Self-hatred and the Islamization of Europe

Steyn is raising an important issue, raised earlier by Enoch Powell, who was excoriated for it.

Linear extrapolation, however, is always dangerous. Will immigration and fertility proceed at the same rates? Such is often not the case. Birth rates are declining throughout the Islamic world, much as they did earlier in the West.

I would not want to be a Polyanna, but Newton and Liebniz knew that rates of change, well, change.

If I were European I would hedge my bets by restricting immigrtion, and as an American I would like to see the same. But I remain skeptical about doomsaying based upon linear extrapolation.

Steve Sailer has quite the entertaining review of Christopher Caldwell's book "Reflection on the Revolution in Europe".

http://vdare.com/sailer/090809_caldwell.htm

Apparently the tory Enoch Powell made a famous speech in 1969 where he predicted the population increase of immigrants into Europe and many of the problems that would result of it. His predictions have proven to be largely correct.

The following expression:

"The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils"

had me laughing out loud.

Another gem in Caldwell's book that I like:

"One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can't be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can't be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong."

Read and enjoy.

I think mlindroo has a good point- expanding on it, I wonder how many of the immigrants' children in these countries embrace the most extreme forms of Islam, how many embrace western culture, and how many fall somewhere in the middle? I think Western Europe's material wealth and quality of life will have a more significant impact on the immigrants, especially their children, than these immigrants might have on Western Europe's systems of law and governance.

Back in the 18-whatevers, wasn't there grave concern that Irish and Italian immigrants with their large families and religious ways would lead to the Catholic-ization of the US?

> I wonder how many of the immigrants' children in these countries
> embrace the most extreme forms of Islam, how many embrace western
> culture, and how many fall somewhere in the middle?

Right.

Note that even the author of the article makes some fairly big concessions:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html

"The increased pace has made a nonsense of previous forecasts.
In 2004 the EU thought its population would decline by 16 million
by 2050. Now it thinks it will increase by 10 million by 2060.
Britain is expected to become the most populous EU country by 2060,
with 77 million inhabitants. Right now it has 20 million fewer
people than Germany. Italy's population was expected to fall
precipitously; now it is predicted to stay flat. "

and:

"Recent polls have tended to show that the feared radicalisation
of Europe's Muslims has not occurred. That gives hope that the
newcomers will integrate successfully. Nonetheless, second and
third generations of Muslims show signs of being harder to
integrate than their parents. Policy Exchange,
a British study group, found that more than 70 per cent of
Muslims over 55 felt that they had as much in common with
non-Muslims as Muslims. But this fell to 62 per cent of
16-24 year-olds."

So 62..70% of European Muslims feel they have as much in common with non-Muslim Europeans? Be afraid, be very afraid!!
---
Mind you: I am not dismissing this argument out of hand.
For example, it seems preferable to tilt local immigration policies in favor of "importing" Muslims from Turkey and the Maghreb nations rather than Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. But the writer of the TELEGRAPH piece is obviously trying very hard to find alarmist angles here. I am disappointed that Rod seems to uncritically accept all the claims and assumptions made.

MARCU$

And there is no reason why Protestants, particularly white Protestants should have been happy about it. Indeed, as the most underrepresented group in a large number of 'national' institutions - 0 Supreme Court justices

In what sense do the Catholic SCOTUS justices vote differently than conservative (more or less) white Protestants would have them vote?

The complaint from conservative Catholics is that Catholicism, once it left the ghettos, became Protestantized and mainstreamed. It's an observation that has substantial merit. The assumption many latter-day optimists make is that Muslims will develop in Europe as Catholics did in America -- that is, will be assimilated to prevailing European norms. I see no reason to assume that at all in Europe, for various reasons. America, it appears, is doing a much better job of assimilating its Muslim immigrants, at least in the second generation. But if I were a devout Muslim, that would bother me.

In what sense do the Catholic SCOTUS justices vote differently than conservative (more or less) white Protestants would have them vote?

