among the refugees, while still remaining a small percentage of the overall total.

It’s possible that the Muslims among the southern refugees are also fleeing Islam. Nobody in his right mind wants to live under the conditions created by centuries of Islamic rule, unless he is one of the privileged rulers. A Muslim may not realize he is fleeing Islam — he just knows that he wants to escape the hellhole in which he was born.

Then, of course, when he arrives in Europe, the micro-ideology of Islam imprinted in his psyche tells him to exploit the infidel whenever possible, by whatever means necessary. After enough time has passed, and after many more like him have arrived and done the same thing, a new, more northerly Islamic hellhole will thus have been created.

There’s no way to tell what percentage of the Mediterranean refugees is non-Muslim. Based on the data, the infidel proportion must be quite small, but actual numbers are unavailable.

From my viewpoint, the issue is irrelevant, since mass cultural enrichment from any dysfunctional foreign culture is bad news for Europe and other Western countries.

Islamic predation will do the job more quickly, but overwhelming our nations with infidel Third World immigrants will destroy our culture just as effectively in the long run.

For previous posts about the Mediterranean refugee crisis, see The Camp of the Saints Archive.


Anonymous said...

The video below gives a great literal understanding of how a tiny percentage of third world immigrants can overwhelm first world countries without even making a small dent in the crushing third world poverty.

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs - Updated 2010

"They have to be helped where they live. Let's help them there."

In the case of Africa, "helping them where they live" would entail eliminating Islam and its violent jihad - which is the source of the need for both infidel and Muslim (!) immigration from Sub-Saharan Africa.

Anonymous said...

Here's another exceptional video by the same speaker:

Immigration by the Numbers -- Off the Charts

"A startling look at how U.S. immigration will add 300 million people to the country this century if immigration policies are not changed."

"Presented by immigration author/journalist Roy Beck"

Professor L said...

Further to your point that even Christians from Muslim-dominated regions can and do pick up the traits of their Islamic overlords, I present the case of Kiran Nayyaz, a 13-year-old girl raped by a Muslim whose (presumably Christian) parents wish her dead to remove the stain on their honour. To compound this poor girl's horror, the foetus she bore was destined to be miscarried.

I applaud the Church's actions in keeping her safe. Much as we might rail against the institutional Church, it might just be that same church that keeps us alive inside a world dominated by Muslims.

Michael said...

It is not very prudent to use the term 'infidel', not even sarcastically. We find ourselves in the midst of an Arab war: to map out their plans of conquest, the Arabs call all non-muslims 'infidels', which makes it a politically correct expression.

The term 'politically correct' again belongs to Cultural Marxism, which is also waging war against humanity. The Marxists - aka the left - wish to eliminate all undesired 'bothersome' cultural identities.

We have our hands full defending ourselves, and it is not advisable to use the jargon of our enemies.

Anonymous said...

If you listen to Muslims, they use a lot of explicitly Marxist rhetoric. It's collectivist mentality melds nicely with the collectivist mentality of Islam.

Anonymous said...

Ok. I just got an impression.

I think the Laws of the Universe are being applied here...sort of a lesson for us.

The saying is: "What you resist, persists."

I'm getting the idea that the time of high tecdh is over. The jobs of sitting down at desks and computers, and tv watching and compujter over.

These people coming in, are farmers and agrarians, they know how to work with their hands and labor.

What Europeans have to do to take control of the situation, grab the control right out of th hands of the government, tptb, OUTSMART THEM ALL.

Gdirectly to the incoming people and hire them, to work the land, to work for YOU.

Everybody wants to eat. Everybody wants to have pride in their labor.Everybody wants a good place to live.

Do you know how to make bricks for houses? How about thatching roofs?

In one way or another, establish either, a local monetary sytem, or a barter system or a Goods and Services.

The great amount of Europeans no longer know how to work with their hands, these immigrants do.



They will be too busy working to make trouble.

I believe that if you give them a chance, there will be a different turnout...religions aside.

