Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dispelling the myth of 'Eurabia' - Newsweek International

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dispelling the myth of 'Eurabia' - Newsweek International

    Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong

    `To listen to Europe's far right, it would be easy to conclude that the continent is poised for another round of bitter conflict with a centuries-old adversary. "The first Islamic invasion of Europe was stopped at [the battle of] Poitiers in 732. The second was halted at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Now we have to stop the current stealth invasion," argues Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom, which claims that Islamic doctrine encourages terrorism.

    It's rabble-rousing stuff. But underlying Wilders's polemic is an argument shared by many more mainstream right-leaning thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic. Europe, its will sapped by secularism and anything-goes tolerance, has allowed decades of mass immigration without serious challenge. Too feeble to defend their own values, governments have been ready to appease Muslim opinion and must expect the worst. The argument has been gaining ground for some time—fed by alarmist and highly speculative projections from writers like the Canadian Mark Steyn, author of the bestselling America Alone—that immigration and high birthrates could mean that Muslims will make up 40 percent of Europe's population by 2025. Similar and very public warnings have come from American diplomat Timothy Savage, who claimed that forecasts of a Muslim majority in Western Europe by midcentury "may not be far off the mark" if present trends continue, which would heighten the risk of conflict. The British historian Niall Ferguson has written that "a youthful Muslim society to the south and east of the Mediterranean is poised to colonize—the term is not too strong—a sene-scent Europe." And the American journalist Christopher Caldwell forecasts that an "anchored" and "confident" Islam looks likely to impose its will on an "insecure" and "relativistic" European culture. The gloomiest commentators, including Steyn and the conservative Ameri-can writer Tony Blankley, talk of an emerging "Eurabia" hostile to American interests and in thrall to Islam.

    These warnings chime with public fears that Europe has already become an incubator for worldwide terrorism. After all, the September 11 hijackers plotted in Germany, and homegrown terrorists were involved in the Madrid and London attacks. Concern is growing that a swelling immigrant population resistant to assimilation or integration will steal jobs and strain public services. Last year a Pew poll found that about half of respondents in Spain and Germany held negative views of Muslims. In Spain the figure had climbed 15 points, to 52 percent, since 2004. In the June elections to the European Parliament, Wilders's party won 17 percent of the national vote in the Netherlands. The anti-immigrant British National Party, which warned of the "creeping Islamification" of British society, won its first two seats. In Austria the right-wing Freedom Party almost doubled its share of the vote, at 13 percent.

    Alert to the public mood, European governments, which are now almost entirely center-right, have been slamming doors to further immigration from Muslim countries and elsewhere, and have reinforced the message that Muslim Turkey is not welcome in the European Union. Italy is now in the process of approving a bill that will jail landlords for leasing properties to undocumented immigrants. Last month French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared the burqa to be "a sign of subservience" that "would not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."

    But all this obscures a simple fact: the rise of a Eurabia is predicated on limited and dubious evidence. A much-cited 2004 study from the U.S. National Intelligence Council outlines a number of possible scenarios. Its most aggressive is that the number of Muslims in Europe could increase from roughly 20 million today—about 5 percent of the population—to 38 million by 2025. But that projection turns out to be attributed to "diplomatic and media reporting as well as government, academic, and other sources." In other words, it's all speculation based on speculation—and even if it's accurate, it would still mean the number of Muslims will represent just 8 percent of the European population, estimated by the EU to be 470 million in 2025. Indeed, if there is a surge ahead, its scale looks overstated. "There is a quite deliberate exaggeration, as has often been pointed out—but the figures are still being cited," says Jytte Klausen, an authority on Islam in Europe at Boston's Brandeis University.

