Eurabia is coming

Wow, I'm glad I don't live in The Netherlands and I'm also glad that this sort of thing is very, very, unlikely to happen in the United States....

The question is, did you also believe "Stealing Jesus" and "A Place at the Table"? Because if we are to trust Bawer's analysis, then we must also trust Bawer's analysis that traditional Christians are a threat to American society and that gay marriage is a civil right. You can't really accept the premise of one book and then dimiss the premise of the other books, since they are based on similar takes on social analysis.

One of the great things about liberal Europeans, indeed their very strength and where they get power, it that they truly believe in themselves. Basically are self-righteous. They are Moral and Smart, and conservatives at the very least are dumb, and if not must then have bad intentions and/or are racist.

This is why liberals are so very dogmatic, and think little of stamping out freedom of speech when it goes against their dogma. Look, for example, at universities, or the prison term David Irving received for denying the Jewish holocaust. Oh, Europeans can be nasty enough when they think they are being righteous!

But what is so fascinating about this "strength" (dogmatic self-righteousness) is that it can become a weakness. Because most libs really believe they are the defenders of the weak, they cannot lift a finger to defend themselves against Muslims who claim a minority status (and hate Christians as a bonus). It would violate their code and take the air out of their sails.

Not that it matters now, though. Democracy is majority rule. Europe is fixed - even if the Dutch became fire-breathing anti-Muslims, it's too late politically to expel big-family Muslims now. A unified minority has already become too large to stop, and will continue to grow.

People have a hard time understanding this. But ask a Canadian about Quebec or a Texan about Hispanics, and they will tell you how a minority that votes together actually has vastly more power than expected when operating within a split majority. Why? Whichever side of the split majority gets this minority vote wins the whole pie.

Muslims have already crossed this threshold in Europe. The only way to stop the inevitable would be to prevent them from having children, either though secularizing them or passing laws preventing large families like China. Now this is something I could see liberals going for (they would probably cage it in terms of environmental law to remain self-righteous).

'But he quite plainly (at least in the first chapter) says that what Europe is facing from Islamic fundamentalists is of an entirely different order of magnitude."

Of course, you also completely believe his theory because he reinforces what you already believe. That's completely fair and legitimate and it is consistent with what how people process information. I do the same thing. It's just interesting how conservatives dismissed a fellow conservative like Bawer when he talked about gay rights and Christians--which were both based on copious facts, btw--but think he's the wisest man on earth when it comes to the great Muslim threat. Just remember that 10 years ago, he was writing about the great conservative Christian threat and considered folks with your beliefs and values as part of the problem with America.

Given that Bawer's continuing theme is the threat of fundamentalism and radical religious belief, it's not like we are talking about apples and oranges.

And I don't expect to convince you that Islam is not nearly the threat to the West as you make it out to be. We aren't Europe, and arguably Europe is probably isn't what Rod and Bawer think it is. Rod will grasp onto any piece of evidence he can find to support his Islamopanic, and arguably I will grasp onto anything to prove he is wrong. And there we are.

Daniel, I stand with Rod on this matter. What I intend to do (and what you should do also) is to get and read Bruce Bawer's book. Then we will have a basis on which to make at least a more informed judgement on the islamification of Europe.

Absent having read the book, I would remind you of a few facts that point to support of Rod's concern: Do you remember the subway bombings in London of two years ago? 50 or so innocent people murdered in the name of religious fanaticism? The recent failed attack at the Glasgow airport? The commuter rail bombing in Madrid?
The number of mosques in the UK that preach Islamic hatred of the values of liberal Western democracy? The murder of Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands? Need I go on?

I have friends in Switzerland whom I'll see here in the US in a couple of weeks. I'll make it a point to get their input on what's happening in Europe. I think I can say this however: Switzerland is a very conservative country and they make it a point of not allowing foreigners (males especially) of just arriving and settling in. And, of course, Switzerland is not a member of the European Union. So fortunately they do not have the problems of the Netherlands or the UK.

I'm a gay male, Bro, and do you know what? After seeing the picture of the crazed Iranian savages putting the nooses around the necks of those two teenagers, well, I'll tell you, Daniel, I ain't got much respect for the Religion of Peace!

Maybe you got a different spin on it. Please share!