First, that isn't exactly the point. As we have seen from the Sotomayor affair, its just plain nice to have your own group (btw I am not protestant) represented. And please don't say that ideology matters, of course it does, but an equally liberal white guy or lady wouldn't have been celebrated.

Second, I do suspect that the Scalia and Alito are rather more prone to give the Fed government slack, and less inclined to federalism, than the great protestant Justices of the nineteenth century. Go Melville Fuller! But I am not a scholar of the Supreme Court. Of course with the Jewish justices I don't think there is any doubt they are vastly more liberal, no scholarship necessary for that.

Third, I don't think you can argue that the impact these down trodden immigrants have had on Harvard and elsewhere. Again we are talking mostly Jewish folks here ... and as a "differently religioned" group it seems to me Jews in America are more analogous to Muslims in Europe than Italians and Irish are.

More generally, every time one of these ."but the Ellis Island immigrants" arguments up , even where totally inappropriate as when discussing Europe, they forgot that those bad old nativists *stopped mass immigration* for a large chunk, indeed the majority, of the 20th century. In my view that turned out pretty well -- including the WASPization of many of us Catholics.

I wouldn't see the Islamization of Europe as a bad thing, in fact, I think Europe may benefit from a religion of peace, virtues and morals. I was born in England and left when I was eleven to live in the States. Relatives that I have who live there still complain of the recent phenomenon in which British girls (and a growing number of immigrant European girls)too young to call themselves women are looking desperately to get impregnated and ensure themselves of a spot on the government housing list.

Perhaps this particular demographic could benefit from a religion that promotes modesty, a healthy family life which would seek safety and comfort for future children born into it. From the way I see things, I think Britain could learn a lot from Islam.

In what sense do the Catholic SCOTUS justices vote differently than conservative (more or less) white Protestants would have them vote?

But that isn't the point - the point is seeing one of your tribe "make it" thereby signifying something important for your tribe.
Especially if your tribe has a history of being put down and this is the first of your tribe to make it. There is an element of validation in this all. Catholics - at least non- Hispanic Catholics - can afford at this point in time to be ho hum about this all - but when the first Catholic got on SCOTUS - it was important not because we would see Catholic attitudes reflected in rulings - it was important because another hurdle had been toppled. Consider that before the first Catholic got on SCOTUS - it was absolutely necessary to insist that their Catholicity would not affect their rulings - because there was so much prejudice against Catholics and there was the perception a Catholic would turn the country over to the Pope.. That we can now complain that Catholics do not make Catholic rulings shows how this prejudice has diminished.

Personally - I like to see this kind of thing happen in that - it proves that America really is a land of opportunity. Make take a few generations but ultimately - people do assimilate - and the broader culture assimilates part of the new arrivals culture(my irish scots family now eats quesadillas!).

Meanwhile fun doings this weekend in Birmingham. 'Anti-fascists', adherents of the religion of peace, and assorted Bob Marley fans attack a 'right-wing' group of indigenous Englishmen. Mind you, the later are no sweethearts, but all they seem to have been guilty here of is chanting "Ingerland, Ingerland' and "we want our country back."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205263/Police-arrest-31-demonstration-Islamic-fundamentalism.html

Christianity or the lack therof has absolutely nothing to do with the mess Europe is in with immigration. It has to do with piggish greed for cheap labor, a runaway political correctness which prevents them from even considering their own national identities and an unacknowledged racism which has prevented two generations of Muslims from having any real shot at assimilation and economic advancement. Iceland and Japan (and Australia) are not especially fervent Christian countries, and yet they are not overrun by tens of millions of immigrants.

I would second Kenneth's remarks without the snark. A lot of this has more to do with changes in the world economy since World War II (globalized labor markets, the horrible situation in Middle Eastern economies, the belated urbanization and industrialization of Europe, and the subsequent transition to a post-industrial economy, etc.) rather than the loss of any civilizational nerve. In addition, European Muslims tend to be concentrated in unskilled professions which have been hit hard by the outsourcing of those jobs (e.g., Bradford in England), in somewhat similar fashion to the plight of African-Americans in the inner city areas of the US. I am not denying that this is a big change looming, but this also an opportunity for Muslims to develop their own beliefs in new ways. Going apocalyptic only enables people like Field Marshal Weigel who want to write Europe off when it doesn't facilitate US unilateralism.