The ptb want to control everything, both you and the situation, in this way, by elbowing the vagrant government aside,AND the clerics aside, both Peoples, the old and the new, can learn from each other.

But the only way to do it, is to wrest the controls from them.

It may sound naive, but you're ALL already losing...BIG TIME..with no end in sikght.

So what have you got to lose by trying it?

jon said...

If you listen to Muslims, they use a lot of explicitly Marxist rhetoric. It's collectivist mentality melds nicely with the collectivist mentality of Islam.

I think this is true. I spent 2.5 yrs working with Muslims in the UK. Many, possibly most, were NOT members of the union [which is left wing and very politically correct]. They refuse to join.

I assumed it was because they disagreed with the unions views. But I was surprised by how similar [and often identical] their views were.

Anonymous said...

I assume Muslims won't join the union because it's an infidel organization. Using infidel ideas to justify Islam is A-OK, however.

Hesperado said...


Thanks for highlighting this.

A while ago, when you were beginning this series of installments, I remember objecting to some remark you made that I thought implied that most of the "refugees" were black, and I remember you responding that that merely reflects the dominant photographic evidence.

Now, however, you write:

"Since the bulk of the migrants are from North Africa, it’s safe to assume that the vast majority are Muslims."

By "North African Muslims" I assume you don't mean black African Muslims, but all those brownish ones we see in Tunisia, Morocco, Libya, Algeria, and Egypt.

1) Do we know that in the Maghreb there do not dwell substantial populations of non-Muslim black Africans, perhaps in ghettos and daily experiencing racism and Islamic Jim Crow laws? (After all, if Saudi Arabia and the UAE see fit to import and seduce with the promise of jobs minions of Indians and East Asians to treat like virtual slaves, why wouldn't the Maghreb Muslims do the same with their black populations immediately southward)?

2) Secondly, if there are not enough blacks in the Maghreb to account for the blacks on the boats fleeing, there remain non-Muslim blacks in neighboring countries immediately south who have reason to exploit current conditions propitious for fleeing to less racist lands (i.e., the White North).

I tend, however, to think there do exist substantial numbers of blacks in the Maghreb, as second-class citizens (at best) -- why else would the Cameroonian-French intellectual Calixthe Beyala say in no uncertain and in emphatic terms that blacks continue to suffer from horrible racism and ethnic cleansing by Arabs in our time? I think she's referring, in part or mainly, to the treatment of blacks in Arab lands (which would include the Maghreb).

3) My overarching point relates to our side of the War of Ideas (with regard to the Problem of Islam), which would benefit from exposing the possible fact that thousands of black Africans are fleeing from Islamic racism.

Baron Bodissey said...

Hesperado --

By "North Africans", I mean Egyptians, Libyans, Tunisians, Algerians, Moroccans, and maybe Mauritanians.

The Tunisians were first, and there would not be many blacks among them. The recent arrivals are mostly from Libya, and a lot of those are actually coming from further south.

However, there is a fair amount of sub-Saharan genetic stock -- what we would have called "negroid" in the old days -- in North Africa. You can see it in many photographs, even those taken before the revolutions.

Some of the blacks have been in Libya and other North African countries for generations, but I wouldn't venture a guess on their numbers or their exact provenance.

So pinpointing a racial mix is difficult. A lot of photos of the boats show obvious black Africans, but others don't.

However, since more than half -- the initial wave -- were Tunisians, and Tunisians are still coming in, we may assume that the bulk of the refugees are Arab, Berber, and other North African Muslims. But the proportion of black Africans seems to be increasing.

Hesperado said...

Not entirely off-comment (as it involves the problem of Muslim immigration into a part of the West -- Australia):

I just wanted to say to "m4monologue" that I think his responses to "Blogger" in the thread now closed below, about the situation in Australia, sound likelier and more plausible than Blogger's rather rosy view.

Hesperado said...

Sorry -- I mean to write "Not entirely off-topic..."