Escape from freedom: Islam gains power in the West, as its aggressive elements learn to apply tactics of 4GW. Meanwhile our elites give way to preseve their own power. This posts borrow its title from that of Erich Fromm’s 1941 book, a work as timely now as then).
- Warming up the engines at the Ministry of Truth, White House, recent but undated — Obama plans to expand the Federal government’s efforts to combat thoughtcrime (which is they list as part of the “Civil Rights” agenda). Don’t worry, it will only protect politically powerful groups — not you.
- “Right-wing author is banned from Islam talk“, Evening Standard, 23 January 2009 — Gotta love the “balanced” headline! This is the only mainsteam media mention I find of the story.
- “Civil liberties group calls for resignation of Prof Janet Hartley“, Alex Singleton, blog of The Telegraph, 23 January 2009 — More details.
- “Dutch Courage“, Mark Steyn, National Review Online, 21 January 2009 — Retreating from freedom in the Netherlands in the probably vain hope of maintaing social peace.
- “Europe has taken over the Holocaust“, Mark Steyn, op-ed in the Telegraph, 24 January 2005 — For Holocaust Memorial Day (various dates around the world), a note about the comparison between it and the travails of the Palestinians.
- “Calgary court bans Syed Soharwardy, Nagah Hage, from Jewish mall“, Ezra Levant, 26 January 2009 — Candadian politicos run the numbers about increasing number of Islamic voters.
- “Pro-Israel rally crashed in Sweden“, Ynet News, 25 January 2009 — “Protestors gathered to support Israel were pelted with eggs and bottles, then dispersed by police.”
Excerpts
1. Warming up the engines at the Ministry of Truth, White House, recent but undated — Obama plans to expand the Federal government’s efforts to combat thoughtcrime (which is they list as part of the “Civil Rights” agenda). Don’t worry, it will only protect politically powerful groups — not you.
The Agenda: Civil Rights — bullet #2
Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice’s Criminal Section.
2. “Right-wing author is banned from Islam talk“, Evening Standard, 23 January 2009 — As usual, the people doing the intimidation are treated the best. Power flows from the barrel of a gun. Excerpt:
A right-wing writer has been banned from chairing a debate on Islam at the London School of Economics today amid security fears, the Standard has learned. Douglas Murray, a self-confessed “neo conservative”, was due to chair “Islam or Liberalism: Which is the Way Forward?” at the university tonight – 24 hours after the end of a week-long sit in at LSE in protest at Israel’s attacks on Gaza.
The commentator and author, who is the director of conservative think-tank the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “This is back to the bad old days of the LSE – where the most violent get to dictate people’s education. It is worse than censorship – it’s intimidation.” The debate, which is set to go ahead, is between Dr Alan Sked, a senior lecturer in international history at the university, and Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, a Muslim writer and lecturer.
The LSE asked Mr Murray not to attend in the interest of public safety as his presence could provoke further unrest.
3. “Civil liberties group calls for resignation of Prof Janet Hartley“, Alex Singleton, blog of The Telegraph, 23 January 2009 — More details. Excerpt:
Douglas Murray, who runs the Centre for Social Cohesion in Westminster, had been invited by Dr Alan Sked of the LSE’s Department of International History. Dr Sked told the Telegraph that Mr Murray had “never said anything objectionable” during previous speeches at the LSE, but said that University had recently experienced problems from “radical students” at the university, including the occupation of part of the LSE.
The decision to disinvite Mr Murray was taken by Prof Janet Hartley, the Pro-Director, Teaching and Learning, at the LSE. Mr Murray told the Telegraph that he would be willing to chair the event if reinvited.
4. “Dutch Courage“, Mark Steyn, National Review Online, 21 January 2009:
Last year, The New York Times ran a story (front page, above the fold, gosh) on my troubles with the Canadian “thought police”, at the end of which I’m quoted as follows:
“Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world.”
The latest jurisdiction to get way too “comfortable with the regulation of opinion” is the Netherlands. As Andrew noted below, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal has ordered prosecutors to put the politician and film-maker Geert Wilders on trial for “making anti-Islamic statements”.
The Dutch, like the Canadians, think they can maintain social peace by shriveling the bounds of public discourse and bringing what little remains under state regulation. But one notices that the coercive urge, which comes so naturally to Euro-progressives, only goes in one direction.
The Swedish Chancellor of Justice shuts down the investigation into the Grand Mosque of Stockholm for selling tapes urging believers to kill “the brothers of pigs and apes” (ie, Jews) because that’s simply “the everyday climate in the rhetoric”.
The masked men marching through the streets of London with placards threatening to rain down another 9/11 on the infidels are protected by a phalanx of Metropolitan Police officers.
The PC nellies of the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, happy to hound the last neo-Nazi in Saskatchewan posting to the Internet from his mum’s basement, won’t go anywhere near Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus al-Hayitia, the big-time Montreal imam whose book says infidels are “evil people”, Jews “spread corruption and chaos”, and homosexuals should be “exterminated”.
Instead, the state’s response to explicit Islamic intimidation is to punish those foolish enough to point out that intimidation. You don’t have to be as intemperate as Minheer Wilders can sometimes be: In the Netherlands even the most innocuous statement can get you into trouble. To express his disgust at Theo van Gogh’s murder, the artist Chris Ripke put up a mural outside his studio showing an angel and the words “Thou shalt not kill”. But the cops thought this was somehow a dig at the local mosque and so came round, destroyed the mural, arrested the TV news crew filming it, and wiped their tape.
The Dutch have determined to commit societal euthanasia, and dislike fellows pointing out it might not be as painless as they’ve assumed.
5. “Europe has taken over the Holocaust“, Mark Steyn, op-ed in the Telegraph, 24 January 2005 — For Holocaust Memorial Day (various dates around the world), note about the comparison between the Holocaust and the travails of the Palestinians. Excerpt:
From time to time, the late Diana Mosley used to tell me how “clever” she thought the Jews were. If you pressed her to expand on the remark, it usually meant how clever they were in always keeping “the thing” – the Holocaust, as she could never quite bring herself to say – in the public eye, unlike the millions killed in the name of Communism. This is a fair point, though not one most people are willing to entertain from a pal of Hitler.