Again, I'm going to say this, not that anyone will listen. THe problem is not the religions, but the FUNDAMENTALISTS within them. And all religions have them. Even we Buddhists have our problems (e.g. Soka Gakkai, etc.). Those who believe that they alone have a monopoly on the truth and actively try to push their belifs on others - that's the problem, Not what doctrinal sect one follows.

Thank you, Rod. This whole notion of moral equivalence – one fundy's just as bad as the next – makes me crazy. Despite what the irreligious among us want to believe, all religions are NOT the same, and some pose a greater threat to life and liberty than do others.

I read Bawer's book last year. It's a very compelling and convincing read. Another good one on the same topic is Mark Steyn's "America Alone."

>>>>
"Wow, I'm glad I don't live in The Netherlands and I'm also glad that this sort of thing is very, very, unlikely to happen in the United States...."

I know you are joking but you should have put smiley face in there.

Or perhaps you have very solid arguments that you have pulled from [thin air].*

*Edited by blog host.

Posted by: mik_infidelos | September 27, 2007 4:18 AM
>>>>

One wonders what oh-so-Christian figure of speech mik_infidelos originally posted...

I wasn't exactly joking - I am glad I don't live in the Netherlands and I am glad this is very unlikely to happen in the US.

I am also a bit exasperated that we are in for another round of Islamopanic (thanks Daniel) based on the idea that "Europe" is so unChristianly decadent that they can't handle their own problems and that somehow the United States, the most Christianized industrial nation on the planet is in immediate danger of following in the same fate unless Something Is Done About It Right Now.

Feh. I think there are some on this blog who really get off to the idea of the Islamic Menace because it gives them a sense of purpose that also supports their religious and political world view and perhaps not incidentally would justify taking extreme measures to repress Muslims and Islam as a religion. Feh.

John, mlk_infidelos's figure of speech wasn't all that bad, but I feel it important to work toward civility in this forum.

With respect, your position is untenable in the face of the facts. You seem to be dismissing the abundant evidence that Islamic radicalism in Europe is a direct and growing menace because the consequences of recognizing it would put you in the position of having to do things you find objectionable. Europe's situation is not America's, for reasons having to do with cultural and economic dynamics, and immigration policies (as Bawer acknowledges). But for Europe, it is very, very real. I've been to the Netherlands on many occasions, and am quite fond of the place. The last time I was there, in 2002, I interview a Dutch criminologist and others monitoring the situation, and it is simply undeniable that violent crime is a massive problem concentrated among Muslim male youth, and that Islamic radicalism is woven throughout it (e.g., imams tell their people that they don't have to obey the laws of the infidels). Much of this crime is directed against women, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

Bawer reports an appalling incident in which, when it came out that most of the rapes in Norway one year were carried out by Muslim men, a Norwegian official -- a woman -- responded by saying that Norwegian women have to acknowledge their responsibility for provoking these men to their crimes. The capacity of Europeans to live in politically correct denial is hard to describe. I recall once speaking to Dutch friends, very sensible people, who mentioned that authorities had closed public swimming pools the previous summer because Muslim teenage males kept turning up harrassing Dutch girls, calling them whores and threatening them if they didn't cover themselves.

I said to my friends, "You mean your government closed the pools rather than arrest and charge the harrassers?" Yes, they said, and looked at me like I'd come from another planet.

"Why didn't they arrest these guys and keep the pools open?" I pressed.

My friends genuinely looked surprised at the concept, and answered by saying that that's not a bad idea.

I found that very revealing. In my experience -- and Bawer, who lives in Europe, abundantly confirms this -- most Europeans will go to extreme, almost pathological, ends to avoid having to confront radical Islam in their midst. The real danger of this, as I've said in the past and as Bawer says in his book, is that it leaves the only people standing up against it those coming from the radical far-right. During the Danish cartoon controversy, the mainstream British commentator Geoffrey Wheatcroft observed that it was "depressing" that the only people in British public life who spoke forthrightly and honestly about the Islamic radical threat were members of the far-right British National Party.

Oh I am glad you finally read it. I had brought up its importance before and I hadn't seen you mention it in your postings. I assumed you had read and hadn't liked it or something.

It's an EYE opening book that I think everyone should read.