    Coming up with a reasonable estimate for the percentage of Muslims now living in Europe, let alone making projections for the future, is a virtually impossible task. The number of illegal immigrants is unknown and, in a sign of the sensitivity of the issue, many countries including France and Germany do not even tally census data on the religion of legal residents. It is true that the Muslim minority is destined to grow steadily in Europe, especially given the youthful profile of today's immigrants. Fertility rates remain higher among Muslim immigrants than among other Europeans, and Muslims may continue to arrive in Europe in large numbers. But the alarmists assume that past patterns are sure to hold. "The worst of the scaremongering is based on the assumption that current behavior will continue," says Grace Davie, an expert on Europe and Islam at the University of Exeter in Britain.

    For the number of Muslims to outnumber non-Muslims by midcentury, it would require either breeding on a scale rarely seen in history or for immigration to continue at a pace that's now politically unacceptable. More likely, new controls will slow Muslim immigration. The birthrate for Muslim immigrants is also likely to continue to decline, as it has tended to do, with greater affluence and better health care. There is no Europewide data available, but one study says fertility rates among Turkish-born women in the Netherlands fell from 3.2 in 1990 to 1.9 in 2005, barely above the figure for native-born Dutch. Over the same period, the equivalent figure for Moroccan-born women in the Netherlands dropped from 4.9 to 2.9. Also, fertility rates are edging upward in some Northern European countries, which would offset some of the Muslim growth. Bottom line: given the number of variables, demographers are loath to make predictions about the number of Muslims in Europe in the years to come. "You would almost have to make it up," says Carl Haub, the senior demographer at the Population Reference Bureau in Washington. And the idea of a Muslim majority any time soon? "Absolutely absurd."

    Moreover, the myth of Eurabia implies the existence of a united Islam, a bloc capable of collective and potentially dangerous action. The truth is that there are no powerful Muslim political movements in Europe, either continentwide or at the national level, and the divisions that separate Muslims worldwide, most obviously between Sunnis and Shiites, are apparent in Europe as well. Each major nation in Europe has drawn Muslim immigrants from distinct regions of the Islamic world, often former colonies, with different traditions and outlooks. A British Muslim from Pakistan would struggle to communicate with a French Muslim from Algeria. A second-generation Muslim from Turkey living in Germany will have little in common with a newly arrived Moroccan across the border in Belgium. Sharp differences exist even within national frontiers. In Germany, more than one in 10 Muslims are Alawites, who aren't even recognized as coreligionists by the more orthodox.

    In areas of personal morality, attitudes vary markedly, too. One recent Gallup poll found that more than 30 percent of French Muslims were ready to accept homosexuality, compared with zero in Britain. Almost half of French Muslims believed sex between unmarried people was morally acceptable, compared with 27 percent of German Muslims. And violent zealotry is for the tiny minority: polls repeatedly reaffirm that Muslims overwhelmingly disapprove of terrorism. In some countries, the mood is broadly secular. "The majority of Muslims in France are, in fact, decoupled from their religion. They just blend into an amorphous mass of brown or black people," says Ali Allawi, the former Iraqi defense minister and author of the The Crisis of Islamic Civilization. Jochen Hippler, a German political scientist at the University of Duisburg-Essen, says he has had young Turks come up to him to ask what Islam is all about. "They have lost any connection with the religion of their parents and grandparents," he says. A recent government survey showed that 40 percent of Iranians living in Germany identified themselves as having no religion, as did 23 percent of North Africans. In the Netherlands, the proportion of Muslims who regularly attend the mosque—27 percent—is lower than the proportion of Protestants who go to church.

    For that matter, there's little evidence that Muslims themselves see any contradiction between allegiance to the state and their religious faith. An overwhelming majority of Muslims in France and Germany told Gallup's pollsters that they believed Muslims were loyal to their country. British and German Muslims were more likely than their countrymen to say they were confident of the judicial system and financial institutions and the honesty of elections. It seems that if Europe is in the throes of revolution, many of the supposed combatants appear strangely content with the established order.
    Dispelling the Myth of Eurabia | Newsweek International | Newsweek.com

    Good article, cuts to the core on what must be one of the trans-atlantian right's fetish subjects.