But “the thing” seems most useful these days to non-Jews as a means of demonstrating that the Israelis are new Nazis and the Palestinians their Jews. Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, has told the Home Secretary that his crowd will be boycotting Thursday’s commemorations because it is racist and excludes any commemoration of the “holocaust” and “ongoing genocide” in Palestine.
… But, whatever the outcome, it’s hard to see that they {Palestinians} would be any less comprehensively a wrecked people than they are after spending three generations in “refugee” “camps” while their “cause” is managed by a malign if impeccably multilateral coalition of UN bureaucrats, cynical Arab dictators, celebrity terrorists and meddling Europeans whose Palestinian fetishisation seems most explicable as the perverse by-product of the suppression of their traditional anti-Semitism.
Americans and Europeans will never agree on this, and the demographic reality – the Islamisation of Europe – will only widen the chasm in the years ahead. But, if I were a European Jew, I would feel this week’s observances bordered on cultural appropriation. The old defence against charges of anti-Semitism was: “But some of my best friends are Jewish.” As the ancient hatreds rise again across the Continent, the political establishment’s defence is: “But some of our best photo opportunities are Jewish.”
6. “Calgary court bans Syed Soharwardy, Nagah Hage, from Jewish mall“, Ezra Levant, 26 January 2009 — Canadian politicos run the numbers about increasing number of Islamic voters.
Calgary anti-Semites Nagah Hage and Syed Soharwardy have been leading the pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbollah hate marches in the Jewish neighbourhood of Calgary. Neither Hage nor Soharwardy live anywhere nearby, of course; they truck in their foul-mouthed supporters — who fly the flag of the criminal organization, Hezbollah — to chant “death to the Jews”, and wave swastikas in the face of the local citizens.
… On Friday — finally! — RioCan went to court. (I contend that a court appearance was never necessary; RioCan doesn’t go to court when skateboarders loiter — they just tell the trespassers to leave or they’ll call the cops.) RioCan appeared before Justice C.S. Brooker of Calgary’s Court of Queen’s Bench. Justice Brooker granted an injunction banning Hage, Soharwardy and all of the other trespassers from the mall.
… But the question is: why did it take a court to have to make that order? Why were local politicians silent about this display of bigotry, week after week? Why did the Calgary Police Service permit this unruly mob onto private property in the first place? Why were trespass charges not laid against them weeks ago? Why did the police do nothing when a pro-Israel counter-protester had a shoe thrown at him, and when a rabbi was spat at? Why were assault charges not laid against them?
The answer is obvious: local politicians have done their math. There are only 8,000 Jews in Calgary, and more than 75,000 Muslims. Denouncing anti-Semitic bigotry is fine for politicians when the bigots are politically powerless neo-Nazi skinheads. When they’re radical Muslims, funded by Saudi Arabia, the politicians fall silent.
Same for Canada’s Orwellian human rights commissions. They claim to be against “hate”. They’re awfully brave at taking on Christian clergy who preach the Bible’s “hateful” Book of Leviticus. But notice their cowardly silence in the face of mass hate marches in the streets. Jennifer Lynch is probably off on some other five-star junket to study how Cameroon keeps their people so free.
The police aren’t much better: it’s easier to tell a handful of pro-Israel supporters to leave than to tangle with 200 angry Muslim radicals. It’s not only the politically correct thing to do, it’s just plain easier. I mean, really: who’s more likely to throw a molotov cocktail at you, or stab you — a few middle-aged Jews, or some just-off-the-plane radicals from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, here to promote sharia law?
7. “Pro-Israel rally crashed in Sweden“, Ynet News, 25 January 2009 — “Protestors gathered to support Israel were pelted with eggs and bottles, then dispersed by police.”
A pro-Israel rally in Malmo, Sweden was torn apart Sunday by pro-Palestinian residents who arrived on the scene with eggs, bottles, and tear gas grenades which they threw at Israel’s supporters. Police dispersed the entire crowd.
Hundreds of people took part in the rally in support of Israel, which was held at the city’s main square. … However, a number of pro-Palestinian protestors who did not have a permit to demonstrate took to the streets in retaliation to the approved rally. They were not dispersed by police despite lacking a permit.
“At some point, about a half an hour after the protest began, pro-Palestinian protestors began to throw eggs, bottles, and even a tear gas grenade,” Meier recounted. He added that the lawless protestors disconnected the speakers brought to the square by the Jewish community while its leader was speaking. The act brought the pro-Israel rally to an end, as others could not speak.
At this point, Meier said, police stepped in and asked the unruly protestors to leave. Officers then proceeded to clear the square of all present, including those who had received permission to demonstrate.
Afterword
Please share your comments by posting below. Per the FM site’s Comment Policy, please make them brief (250 words max), civil, and relevant to this post. Or email me at fabmaximus at hotmail dot com (note the spam-protected spelling).
For information about this site see the About page, at the top of the right-side menu bar.
For more information from the FM site
To read other articles about these things, see the FM reference page on the right side menu bar. Of esp interest these days:
- About the Iraq & Afghanistan Wars – my articles
- About America’s national defence strategy and machinery
Other posts about Israel and the Palestinians:
- The Fate of Israel, 28 July 2006
- Another front in the geopolitical struggles shaping our world: demography, 3 June 2008
- To good a story to die: eliminate legitimate grievances to eliminate terrorism, 9 December 2008
Pingback: Interesting reading for your weekend, about our escape from freedom | Right Views
“Right-wing author is banned from Islam talk”
When will we see a headline like “Left-wing, pro-Islamic author forced to chair debate on Islam”?
Sigh, how can it be a problem that people have political views. As long as Douglas Murray subscribed to the basic democratic principle of a honest debate where is the problem of him chairing a debate on Islam?
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Why is it strange that the strong push the weak, exploiting their advantage? Are you surprized that others do not follow your rules, do not share your values?
No unfortunately I’m not surprised. But I have this, call it, naive hope that people in a democracy would take the message “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you” to heart.