I appreciate him actually agreeing that while America may not be pro-gay (well not officially, not yet...) at least the Christians (the normal ones-not the psycho's) don't advocate and promote the killing of homosexuals as a religious practice as the Fundamentalist Islamists do. He said he was actually safer in America than in the Netherlands.

I also was shocked to see how much the muslims are encouraged to bleed the system (lax welfare policy) against the government. They don't respect the Netherlands government, they want it to fail, they want sharia law. Lying is allowed, cheating if it promotes Islam.

Interesting book. My mouth was wide open many times and if I hadn't gotten it from the library I would of underlined half of it!

"The capacity of Europeans to live in politically correct denial is hard to describe. I recall once speaking to Dutch friends, very sensible people, who mentioned that authorities had closed public swimming pools the previous summer because Muslim teenage males kept turning up harrassing Dutch girls, calling them whores and threatening them if they didn't cover themselves.

I said to my friends, "You mean your government closed the pools rather than arrest and charge the harrassers?" Yes, they said, and looked at me like I'd come from another planet.

"Why didn't they arrest these guys and keep the pools open?" I pressed.

My friends genuinely looked surprised at the concept, and answered by saying that that's not a bad idea."

As I see it the problem--to the extent there is one--is this, above, not with the Muslims or Sharia but with any who would abandon their existing political structures of rights and responsibilities in the face of attempted intimidation by them--or anyone or anything else. (Of course, those with a religious axe to grind would see the problem as inherent within the Wrong Religion. Funny how the mass-cultural phenomenon of hip-hop can present virtually identical problems as Sharia requiring identical resistance without even being a religion.)

By the same token, we have been unable so far to graft democracy onto Iraq, a para-nation previously unwilling to attempt to free itself (other than, perhaps, in Kurdistan, which we famously abandoned) and the citizens of which are more tractable to various forces of intimidation than they are to any unifying concept of liberty worth dying for.

And, by the same token, when we hear "Sharia!" from the mouths of Christian Conservatives, we reply, "Thanks for the reminder, yet again;" and we redouble our focus not to let the provincial religious beliefs of any religion--Catholic, Jain, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist--write itself preferentially and dominantly as the law of the land.

Rod, I think you misunderstand my position which is that what happens in the Netherlands is not my problem and is not my responsibility.

I agree with the second half--the Dutch have to decide how they want to live.

But the world's too small to say that it's not our problem. Or, perhaps more immediately, to say that it won't become our problem.

I'm reminded that much of the planning and infrastructure for the 9/11 assaults occurred in Hamburg, Germany.

Re: America Alone.

I have it and read it. While the cultural argument is a sound one, don't take his demographic as gospel. They are very debatable and open to question. For example, the CIA statistics for birthrates are lower in almost every case.

Also, there's a huge ghost in the book: the Islamic Republic of Iran. Steyn doesn't talk about the birthrate there at all. Probable reason? It's below replacement and has been for a while. Iran began a massive birth control campaign which continues to this day. Most other Muslim states are well into demographic freefalls (Turkey and Tunisia come to mind). Yes, the immigrants going to Europe have higher birthrates, but that starts falling within a generation.

As to whether the muezzin call will become a staple of European life, it's hard to say. But the Europeans have done a fantastic job of coddling and strengthening the most hardline Islamic factions in their midst by their clueless domestic appeasement. For Islam to become dominant, it will have to get serious traction with the ethnically European population.

Given the topic, Rod, and everyone, you might be interested that Prince Charles has just caved in (what a surprise!) to Islamic fundamentalist protests against the movie "Brick Lane" which deals with the issue of forced marriage in the British Bangladeshi immigrant community. Here is a link to the SLATE article:

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2176729,00.html

"That's not true, actually. It all depends on what the fundamentals of the religion are. I'm likely to have less to fear from a fundamentalist Quaker than a fundamentalist Sunni. As Bruce Bawer says in his book, he doesn't like fundamentalist Christians one bit, but all they want to do is keep him from marrying his partner; fundamentalist Muslims want them dead."

I actually highly disagree with this point. Fundamentalism, no matter what stripe, is all about control, and maintaining or gaining control that one can enforce their views on others. See, for example, what the Komeito and New Komeito Parties are trying and have tried to do in Japan. It is not one bit different. Or per your example, the fundamentalist Quaker and the fundamentalist Sunni both see themselves as absolutely right (which is a state of being that does not exist), and attempt to impose their strictures and doctrines on others (followers or not).