The article probably underestimates Muslim influence because it doesn't probably doesn't count secularized Muslims, who as much as the anti-racist clique wants to call them, will NEVER, EVER, EVER become Danes, Germans, Spaniards, English, or French.

European states (and European minorities) are generally defined by common ethnic descent, and a shared linguistic, cultural, and religious heritage.

A Pakistani can no more become a "Briton" by moving to England than he can become an "African" by moving to South Africa, or Chinese by moving to Taiwan or "Arab" by moving to Qatar. Nor will his descendants ever become truly nativized unless they wait the traditional number of generations (five) to breed out all of their distinctive genetics by constantly intermarrying with native Europeans.

The past has shown us examples of continuous large scale immigration combined with declining native birthrates. The results from Silesia and Prussia, from Anatolia, from Austria, from Australia, from New Zealand, from America, from Argentina, etc. are never pretty for the original inhabitants who become overwhelmed by the newcomers.

History only shows a handful of ways of stemming the tide - mass expulsion (such as happened to the Germans of Prussia and Silesia after WWII), genocide (Armenia in Turkey being the most striking example, with the invaders killing the natives, but it could also be the natives killing the invaders), mass intermarriage (such as in India, despite the best efforts of the caste system to prevent it, or in New Spain), or civil war causing the losing side to take flight (the Israel/Palestine war of 1948 being a great modern example).

I think the notion that there was a vast cultural gulf between Catholic immigrants in the 19th and early 20th centuries and their Protestant neighbors is erroneous. If you look beneath the religious ritual difference there was, in fact, very little cultural difference except that determined by economic circumstances. They were far more alike than they were different and when the Catholics got the money to move out of their ghettos they found that they and their Protestant neighbors really were not that much different and so did the Protestants about the Catholics.

Islamic culture is MUCH different and burkas are only a small part of it. It may not assimilate as well, but it may learn to live in peace with the broader culture, much like Orthodox Jews have done.

Can it work? Along Devon Ave. in Chicago you will find Orthodox Jews, Christians, Pakistani Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs, all living together, doing business togther, all in perfect harmony. And these are people who in another context would all be cheerfully murdering each other. Yet there they are, all content not to be killing their neighbors.

75% of that army was Irish and Scots

I very much doubt that, and of course in the colonial era 'Irish' mostly meant Scots Irish, not always, but mostly. And they were protestants.

I myself am a Roman Catholic, but I have absolutely no problem admitting that Protestants created this country, that it would have ended up radically different had it been founded by Catholics, and that Protestants were perfectly entitled to try to keep it. And La Crosse is an intellectual construct, not an institution. But if there were an "American Indian LaCrosse League" then I would support their right to keep non-Indians out. Its not like there aren't plenty of such institutions already -- try Googling 'casino'. I can't move to Oklahoma and suddenly become a part of the Cherokee Nation.

This applies to other groups. I am sure Brandeis is disproportionately Jewish, even when compared to similar universities. The school makes an attempt to preserve its Jewish character. Yet somehow this is considered evil when WASPs try to preserve the institutions they created.

The Turminator or whatever its called seems happy that whites will be a minority in the US. Strange, but most other groups are trying to increase their numbers and percentage of the population -- they know the score. Population means power. You don't see La Raza trying to discourage "Latino" immigration, even though that would definitely help immigrants who have been here a while by reducing labor supply. Only whites -- assuming Turmigatron is white -- have this wish to become a minority -- and then a tiny minority, in the country created by Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton. Frankly I don't understand it -- it just isn't normal.

But thanks for the correction -- I forgot about Stevens. Still 1 of 9 doesn't begin to reflect white protestants share of the population.

stari_monak: I myself am a Roman Catholic, but I have absolutely no problem admitting that Protestants created this country

True enough.

that it would have ended up radically different had it been founded by Catholics

Also true, in all likelihood.

and that Protestants were perfectly entitled to try to keep it.