It become a bit hard to take complaints about unfair treatment serious if everyone tries to suppress ones opposition.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: A society that no longer has the will to reproduce — to bear and raise sufficient children to maintain their society — cannot be expected to muster the willpower to defend itself against stronger peoples with greater vitaltity. This is the story of history. No matter how grand their past achievements, how beautiful their culture, they have entered senescence. It is, of course, reversable — if they turn soon.
From “Why Europe chooses extinction“, Spengler, Asia Times, 8 April 2003:
For more on this, see the FM Reference Page “Demography – studies & reports“.
This is on theme, but not related to any points just put down, anyone watching Russia?
Nice to see lots of demonstrations, etc. This basically means that, despite what the Western Press says (the Times called Putin ‘anti-domocratic’ recently in an article recently) Russia is freeing up from its long dark period.
All Govt’s need regular wake up calls from their populace, if they are not prepared to listen (which is the smartest way to do it) then they need reminders about who is really in charge. The French are the best at this, they’ll have demonstrations and riots at the drop of a hat, keeps the polticians, sort of, honest (which realistically is the best we can hope for).
Re demographics, you already know my views on Spengler, but for the record I’ll do the maths and add reducio ad adsurdum:
The only way to have an ‘endlessly young’ population if it always growing, this is basic maths .. as soon as you stabalise then the average age starts to increase for a while, then come back into balance..
So when is the population too high. Take the US, 300M. What about 600M, a billion, a trillion, a googleplex? Eventually population growth stops, even if just by starvation, therefore it starts to age (unless the children kill all the adults of course).
This is not a tragedy, take Ireland and the patato famine. Even today the population is smaller the the mid 1800’s. It went from 6.5M to 4M by 1871, then kept declining slowly until 1926 (all Wiki stuff this, google Irish population), then stayed that way until the early 1970’s.
This is a logical societal approach to hard times, when times get rough drop your population, there is a bulge of old people at first, then it become stable again.
It is also self correcting, when population drops enough, food, land, resources, etc, become cheaper so that more people can afford to have children, which is incredibly expensive.
Europe (which Spengler seems to hate)? Maybe drops to (say) 200M, then stabilises .. and might avoid all the societal breakdowns and enforced population reductions that many other nations will experience due to energy, food, water, etc collapse.
The really important issue is whether it maintains its technical infrastructure and knowledge as the population shrinks to a more sustainable level. If you can do that then:
“cannot be expect to muster the willpower to defend itself against stronger peoples with greater vitaltity.” means nothing against a nuclear bomb and given the endless warfare of Europe, the brutality, the ruthlessness, the military excellence (never matched even distantly by anyone else .. well except Australians of course), if Europeans get their back to the wall … well anyone want to fight the Germans or Russians again?
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: This totally misses the point.
* First, Spengler is just a popularizer of conclusions in expert reports, like those listed on the FM Reference Page about Demography.
* Second, what matters is relative fertility rates. The land goes to the “last man standing”, as every group eventually experiences demographic collapse.
* Third, the surviving groups will be those who learn to stabilize their population — with fertility above replacement. That might be a culture with values radically different than ours, esp with regard (speculating) to the role of women. It might just be the cultures lucky enough to inherit “empty” lands.
* Fourth, the reference to war — and nukes — is nuts. We’re talking about relative internal fertility rates. Will the elderly Germans of 2050 nuke their own cities, their own nursing homes? Will hordes of chain-smoking, coughing, cirrhosic Russian geezers sweep away “foreigners” from Mother Russia?
” A society that no longer has the will to reproduce — to bear and raise sufficient children to maintain their society — cannot be expect to muster the willpower to defend itself against stronger peoples with greater vitaltity”
Let’s see what happens with these stronger peoples when the use of “the pill” becomes normal. You can definitely see the drop in European demographic numbers when that happened. Birth rates from select European countries
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: That’s hardly an unexpected factor. The studies listed on the FM Reference Page about Demography take that into account.
Demographics is a game of last man standing. The significant point is that Europe’s “native” people have far below replacement fertility now, while its immigrants’ have much higher levels. Note that some groups, such as those from Pakistan in the UK, maintain high fertility levels by marrying spouses from their “home” nations.
In the american right wing worldview the muslim immigrants are going to crank out children relentlessy until the remaining feeble decadent europeans are enslaved and Sharia imposed, starting from France first of course.
Anybody with the most basic knowledge of well established demographics trends and data would know that such scenario is bollocks, muslim societies are not getting a free pass from the same dynamics which have produced low fertility rates in Europe; but that would be too much to expect from much of the american right wing and their british fellow travellers.
Fun facts: Iran current fertility rate is 1.71, less than France which at 1.98 is projected to have a reasonably stable population in the long term. And no, the french muslims do not make that much of a difference. Any serious discussion about european demographics would note that France is actually in a good position and others like Italy or eastern europe are much worse off.
But then again Italy and “New Europe” leaders were supporting Bush foray in Iraq so such inconvenient facts did not fit “decadent cheeese eating surrender monkeys going to disappear” meme.
Reality and american right wingers are often at odds with each other.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I always find it astonishing that people adopt such a sneering, arrogant attitude towards the work of others — without any sign of actually reading their work. The popularizers of the implications of demographic trends — such as “Spengler” and Mark Steyn — have written about everything you mention — at length. And, as you note, all these things are well-discussed in the expert literature — on which they base their work.
Like most people writing about “shockwave scenarios” for a general audience, they stress the extreme scenarios. As do people writing about overpopulation, global warming, pollution, right-wing militias, and so forth.
For more about demographics in Iran see “Is Iran dangerous, or a paper tiger?“, 13 November 2007.
A lower fertility rate is not necessarily a suicide. I would describe it as an attempt to sustain a livable environment. We have enough people on the planet to sustain adequate production, science and culture. The more fertile countries have a grave problem with over-population, labour surplus and food shortage. This is, of course, a matter of development towards a coherent modern society, and many countries and regions still have a long way to go.
I would describe our status here in Europe as a step forward towards a better world. We do not need to fill it with people, we need to sustain the world and ourselves. A smaller workforce and a growing number of elderly people is a problem, but not a one we can’t solve. I’d regard it a smaller problem than shortage of food and energy, and a surplus of Youth without a prosperous future.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: It will be a better world. The part of it we call Europe might have a different culture, with the existing one studied mostly by professors of literature, art, and history — but largely forgotton otherwise. Perhaps the existing people’s leaving the stage will be appreciatedby their successors, but probably not.