Or look no further than the fundamentalist Jew who killed his own prime minister for not following what the hard line Jews wanted him to do. If we Americans were to end our support for Israel (actually that's not a bad idea, considering the Nazi-like way they treat the Palestinans - Chirstian and Muslim alike), you can bet that they would make an attempt on the President's life. Without question, they would. Because the President would not be following their truth, just like Rabin wasn't following their truth, and doing things the way they wanted.

Or how about the fundamentalist evangelicals in this country, who have and are still trying to enforce their views and wishes on everyone else by means of the political structure. If they succeed, there will likely be a new form of Sharia - an American form. We already have the mentality of do what we say or we'll punish you. In all cases, it's not about religion, it is about control, no matter the fundamentalist. The people making these efforts may use (and abuse) religion to get what they want, but in the end, that is what it is all about.

In short, it's all about control and who has it. The only way to get past that is to make sure no one has any control, which is impossible at best, because how and who would watch over it, to make sure no one has any control? They would still be controlling the lack of control.

I think I can say this however: Switzerland is a very conservative country

Switzerland's TFR=1.4. I find this hard to believe.

For example, the CIA statistics for birthrates are lower in almost every case.

The problem here is that the CIA stats are not complete. To get real demographic numbers, you can't average populations by country as the CIA does. Steyn gets into this some.

For example, if you look at US demographics, we are about TFR=2. However, certain populations here are growing massively, some with TFR=7. CIA stats simply don't show this division. The US is not a single people or culture.

Also, there's a huge ghost in the book: the Islamic Republic of Iran. Steyn doesn't talk about the birthrate there at all. Probable reason? It's below replacement and has been for a while.

OK, here's the UN stats of the three Muslim countries everyone is crowing about not having kids:

Iran: TFR=2.1
Year: 2005 2050 2050
--------------------------
Popu: 69515 79917 101944

Saudi Arabia: TFR=4.1
Year: 2005 2050 2050
---------------------------
Popu: 24573 30828 49464

Turkey: TFR=2.5
Year: 2005 2050 2050
---------------------------
Popu: 73193 82640 101208

Compare this to Europe. Note these numbers INCLUDE Muslims already in Europe, plus planned Muslim immigrants:

ALL of Europe: TFR=1.4
Year: 2005 2050 2050
---------------------------
Popu: 728389 721111 653323

Turkey is the classic example, split between high-breeding traditional Muslims and shrinking liberal ones. These TFRs are likely 5 versus 1.5. Back in the 1950s, Turkey had crushed the fundies politically and everything was rosy for liberals there, and the West was happy for the future of Turkey. But now, seemingly overnight, the fundies have taken some of the government in Turkey due to their demographics, and everyone was like, hey, where did this come from? The national TFR doesn't show this shift.

So certainly some Muslims in Europe will go secular; nobody denies this. Those folk will simply fade, just like libreal Europeans are. The problem is there are no real conservative Europeans left. Those potential breeders are already outnumbered by fundie Muslims. Nobody else (liberal Muslims or Christians) matter, they are gone, not breeding.

Note that Europe refuses to break down the TFR by race or by religion, even though some have tried. The government won't allow it - afraid of the truth.

Yes, the immigrants going to Europe have higher birthrates, but that starts falling within a generation.

Look, it's a simple mathmatical deal. If you drop your birthrate, you are gone. But somebody is going to have children. Darwin rules here. The people who have children do exist, and they will change the culture.

The "Muslim" is not the critical part - it might morph into African Mulsims or African Christians by 2100 if Middle East Muslims fail to keep having kids.

The critical part is that what we now call European culture will not be around in 100 years unless they pick up their birth rates. And the plunging birth rate of European whites is still falling; we haven't seen bottom yet.

Mik, I'm not sufficiently familiar with the various governmental structures of Europe to respond intelligently, other than to say you seem to be repeating my argument while pointing out that 1) no equivalent Constitutional protection for an array of rights for all, transcendent and independent of majority desire, exists and that 2) merely immigrating in and of itself confers the franchise (although this latter is ambiguous).