    I've always found such talk of Eurabia to be hystericism from people who don't have Europe's best interests at heart either way and want to drag us down to racial and social tensions for political reasons - I know a grand total of 2 Muslims, married, both secular, both highly qualified doctors and both proudly, openly, fiercly Irish, not 'Muslim in Ireland'.....I don't know specifically what it's like in the rest of 'Fortess Europe', but in the Celtic fringe relations are fine - I've more a problem with Blarney's teenagers than it's Muslims :P!

    Anyone else in Europe got an opinion or seen any evidence of a disturbingly large Muslim population?
    Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
    - John Stuart Mill.

  • #2
    Have you read Mark Steyn's book?

    I don't care what you say, it's Scary!
    America doesn't deserve its military

    -Emma Sky

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by osage18 View Post
      Have you read Mark Steyn's book?

      I don't care what you say, it's Scary!
      I've heard of Mr Steyn and read some of his columns while he was published by the Irish Times (decent and entertaining, if politically retarded, writer), never read the book though.

      I think that we in the west do need to sit down and have a serious discussion amongst ourselves and others about extremism, but concepts like 'Eurabia' are ill thought out bile.

      The stats are there, Europe's Muslims are largely (though of course not entirely, and that is an issue) moderate, secular citizens with no more interest in Sharia than I have in a cool Burqa for my wife and who are breeding more like Dutch Methodists than the Energiser Bunny.

      The worst part is the clear agenda that those who scream about it have - if people are scared of Muslims, that's irrational but fine, let's limit future immigration, let's not single out and attack law-abiding Muslims who've already moved here for a better life, are assimilating happily and are contributing positively.

      Europe's (and to a lesser extent America's) seen enough of singling out minorities and where it leads, let's just live up to our creed and be faithblind, while insisting that immigrants that move here are the same.
      Last edited by crooks; 09 Aug 09,, 23:06.
      Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
      - John Stuart Mill.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by crooks View Post
        I've heard of Mr Steyn and read some of his columns while he was published by the Irish Times (decent and entertaining, if politically retarded, writer), never read the book though.
        Actually, he's brilliant, and his book is well documented and foot-noted. You may argue with him when you're as well-founded as he is. Until then, you've got dam' little basis to be calling him retarded. You're just uncomfortable with his conclusions, so it's easy to dismiss him. You're nothing but an example of what he's pointing out: an effete, effeminate, emasculated Europe that has not the cultural self-confidence to defend itself from what is so obviously a threat to the values that Europeans no longer seem willing to proclaim as superior to what is obviously overtaking it.

        I think that we in the west do need to sit down and have a serious discussion amongst ourselves and others about extremism, but concepts like 'Eurabia' are ill thought out bile.
        Steyn answers:
        Since my "alarmist" book came out, I notice the British and European media have begun to meet me halfway:

        A Fifth Of European Union Will Be Muslim By 2050

        Britain, Spain and Holland will have an even higher proportion of Muslims in a shorter amount of time, an investigation by The Telegraph shows.
        A couple of points. The "European Union" is a fairly meaningless statistical concept including as it does places far off the Muslim-beaten path (Estonia). What counts are real jurisdictions - first, the major cities, which are already on the brink of majority Muslim status, from Malmo in Sweden to the EU capital Brussels; and, after the cities, individual nations. Critics of my thesis, most of whom don't seem to have read the book [like crooks, here. Bluesman], like to obsess about the point at which Europe becomes 50.1 per cent Muslim: Steyn's full of hooey; it won't happen till 2100, or 2200, if ever. But as I say about 30 pages in. it is not necessary for Islam to become a statistical majority in order to function as one. At the height of its power a millennium and a quarter back, "the Islamic world" stretched from Spain to India, yet its population was only minority Muslim.

        So what's the point at which a society starts to become Muslim in its socio-political character? My book quotes the 2005 Freedom House rankings: Of the 46 Muslim majority nations only three were ranked as free. But of the 16 nations in which Muslims form between 20 and 50 per cent of the population, only another three were ranked as free: Benin, Serbia & Montenegro (as it was then), and Suriname.