About the topic of the post;
What non-Europeans need to understand about the discussion here is, that (I believe) most Europeans do not consider Hizbollah or Hamas to be terrorist organizations, but soemthing much more complicated (and an act of desperation, history and very sad circumstances). Thos organizations act against international law, but we tend to understand laws to be contemporary. This continent was a theatre of extreme suffering 60-70 years ago, and many many people remember organizations and movements that were illegal back then, according to the ruler of the day.
This is not to give justification to current organizations, this is just to say that we have a mixed history of labeling organizations and movements, and on the other hand we have a problem accepting the concept of thought crime. My personal view is very negative on labeling altogether. We should judge people and movements on what they do, not how others lable them. If they want to wage war on a state, that’s war (although not sanctioned in international law, since they themselves are not a state). If they want to kill people because of their religion, that’s a crime against humanity. (These should not be mixed in the labeling)
“Like most people writing about “shockwave scenarios” for a general audience, they stress the extreme scenarios.”
In my book anybody who goes around saying things like “EU’s population will be 40% Muslim by 2025” (his own words, circa 2005) isn’t stressing “extreme scenarios”. He’s just pandering to the idiots who already believe such idiocies literally. The fact that there might be slighty more nuance in his longer works (America Alone or such) does not change this.
“I always find it astonishing that people adopt such a sneering, arrogant attitude towards the work of others without any sign of actually reading their work.”
“Arrogant” and “sneering” seems like a fitting description for Mark Steyn and his lot.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Taking the last point first, I agree. The pundits on our national stage are seldom nice — both Left and Right. Perhaps it’s just a stage we’re going through, like such folks.
But the problem is real. Dismissing it (or even Steyn’s amateur work) because of an exagerated claim in an op-ed seems a bit far-fetched to me (esp since onr of the things used to discredit it is the expanded membership of the EU, which he might consider besides the point — focusing on the current “core” EU states).
Forty % is possible at some future point, due to conversion and immigration.
The first is impossible to estimate, but the odds are probably underestimated by the relentlessly secular analysts at most US government and academic agencies. The scale of the later is possible to model (one scenario, for example: assume immigration at levels necessary to maintain the current work force), although I have seen no impressive work on the subject (but I’m no expert in the field).
“The significant point is that Europe’s “native” people have far below replacement fertility now, while its immigrants’ have much higher levels. Note that some groups, such as those from Pakistan in the UK, maintain high fertility levels by marrying spouses from their “home” nations.”
True but that is a question of how you want to assimilate and regulate the inflow of foreigners.
As for my own country we don’t face problems of that nature.
The latest statistics from Danmarks Statistik show a decline in the birth rate of foreign non-western women from 3,41 in 1983 to 1,93 in 2008. The birth rate of native Danish women is now at 1,85 so not much of a difference. Click on “Hent Udgivelse”
The social pressure to comform is strong. A similar case would be the Russian Jews coming to Denmark fleeing persecution in the late-19th cen. They started out with families of 7-8 children, the norm being about 3-4 in a Danish family, but 30 years late the difference was gone. The Russian Jews had adapted demographicly as well as in style of dress and occupation. (source:”Russiske jøder i København 1882-1943″ by Morten Thing, 2008)
And the question of marrying spouses from the “old” country has been addressed by the most successful Danish party of the last decade or so <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_People%27s_Party#The_popularity_of_DPP"Dansk Folkeparti".
So if the various countries are willing to assimilate and regulate the problem can be manage.
BTW what kind of “nation” would a melange of ethnic groups create in say Britain. Indians, Pakistani with Arabs and Chinese thrown in plus the original locals. A strange mix. Would it function as a state?
(#8: “…The part of it we call Europe might have a different culture…”)
I don’t think current population will go extinct just because fertility rate is now below 2.1. But I must admit many of the current problems, especially ones about thought crime and others of social/cultural nature, originate from the inability to deal with the inflow of other cultures to the ‘home turf’.
This leads to politicians trying to be politically correct by trying to outlaw any non-PC behaviour (with a tendency to outlaw anything not abiding the official mantra). Outlawing turns out to be counter-productive. It leaves the politicians feeling good about themselves and all the others baffled, those who why they are allowed to feel one way but not the other. Since this is not ‘sold’ to the public properly, many will distance themselves from this official society and turn to being protectionist and xenophobic. That’s the big problem in Europe, the thing to be resolved.
The inflow of different cultures becomes less of a problem when technology gives us ways to survive with a smaller workforce, thus reducing the need for imported workers. That’s why I don’t think the current population is being replaced by a new one anytime soon. Europe is crowded, technological and inhospitable enough to keep immigration in a ‘survivable level’, Especially since there are other, new centers of business and technology emerging elsewhere.
We’ll just remain here in our turf and give our technological and scientific contribution to the world (and keep it on par), and watch as the others emerge in other parts of the world. And hope we’ll need not turn our plows into swords ever again. That’s my dream, and I think it’s the dream of most Europeans. If it turns out this goal requires birth rate to climb again, it’ll climb.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: We can only guess about the fate of cultures. This, however, I suspect misses the point:
“I don’t think current population will go extinct just because fertility rate is now below 2.1.”
This is like dismissing Peak Oil because we will never run out of oil. True, but irrelevant. The current population will certainly die, 100%. All that survives are their genes and culture. Low fertility means that their genes participation in the future will diminish, although never die out. The importance of that is purely subjective.
The passing of a culture is a more serious thing, and certainly more visible. The importance the current “natives” of Europe attach to their culture will be tested during the next few generations. Most cultures die; perhaps it is that time for Europe’s. Either way, somebody will live there.
“And, as you note, all these things are well-discussed in the expert literature — on which they base their work.”
If there are any serious demographic studies which actually show muslims becoming a majority in Europe, I would really like to see them. Things like 6% or such at some point down the road don’t mean we will live in Eurabia anytime soon.