This is where we part company. If you read the Founders at even the most superficial level, it is clear that they were hostile to any concept of an established religion, and were very clear that as long as everyone accepted the basic rules of the Constitution and civil society, it didn't matter what their religion was, or what the overall balance of religious affiliation in the U. S. was. If you don't believe me, read Washington's letter to Touro Synagogue, or the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli.

In any case, had the Protestants tried to "keep" this country, they could have done so only by severely restricting immigration from Catholic countries (in which case, many of us wouldn't even be here) and/or putting restrictions on the Catholic Church in this country, much as England had before. Of course, the latter would violate the Constitution. Would such actions have been OK, in your view?

The point is, had the US been explicitly founded as a European style ethnic state, then there would be logic to "keeping" it white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant. However, despite what some try to argue, the Founders, in line with the views of the Enlightenment, clearly intended to found a universalist, pluralist state in which ethnicity, religion, or custom took a back seat to reason, secularism (as applied to government, anyway), and adherence to the Constitution and the laws of the land. One might think that was naive, or a bad idea, or unworkable, but it doesn't do to deny that this was the Founders' intent.

True, there was later paranoia about Germans, then Irish, then Italians, etc., but that's human nature. The people weren't living up to the ideals of the Founders. Or do you think that everyone here of non-WASP origin shouldn't be here? Or should go back? As a Catholic yourself, aren't you aware of what mobs did to Catholics in the early 1800'S (hint: church burnings, murders, riots, propaganda, "rum, Romanism, and rebellion", etc.)? Do you think that was OK?!

Yet somehow this is considered evil when WASPs try to preserve the institutions they created.

This sounds like when white people complain about Black History Month (February) by whining, "Well, how come there's no White History Month?" Or like the kid who has all the marbles getting mad when Mommy makes him give one to his brother.

WASP's controlled all the institutions and wouldn't "share their marbles" with any other group for a long, long time. There was a reason for the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement, the Suffragist movement, etc. Having a school that is religiously oriented and founded to cater to members of the religion in question, is not the same as keeping blacks, women, or Jews out of all or most universities on principle.

Turminator or whatever its called seems happy that whites will be a minority in the US.

I am neither happy nor sad nor anything about this. I merely reported the demographics. I assume you are not happy about this. What do you suggest. Keep non-whites out? Expel those who are here? I can think of other alternatives that are even less nice. What do you propose?

Population means power.

This is the nub of it. Really, you see each ethnic, cultural, racial, or religious group as looking out only for itself. It is more important that you're black or white or Jewish or Protestant or whatever than that you're American. Thus, it's a Darwinian (or better, Hobbsean) struggle of all against all, winner take all. It is, of course, your prerogative to see it that way, but I don't mind saying that I find such a view repugnant and vile.

Some of us hold to the ideals of the Founders. Is the country different than it would have been if the Germans, Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc., been kept out? Yes. But is that bad? Are they less "American" than WASPs (and just to lay my cards on the table, I am of WASP descent, my Catholicism being through conversion)? Didn't they assimilate and enculturate, while enriching the fabric of American life? Some of us have hopes that the same will happen now for Hindus, Hispanics, etc.

Should we have unlimited and infinite immigration? Of course not. Does the US have a right to control its borders? Of course. Should we work harder to help immigrants assimilate? Of course. If we can do this, if we can all hold to the ideals of our founding, to being e pluribus unum, "out of many one", then we don't need to fear whites becoming a minority. If we can't do this, then the American project has failed altogether, and we are deeply screwed, not because of a changed ethnic composition, but because we are no longer the nation we have striven for over two centuries to be.

England and Holland left the Faith 500 years ago. The devil always turns on his own. The Catholic Church will sing Dies Irae over the corpse of poor old England.

Re: England and Holland left the Faith 500 years ago.

Nations do not have faiths or join churches-- individuals do. And you can find a fair number of Catholics in both England and the Netherlands to this day.