        So 20 per cent seems a good starting point. For what it's worth, I'll bet the EU will be a lot more than one-fifth Muslim by 2050. As for those countries the Telegraph puts in the fast lane, a Netherlands or a United Kingdom that becomes 30 per cent Muslim will not just be more "diverse" but in ways both profound and trivial no longer Dutch or British.

        It's happening. You can argue about the speed, but not about the destination.
        The stats are there, Europe's Muslims are largely (though of course not entirely, and that is an issue) moderate, secular citizens with no more interest in Sharia than I have in a cool Burqa for my wife and who are breeding more like Dutch Methodists than the Energiser Bunny.
        And that means dammit when the minority have elan, esprit-de-corps and a fighting faith buring in their breasts. You simply don't get this part: the quiescent, the moderate, the TAME are never a match for their wild and agressive counterparts, and numbers are a very small part of the equation. The DRIVE that motivates each side is what counts, and when one side takes to the streets, and the other doesn't even show up because they prefer a nice quiet life of tranquility, who do you suppose carries the day?

        The worst part is the clear agenda that those who scream about it have - if people are scared of Muslims, that's irrational but fine, let's limit future immigration, let's not single out and attack law-abiding Muslims who've already moved here for a better life, are assimilating happily and are contributing positively.
        Now, HERE, I'm with you all the way. But here's another aspect you're missing: the immigrants assimilated more-or-less nicely. Their children didn't. The most extreme of the extremists are native-born Britons, Dutch, Italians, whatever. THIS is the real issue, because the threat isn't coming from Lahore; it's coming from London.

        And anyway, we all know that there is no way that a socialist welfare state with its unsustainable entitlements and a declining population base can afford to limit immigration. So, Europe gets more Muslim and less European with each passing day.

        Europe's (and to a lesser extent America's) seen enough of singling out minorities and where it leads, let's just live up to our creed and be faithblind, while insisting that immigrants that move here are the same.
        Insist if you'd like, but it's the same brain-dead insistance that is personified by that feckless and silly 'coexist' bumper sticker: we canNOT coexist with the intolerance that is represented by the agressive and violent faiths that cannot abide sharing the planet with the 'other'. That's YOU, mate, and ME, and all of us that don't want to be submissive to Islam.

        The difference, though, is that I'm perpared to see it for what it is, and push back. You, though? You're just dead weight, inhibiting me from defending either of us.

        Comment


        • #5
          Insist if you'd like, but it's the same brain-dead insistance that is personified by that feckless and silly 'coexist' bumper sticker: we canNOT coexist with the intolerance that is represented by the agressive and violent faiths that cannot abide sharing the planet with the 'other'. That's YOU, mate, and ME, and all of us that don't want to be submissive to Islam.

          The difference, though, is that I'm perpared to see it for what it is, and push back. You, though? You're just dead weight, inhibiting me from defending either of us.
          Man you really know how to kick people in the balls. :))
          America doesn't deserve its military

          -Emma Sky

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by osage18 View Post
            Man you really know how to kick people in the balls. :))
            Wait 'till you see what he does to the men:))

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
              You're nothing but an example of what he's pointing out: an effete, effeminate, emasculated Europe that has not the cultural self-confidence to defend itself from what is so obviously a threat to the values that Europeans no longer seem willing to proclaim as superior to what is obviously overtaking it....

              The difference, though, is that I'm perpared to see it for what it is, and push back. You, though? You're just dead weight, inhibiting me from defending either of us.
              Blues:

              Crooks has his viewpoint; right or wrong, personal attack of this kind are a low blow.
              To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

              Comment


              • #8
                There is a grain of truth in every myth btw.

                Muslim Europe is possible, unlikely but still.
                My guess is Russia probably was 30%+ Muslim 300 years ago if you think about it. Ergo the amount of Tartars was higher as well as all the other tribes a lot of names in Moscow probably up to a 5th are descendants most assimilated. Amount of ethnicities probably was over 200 instead of 150 now.