Certainly Steyn did not bother to offer references for his 2005 “40 percent Muslim by 2025” claim beyond a conveniently vague “some projections” so his command of “expert literature” is a bit of a question mark.
Until then I will file such drivels under the “Yellow peril” literature.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I suspect everyone in the field agrees that the odds of 40% by 2025 is de minimus. Not zero, however, due to the possibility of large-scale conversion. Weirder things have happened in history (I recommend anyone interested in history to read “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”, Charles Mackay (1841) — fun if not rigorous history.)
But obsessing over this one item as a way to discredit the problem seems quite bizarre. The FM Reference Page on demographics has links to many authoritative works in the field, which disagree on many key points (as ususal for cutting edge social science issues).
It requires only 10% of a population to be Muslim to see significant intimidation of particular sub-populations such as Jews, and Christian clergy. The higher the proportion, the more alarming the form of intimidation.
Already several of Europe’s cities are roughly 25% Muslim. Cities are important places of culture and education. The control of city government leads to control of regional governments. Prosecution of anyone perceived as insulting Islam becomes routine, as Islam assumes a privileged position in the polity. Amsterdam, Marseilles, Malmo, Brussels. Stockholm is very close to 25% Muslim now. Even Moscow and London are approaching 20% Muslim. Copenhagen, Rotterdam, Birmingham, Luton, and The Hague are near 15% Muslim.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Do you have any links to support these numbers?
But 20 or 25% Muslim is nothing! Look at the hospital obstetrics wards. Look at the schools. Take the proportions there to see what is coming down the line. What are the most popular names for male infants in European cities now? Muhammed? Understand the wonderful magic of compound interest in the growth of sub populations. Your minds fail to model the reality of the situation. No matter. What is written, is written.
FM note: bold emphasis added. I assume by ADL he means the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. My response follows.
.
.
I suspect that intra-national ethnic tensions like some of these discussed above, along with more traditional class conflict due to economic inequities, will be an increasing dynamic in the next few years as forward momentum stalls for a while.
I am surprised to read from Blogwarts above at the high percentage of foreign (Muslim) populations. This feels unnatural, somehow, just as Tehran having 15% Swedish would feel unnatural.
The hate crimes stuff is also disturbing but this has been growing steadily for years. Get rid of the ADL and their ilk and most of this would rapidly vanish, I suspect.
Personally, I have been puzzling over this for some time generally viz. the degree to which a society, to be vibrant, needs a common sense of identity, previously mainly based on shared ‘race’ and locality but now being replaced by…what exactly? I am not sure. The pursuit of getting ahead in a dynamic, thriving world? But if that world increasingly becomes something one navigates through in order to end up ahead oneself, where is the shared community ethic? Meanwhile, increasing lawsuits penalising those who express politically incorrect thoughts and intentions towards others.
Many of FM’s statements above regarding how a society maintains its vigor etc. are extremely close to Chapter XI in Mein Kampf.
This thread is dealing with some very deep issues, ultimately. Thanks for bringing all this up.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: This is one of the oddest comments of the 7000+ I’ve seen on this site, and there have been some dozies.
“Get rid of the ADL and their ilk and most of this would rapidly vanish, I suspect.”
Outside the US, the Anti-Defamation League (see Wikipedia) has offices only in Italy, Russia, and Israel. I doubt anti-Semetic vandals in northern Europe have seen signs of its existence. This is classic “blame the victim” propaganda. Do you believe abolishing “rape crisis centers” will reduce rape, or that the NAACP should have shut down in 1950, because it annoyed segregationists?
“Many of FM’s statements above regarding how a society maintains its vigor etc. are extremely close to Chapter XI in Mein Kampf.”
This is really rich from someone who in effect just said that Europe’s few remaining Jews should just shut-up about anti-Semitism — and then the anti-Semetic thugs will leave them alone.
It’s also dumb on several levels.
(a) Hitler was also a vegetarian — do you scream “You’re like Hitler” when someone orders salad for lunch? Much of the material in Mein Kampf was lifted (and often twisted) from respectable thinking of his time. Ideas are not corrupted by the touch of Hitler, evil maniac that he was.
(b) Chapter XI is about race. Which is probably why the title is “Nation and Race.” I do not mention “races”, and don’t believe they exist. The closest I come to that is “The current population will certainly die, 100%. All that survives are their genes and culture. Low fertility means that their genes participation in the future will diminish, although never die out. The importance of that is purely subjective.” If you believe that is false, I would like to see your rebuttal.
(c) The constructs we call “cultures” and “societies” are intangibles, and can only be defined in vague terms. Still, most of us (though apparently not Erasmus) know they represent something important. Culture has been one of the primary frames through which philosphers and social scientists have seen the human world since Rousseau (Kant made the focus explicit). Their “birth” and “death” are among the most important events in world history. The process by which this happens is seldom pretty.
{FM Note: I have inserted comments into the text.}
a) 2008 French fertility rate: 2.018; in metropolitan France: 1.998. The rate has been increasing for the past 30 years, in all social categories. Net immigration +76000 in 2008. 2007 French population increase: +4.6/1000 because of net demographic gain, +1.1/1000 because of net immigration. This is exactly the reverse of the overall EU (+0.9/1000 net demography, +4.1/1000 net immigration). Figures here.
FM: I do not see any historical fertility data on that page. Also, I doubt French fertility “has been increasing for the past 30 years” — esp if it is only slighly above two now.
b) EU countries with a net demographic loss in 2007 (per 1000 inhabitants): Bulgaria (-4.9), Estonia (-1.2), Germany (-1.7), Hungary (-3.5), Italy (-0.1), Latvia (-4.3), Lithuania (-3.9), Portugal (-0.1), Romania (-1.7). Italy and Portugal compensated it through a net migration gain (+8.3 and +1.8 resp.) In Bulgaria, Latvia and Lithuania, the population decreased further because of emigration.
c) The picture of a large population with a well-established civilization neglecting procreation, reduced to a band of mostly geronts, then overwhelmed by hordes of young, fertile barbarians in a “last man standing” competition is extremely suspect. Is there any documented evidence for such a situation in history? Rome does not count — modern classicists have reached the conclusion that an irresistible Roman demographic decline did not take place. (here)
FM: You’re kidding, right? Fertility is droping due to modern contraceptives. Controlling reproduction could be done before (population growth was a frequent subject of public policy), but not remotely like today.
d) Acculturation processes do not necessarily derive directly from demographic movements. Long before the Western Roman empire fell, its culture had been extensively altered by influences from the Near Est: e.g. religion (Mithraism, Christianism); political representation (prosternation before a divine sovereign); military (increasing reliance on cataphracts); fashion (silk garments, mitres). However, it is not Persians who toppled the Western empire, but Germanic tribes, many eager to adopt latin cultural practices. As for the Eastern empire, it succumbed to peoples outside of the aforementioned cultural area (Huns, Arabs, Turks). Many of those populous, aggressive barbarians (Huns, Avars, Alans) actually dissolved in other cultures leaving few cultural traces.