If so, yeah, in a mob rule situation you've got to get rid of the mob you don't want to rule, whatever it takes, or suffer the consequences. Or they have to get rid of you.

On the other hand, if you have transcendent structures of sovereignty like constitutionality and you simply choose to allow them to lapse, as in the example from Rod I quoted, or otherwise abandon them, you pretty much deserve what you get, from Sharia Muslim, neo-Nazi, or anyone else.

"This misses a simple point. If only a portion of Muslims are willing to carry out their threats, then the rest are going to be rightly intimidated."

This IS the point: if "the rest are going to be rightly intimidated" despite having perfectly good structural recourse to resist the intimidation, then the rest deserve what they get.

You're arguing, "Mommmm, Muslim Mo is shouting scary things at me and scaring me into giving him what he wants. Make him stop, because I'm too intimidated not to give it to him!"

Good luck with that.

"Fundy Christians who disbelieve in the Constitution and who want to institute theocracy ruled by a holy book are rare. Muslims who want society ruled by the sharia are very much not rare -- something like 40 percent in Britain, I believe a recent poll said."

This begs an interesting question, Rod.

Since Christians who have instituted theocracy and ruled by a holy book are a defining part of history far greater than their currently Constitutionally restricted descendants, what would be your recommendation if the situation described above were reversed?

"Fundy Muslims who disbelieve in the Constitution and who want to institute theocracy ruled by a holy book are rare. Christians who want society ruled by the Bible, particularly, say, Leviticus, are very much not rare -- something like 40 percent*..."

What should be done with such a population of Christians that might believe thus, Rod? By whom?

Of course, if our principles are merely casuistically derived and grounded, this sort of hypothetical would be silly.

*I assume the 40 per cent is of the religious population in question, not the total.

Frank,
I think Rod's "obsession," as you call it, is based more on what might happen in the future than what's actually happening now. Books like "America Alone" claim that Native European births are consistently below the replacement rate, while Muslims have gone forth (especially to Europe) and are multiplying. So while those who want to introduce sharia law may, indeed, be small minorities at the moment, the future doesn't look so bright – especially as Europeans continue to drift farther and farther from their Christian roots, which were, at one time, a source of moral strength and shared identity.

"I guess that's the idea."

You may be onto something.

I've noticed that, while some don't, many, many businesses these days offer separate toilet facilities for women and men.

Thank goodness at my house we still cling firmly to tradition, with the same toilet facilities available for use by women or men, family or strangers, alike--as long as one puts the seat down afterward, I am told.

I can bet money that it isn't a Muslim-only toilet, but instead a toilet with a place to footwash that can be used by Muslims. The British press loves to go a little nutsy with every wahoo comment they hear at a pub.

The British press loves to go a little nutsy with every wahoo comment they hear at a pub.

For the British press, nutsy is a very short journey.

On the main topic - and bear in mind that right now I am IN the Netherlands, again, as I often am - what would the learned suggest as the right action for the Dutch? Simply throw all the Muslims out? Deny them the right to work? That's a nice, sensible, open policy.

It's the same old same old for a certain party. Hue and cry is had about the dangers of Islam in the US too, but the Huers and Criers are short on ideas about what exactly we should do about any of this consistent with our ideas about the Constitution, say.

I'm not denying that the Dutch have a tough problem to solve, as does the rest of Europe (the Dutch are unhappily on the cutting edge), but I'm suspecting that they'll find a way.

Oh this too. The Dutch are not actually all that tolerant. They might possibly be just a bit more racist than Americans even.

The Dutch are not actually all that tolerant. They might possibly be just a bit more racist than Americans even.

Gosh, I didn't think it were possible to be more racist than the Americans.

True story - I once worked at a place that did training for customers who would buy our data acquisition hardware for various industrial processes. We had a group of techicians come in from China and one of them attempted to use our Western style toilets by standing on the rim and squatting.

Naturally, this did not work very well.

Maybe, just maybe, this is the sort of thing that prompted the installation of the non-Western style toilet and not any desire to separate Muslim from kafir.

"But those muslims that seriously want to introduce sharia law are a small minority in their communities."

You are right, as long as we agree that 40-50% (as in UK) is a small minority.

Strange, I believed that Math education in Germany is superior to the US. Were you educated in GDR?