                But the problem with people is they forget to take into other factors. Ergo Muslims in Europe are way way more homogeneous than in Russia. Mainly Arab and Turkish, yes there are others but looking at it proportionally. This is a very big difference. All those republics along the caucuses have at least 2 main competing ethnic groups which are basically competing with each other (often violently) as well as the Russian state. Furthermore most of them do not have an extraterritorial state where they can go and be excepted if worst comes to worst. Or for that matter they do not have a voice that would defend their rights that is extraterritorial in nature. Also the amount of religious zeal in former Soviet States is way lower.

                These are all things people oftentimes ignore. Now the ramifications of having an ethnic and religious homogeneity in a significant segment of the population creates reinforcement for that to continue {think ethnic republics in Russia and imagine similar identities in Europe}. The critical mass for that ethnicity to thrive is there, also since there is political will outside that looks out for its benefit because it garners benefits. Thus the incentive to remain as you are is magnified.
                Originally from Sochi, Russia.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by crooks View Post
                  Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong



                  Dispelling the Myth of Eurabia | Newsweek International | Newsweek.com

                  Good article, cuts to the core on what must be one of the trans-atlantian right's fetish subjects.

                  I've always found such talk of Eurabia to be hystericism from people who don't have Europe's best interests at heart either way and want to drag us down to racial and social tensions for political reasons - I know a grand total of 2 Muslims, married, both secular, both highly qualified doctors and both proudly, openly, fiercly Irish, not 'Muslim in Ireland'.....I don't know specifically what it's like in the rest of 'Fortess Europe', but in the Celtic fringe relations are fine - I've more a problem with Blarney's teenagers than it's Muslims :P!

                  Anyone else in Europe got an opinion or seen any evidence of a disturbingly large Muslim population?
                  Crooks,

                  I think that after a while here at WAB either of us could script some of the responses that you know are coming. Blues has already put in his standard combination of abuse supported by dubious scholarship (if at all). There are some others will be more civilized, but no happier that you are deflating one of the cherished bogeymen of the anti-immigration/anti-multicultural/anti-muslim right (and occasionally left). I'm just hoping that the diversity of opinion usually on display here gives you something more intereasting than that.

                  As you have pointed out, the problem with such hysteria is that it doesn't provide a useful strating point for the discussion that needs to be had - how to manage immigration & cultural diversity. The 'all muzlinz is da same' school of thought is easily the least helpful way of approaching this incredibly complex issue. Like many all-encompassing myths, however, it provides the comfort of not having to think about or deal with those complexities - simple answers to complex problems are the intellectual equivalent of taking hard drugs.

                  Have fun.
                  sigpic

                  Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                    Blues:

                    Crooks has his viewpoint; right or wrong, personal attack of this kind are a low blow.
                    Oh, please. That's not even a personal hit. I'm pointing out that if he keeps up his schtick, he'll make a miniscule contribution to the collective defeat of the Enlightenment, and by his actions and inactions, he'll help mid-wife a new Dark Ages.

                    If I was being personal, I'd have called him an idiot.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
                      Actually, he's brilliant, and his book is well documented and foot-noted. You may argue with him when you're as well-founded as he is. Until then, you've got dam' little basis to be calling him retarded. You're just uncomfortable with his conclusions, so it's easy to dismiss him. You're nothing but an example of what he's pointing out: an effete, effeminate, emasculated Europe that has not the cultural self-confidence to defend itself from what is so obviously a threat to the values that Europeans no longer seem willing to proclaim as superior to what is obviously overtaking it.
                      Out of casual interest, are you retarded?

                      Because of course I never reffered to Steyn (henceforth Christened 'Insayn') as retarded, merely that his political views are retarded - which anyone with a functional brain can plainly see.
                      He reminds me of Paisley - can deliver a line, is a great performer, but of course when you listen to what he's saying behind the theatrics you laugh at the idea of listening to him in the first place.
                      And of course he is a true investigative journalist, who's pieces display no bias or liberal use of facts, just the plain, horrifying, sensational truth that *cough* is widely discredited by demographers and learned persons of all political stripes.

                      Effete?