FM: Fascinating but irrelevant.
Can someone explain why American right wing pundits seem to entertain such apocalyptic fantasies about the west, and Europe in particular? I get the impression that they feel like there the only true westerners and that being a lesser breed the europeans will eventually be
breed out of existence by the eastern hordes… I feel that would suit them perfectly, as it would leave them as the in sole control of the destiny of the west, free to pontificate at length on the benefits of the free west, free market, ect, ect — without annoying euro-pussies sneering at them.
This seems to be to be an American fixation, I remember the anti Irish riots and the nativist movement, the hysteria surrounding the Chinese(yellow peril), and more recently the fear of an Hispanic takeover… it all seems a little Dr Strangeglove.
I’ve read Spengler, an entertaining writer, at best.
This is a much more valuable analysis of Europe’s demographics: “No Babies“, New York Times, 29 June 2009 — “A Dying Breed? As the birthrate in European countries drops well below the “replacement rate” — that is, an average of 2.1 children born to every woman — the declining population will first be felt in the playgrounds.”
FM: “I do not see any historical fertility >data on that page. Also, I doubt French fertility “has been increasing for the past 30 years” — esp if it is only slighly above two now.”
There are long-term graphs (unfortunately not updated; they stop at 2005) in a related page. Fertility crashed in the early 1970s, slowly decreased with ups and downs till 1993, then has been on a continuous increase. 2008 fertility rate is clearly above the 1978 rate. The associated graph on fertility by age shows that women below 27 years had their fertility decrease till 1993, then remain constant, while those about 26 years had their fertility constantly increasing since the second half of the 1970s.
FM: “You’re kidding, right? Fertility is droping due to modern contraceptives. Controlling reproduction could be done before (population growth was a frequent subject of public policy), but not remotely like today.”
The reasons for drops in fertility are varied, contraceptives being one of them. And if we believe “Spengler”, then some form of suicidal Zeitgeist is a major one. Controlling population has been carried out through various other means anyway (e.g. Chinese one-child policy).
Apart from that, if “this is the story of history”, there should be plenty of unambiguous examples of civilizations without “the will to reproduce” that could not “muster the willpower to defend themselves against stronger peoples with greater vitality”. What are they? We are not talking about small, though prolific tribes going under against a much larger population (there have been many such cases).
FM: “Fascinating but irrelevant”
I notice that (1) Vigorous and aggressive populations and their culture dissolved in other supposedly decadent, enfeebled civilizations. Other good examples are provided by the thorough acculturation of Arabs and Turks by the Persians. (2) Supposedly vital, established civilizations willingly got accultured — example: Rome by Middle-Eastern culture. (3) There is a dearth of historical examples for the suppression of a civilization through a demographic “last-man-standing” competition.
Hence, skepticism regarding the process native demographic decline => demographic and cultural senescence => civilizational death is fully warranted. Though demography certainly plays a role, more complex processes regarding the continuation of a culture are at work than the simplistic demographic decline framework.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: All I can do is refer you to the professional literature on this. If you believe they are wrong, fine.
Knowing the cause(s) of the the increased fertility since the mid-1990’s trough would tell us much. Since France does not collect ethnic data on such things, we can only guess. The pessimists attribute this to the increase in the fraction of the child-bearing population who are either immigrants or their 2nd or 3rd generation descendents. Time will show which side is correct.
joey (comment #18) — “Can someone explain why American right wing pundits…”
I’ll bite. Our host is not an American right wing pundit. His politics are “refreshingly heterodox,” or a “mishmash of conflicting notions.’ Your choice–but hardly “right wing” in any recognizable sense of the term.
Spengler, AFAIK, is not American. I expect that he, too, would be amused by your characterization.
On the other hand, Mark Steyn is a right-wing pundit, and sometimes misidentified as an American. Happily, he seems to enjoy bantering with unfriendly interlocutors. I suggest you direct your question to his website.
FM Note: Mary Steyn is Canadian (see his Wikipedia entry)
Pingback: Today’s Wilders Round-Up « Defend Geert Wilders
Re yr responses to my #16. To keep it short I just respond in order.
Re ADL: you ignored ‘and their ilk’. My point was that the vast majority of ‘hate speech’ idiocy has been spawned by Jewish Nationalist partisans who couldn’t give a hoot about ‘free speech’ or ‘equal rights’ but are aggressively pursuing their own agendas.
Re: Mein Kampf. Yes, that chapter is about race, but it begins with explaining how evolution in general has a bias, through struggle, to evolve higher but that process can be corrupted. It’s quite intelligently argued if very early 20th century in style. All of yr comments I cited agreed with his thrust. And I was not criticising them, merely noting that they deal with important, deep – and unfortunately controversial – issues.
Specifically you wrote: “The current population will certainly die, 100%. All that survives are their genes and culture. Low fertility means that their genes participation in the future will diminish, although never die out. The importance of that is purely subjective.” If you believe that is false, I would like to see your rebuttal.”
Well, I paste in: ” A society that no longer has the will to reproduce — to bear and raise sufficient children to maintain their society — cannot be expected to muster the willpower to defend itself against stronger peoples with greater vitality. This is the story of history. No matter how grand their past achievements, how beautiful their culture, they have entered senescence. It is, of course, reversable — if they turn soon.” which you wrote in a comment.
Much of Chapter XI is precisely about the vitality/willpower business. And again, it is intelligently argued albeit, of course, highly controversial these days. At the time it was not. But my reason for citing it is simply because even though it IS controversial, many of the ideas in it agree with your comments above which I don’t find objectionable in the slightest. Again, I think this is important stuff to ponder over.
(I don’t know where you got that I don’t think culture important. Personally, I think it is the most important element in societal dynamics. Your impression from my remarks above is sadly mistaken.)
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I would like to see some documentation that the ADL and “its ilk” are source of “vast majority of ‘hate speech’ idiocy”. My impression is that in the past decade it has been used in favor of Islamic groups far more than “the ADL and its ilk.” Nor are Jewish groups significant domestic power groups in many (if any) European nations (certainly their UN voting records indicate little support for Israel vs. Islamic nations).
I seriously doubt you can produce any substantive evidence to support your contention that “Jewish Nationalist partisans … couldn’t give a hoot about ‘free speech’ or ‘equal rights’.”
As I said above, little of Hitler’s thinking was original. Much of it was taken from respectable work of his time.
@ Comment by AMac — 2 February 2009 @ 7:10 pm
Perhaps I wasn’t clear, I wasn’t referring to Fabius Maximus, I was referring to Spengler, who as far as I am aware is American. I wait to be corrected. You are right though, M.S is Canadian, right wing crankery is a broad church, for the purposes of completeness
I’ll include all North American and some species of British and xenophobic Italian fascist cranks in there, plus a big shout out to melanie philips, I apologies if I missed anyone. anyone,
There seems to be an assumption by some that Europe lacks the will to survive, as one of the posters said “some form of suicidal Zeitgeist” Where most of what I’ve read points to the money and time factors, and lack of flexible working hours. Not as exciting as Spengler and M.S et al, I know but at least something we can work on. Cheers
FM: I have inserted comments into the text, due to this comments length. In brief, the data EC cites supports the theories given in this post and (no surprise) the expert literature on the FM Reference Page about Demographics. Wny EC believes this supports his view is a mystery.
FM: “All I can do is refer you to the professional literature on this.”
The main point of contention is claiming a historical law according to which some civilizations lose “the will to reproduce”, hence cannot “muster the willpower to defend themselves against stronger peoples with greater vitality” and are then wiped out.
*** FM: Who is claiming a “historical law”? Please either be specific or don’t make stuff up.
If there are serious historical studies demonstrating this, please post the references. So far nobody (in this blog) has ever been able to present a single documented example for such a process, nor a single reference for “professional literature” proving it, but sentenciously present this hypothesis as some form of historical law. The onus is on you.
*** FM: This is silly. Please cite an example before WWII of atomic bombs. Modern technology allows societies to control their fertility in ways not possible before.
FM: “Knowing the cause(s) of the the increased fertility since the mid-1990’s trough would tell us much.”
The graphs on the fertility by age (and of the evolution of the average age of mothers) largely answer the question: baby boomers postponed their childbearing en masse in the early 1970s, waiting till their late 20s and 30s to procreate, and are now catching up. An interesting question is why women are giving up (instead of postponing) motherhood altogether in other countries.
*** FM: That conclusion differs from both the expert studies I cited, nor it is justified by any data you have shown.
FM: Since France does not collect ethnic data on such things, we can only guess.
And understandably so. Attempts to define ethnic categories vary widely from a country to another (or even from a census to another), are pretty much arbitrary and are mostly useful to promote some ideological agenda.
FM: “The pessimists attribute this to the increase in the fraction of the child-bearing population who are either immigrants or their 2nd or 3rd generation descendents. Time will show which side is correct.”
No need to wait! France does collect data on nationality — a trait that contrarily to ethnicity is well-defined and does not allow much manipulation.
*** FM: Despite EC’s assurance, nothing in this data shows fertility of 2nd and 3rd generations of immigrants.
You can see:
(1) the fertility rates according to the birth country of the mother
*** FM: Fertility of immigrants from North Africa: 2.8. All immigrants (including N. Africa): 1.7 — confirming the theories in these articles. Tables 2-6 are irrelevant, perhaps padding to give EC’s comment an illusion of support.
(2) the origin of all immigrants
(3) information on families with at least one immigrant member
(4) the structure of immigrant families, emphasizing those with children<25 years, according to their origin
(5) details about immigration flows and their reason, by regions
(6) and figures about acquisition of French citizenship, with the reason.
Happy analyzing!
I think part of the problem with the ‘demographics is destiny’ view is that it mixes simplistic post-Darwinian hypotheses with growth-dependent economic models whose viability depend upon ever-expanding markets and tax bases.
Spengler recently recommended – tongue in cheek of course in his witty ‘letters’ column – that China could grow its way out of the upcoming recession by repealing the one child law and quickly marching up to 2 billion people. Similar advice for Obama re repealing the abortion laws.
Meanwhile what is Japan to do? The most densely populated country in the world by far. Is is a ‘problem’ that her population growth has slowed or is it simply that there are enough of them already on that island? I think Europe is in a similar condition with the balance of urban to rural already overly skewed to urban such that rural production is no longer sufficient and rural life is declining in quality and promise. They have boomed enough the past two centuries, population-wise, and need a breather. Yes, this presents a grave challenge to our current economic models, but it is fundamentally sane. How can the English, French, Germans or Italian be worried that their ‘race’ or ‘culture’ will be dying out soon when there are sixty million or more of them.
Methinks these econo-demographers protest too much!
joey #23 — Thanks for clarification. Spengler’s identity is unknown to me, but in looking about I did find this jewel from Forbes magazine.
Ah, 1998! What could possibly go wrong?
See this cartoon. Sorry I couldn’t resist… apologies.
FM: I have gone several rounds on this, and you have yet to cite any meaningful evidence (except a report in French) as rebuttal to the expert sources I cited. This is my last reply. I suggest you take this to a site focused on demographics, discussing your theory with experts. Replies are inserted in bold.
*** FM: Who is claiming a “historical law”? Please either be specific or don’t make stuff up.
If this is “the story of history”, then either you are assuming there is some form of law, or at minimum a strong conjecture based on a number of examples for a systematic historical pattern. Or how should one reasonably interpret that sentence? If the first sentence is a hypothesis (respectable a priori), whose predictive or explanatory power remains to be determined, then it cannot be in any way characterized as “the story of history”.
*** FM: Land changes hands as people are pushed out by people stronger (in some sense). Do you doubt this? Look at the succession of peoples in the Middle East, as seen in this dynamic map. And to paraphase “sense of history” as “historical law” seems like a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said.
*** FM: That conclusion differs from both the expert studies I cited, nor it is justified by any data you have shown.
Look carefully at this. The pattern is clear.
** FM: This shows a pattern, but gives no evidence of the magnitude of the effect on fertility.
French-specific expert studies do indeed demonstrate that the postponement of births is a major explanation for the demographic evolution: here.
FM: Wonderful, for those people who read French. The English language source, including the UN and OECD, disagree.
*** FM: Fertility of immigrants from North Africa: 2.8. All immigrants (including N. Africa): 1.7 — confirming the theories in these articles.
Are the theories that the French (or other) people are replaced by prolific immigrants? Then it is difficult to explain why the proportion of immigrants+naturalized has been so constant over 30 years (and took more than 50 years to double): here.
*** FM: This is annoying, as your tried this slight of hand in your previous post. Again, this looks only at first generation immigrants. The key factor is how quickly fertility of their descendents decreases to the mean of France.
If the underlying assumption is that African and Asian immigrants cannot be assimilated into European culture, no matter how long they are immersed into it, then it is a completely other discussion.
“A society that no longer has the will to reproduce…”
I think that is what has got some of us riled up, I would contend that it is not a lack of will to reproduce, but the fact that it forces a choice on European women, have a career, or reproduce. Most couple would dearly love to have more children, but economic factors mean that is an practical impossibility for too many. Europe would do well to look to america for guidence in this regard. A Post industrialized society that has maintained a growing population, what do they do differently? that is the question we should ask.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Are not such decisions always part of life? After the Lake Toba eruption, over half of humanity died — and life for the survivors was probably nightmarish. Economic factors meant that giving up (in several ways) was reasonable. Death is always an option — for individuals as well as for the conceptual entiities we value (e.g., cultures, societies, nations). The future belongs to those who make the illogical choice to struggle on.
From G.B. Shaw’s play “You never can tell”, Act IV:
Ok, but europe is not in a Lake Toba situation. We are in a period of negative population growth due to the way we have structured our economies. This has been clearly recognized by the most effected governments and local authorities. Not all have managed to respond effectively, that is true, but some have.
There are many ways we can increase the birth rate, extending maternity (and paternity) leave, reducing employment discrimination against women who become pregnant, more equally sharing the child care burden between men and women.
In some parts of Europe becoming pregnant is the death knell of a woman’s professional and independent social life, until that changes the birth rate won’t. European women are educated and prosperous, it seems they wont do there biological duty in an environment that actively penalizes them for it.
Western societies like the US that take woman’s rights much more seriously have shown the way, large parts of Europe need to learn from this example.
Europe has faced much bigger and more lethal threats, some external, most home grown, the Mongols, expansionary Islam, fascism, communism, Nazism, protestants (I kid), the black death, ABBA. We overcame them, predictions of our imminent demise are probably exaggerated.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Yada, yada, yada. Some people seem to think that talk equals solving problems, or that saying (with CONFIDENCE!) that it can be solved means that it will be solved.
Emminent individuals and major institutions have warned about America’s approaching economic crisis for 2 decades (see here for 2 dozen examples, a tiny sliver of the library), yet we have done nothing. And now it arrives.
We will see what the people(s) of Europe will do. What they say means nothing. Future generations will not care about their economic choices. It will belong to whose who show up. For all we know, feminism might prove to be a lethal ideology for a society. Who can say at this point in the experiment? As the saying goes, Mother Nature does not care about our feelings or ideologies.
BTW, how do you know Europe is “not in a Lake Toba situation”? (I love the CONFIDENCE of so many folks commenting here; our educators work at boosting self-esteem has been a great success). At least, from the perspective of the existing culture. Ignoring immigration, current fertility levels in many of Europe’s nations will reduce populations as did Toba (aprox 60%) in 2 – 3 generations. Fertility of “natives” might improve, perhaps as a result of public policy programs. It might drop, perhaps from a long period of economic stress.
“Fabius Maximus replies: Yada, yada, yada. Some people seem to think that talk equals solving problems, or that saying (with CONFIDENCE!) that it can be solved means that it will be solved.”
I’m sorry Fabius, it seems your a DOER, I guess thats why you dont have a blog, it’s cause your out there DOING, well good for you.
“Emminent individuals and major institutions have warned about America’s approaching economic crisis for 2 decades (see here for 2 dozen examples, a tiny sliver of the library), yet we have done nothing. And now it arrives.”
Dogs have four legs and bark, cats have four legs they must bark too.
The majority of the main stream denied there was a problem with how the US economic model was developing. Disenters were voices in the wilderness.
This is not the case with population decline in Europe.
“We will see what the people(s) of Europe will do. What they say means nothing. Future generations will not care about their economic choices. It will belong to whose who show up. For all we know, feminism might prove to be a lethal ideology for a society. Who can say at this point in the experiment? As the saying goes, Mother Nature does not care about our feelings or ideologies.”
What are you on about mate? Nobody is denying there is a problem, good that’s the first hurdle, why has the problem occurred? the second hurdle, numerous reasons for it, but mostly boil down to economic choices amoung an educated population. What to do about it? there have been numerous schemes put in place all over the continent, with varying results. Some have been successful some ineffective.
In this case I view the problem with optimism.
Men and women being accorded an equal say in socity is not a lethal ideology.
“BTW, how do you know Europe is “not in a Lake Toba situation”?…”
A 95% die off or more?
If things continue on as the are yes we are doomed. Your right. On present trends. Lock the controls for the heart of the sun.
I went to a christian Brothers school, they installed fear, not confidence.
BTW
“Yada, yada, yada…” I’ve outlined some steps that can be taken (and are) to restore population growth, next time I’ll post a video of
me impregnating my girlfriend, hopefully that will impress future generations of Irishmen.