                      And of course what I love about you, the Crude Crusader, is that you have an exquisite raw passion and anger that you get from god knows where, combined with some awful but legible articulation, and then you ruin it by making me 70% sure you're 12.

                      On the culture point, people find me ultranationalist to the extreme -I love this island, every inch of it and feel great pride in my 6 million or so countrymen, at what we've built despite huge adversity...ohhh and my Muslim neighbours will toast to that as well.

                      Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
                      Steyn answers:
                      Of course I made it very clear I've never read Insayn's book - the money goes to him, what if he uses it to destroy more trees by printing more crap!?

                      He's plain wrong with stats as well, to quote Newsweek:

                      But all this obscures a simple fact: the rise of a Eurabia is predicated on limited and dubious evidence. A much-cited 2004 study from the U.S. National Intelligence Council outlines a number of possible scenarios. Its most aggressive is that the number of Muslims in Europe could increase from roughly 20 million today—about 5 percent of the population—to 38 million by 2025. But that projection turns out to be attributed to "diplomatic and media reporting as well as government, academic, and other sources." In other words, it's all speculation based on speculation—and even if it's accurate, it would still mean the number of Muslims will represent just 8 percent of the European population, estimated by the EU to be 470 million in 2025. Indeed, if there is a surge ahead, its scale looks overstated. "There is a quite deliberate exaggeration, as has often been pointed out—but the figures are still being cited," says Jytte Klausen, an authority on Islam in Europe at Boston's Brandeis University.


                      Exaggeration?!

                      But who would deliberately mislead the public in such ways?!

                      Somebody very angry with an agenda who doesn't believe you can have a multiethnic/multireligious society under a single culture, perhaps?

                      Somebody who believes most Muslims are (literally!) ticking time bombs?

                      Somebody that similar angry people will joyfully lap up and start a political shitstorm that this person would love to see started?

                      And of course someone who enjoys the regular visits to FOX NEWS, a nice syndicated newspaper column a cushioned existence on stoking the fear of others?

                      Compared to an idiot like that, I'm with Prof. Klausen.

                      Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
                      And that means dammit when the minority have elan, esprit-de-corps and a fighting faith buring in their breasts. You simply don't get this part: the quiescent, the moderate, the TAME are never a match for their wild and agressive counterparts, and numbers are a very small part of the equation. The DRIVE that motivates each side is what counts, and when one side takes to the streets, and the other doesn't even show up because they prefer a nice quiet life of tranquility, who do you suppose carries the day?
                      Correct of course, extremism gives man a lust to go further, that's why I'll be long bored of this thread when you still want to pick my responses apart, it's a matter of how empassioned you are.

                      But of course you fail to recognise that the Muslims with similar zeal are in actual reality a very small minority, at least in Europe, and sorry, numbers do mean something, if only at a getting a movement off the ground stage.

                      I'm genuinely interested, what percentage of European Muslims do you believe are extremist, or harbour extremist sympathies?

                      A ballpark figure will do, bearing these stats in mind:

                      And violent zealotry is for the tiny minority: polls repeatedly reaffirm that Muslims overwhelmingly disapprove of terrorism

                      A recent government survey showed that 40 percent of Iranians living in Germany identified themselves as having no religion, as did 23 percent of North Africans.

                      In the Netherlands, the proportion of Muslims who regularly attend the mosque—27 percent—is lower than the proportion of Protestants who go to church.

                      British and German Muslims were more likely than their countrymen to say they were confident of the judicial system and financial institutions and the honesty of elections.

                      Terrifying.

                      Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
                      Now, HERE, I'm with you all the way. But here's another aspect you're missing: the immigrants assimilated more-or-less nicely. Their children didn't. The most extreme of the extremists are native-born Britons, Dutch, Italians, whatever. THIS is the real issue, because the threat isn't coming from Lahore; it's coming from London.
                      And that's an issue that needs to be dealt with - such angry, young Muslims need to be given clear signs that extremism isn't going to be tolerated while we also assimilate them properly into their birth-country, making them feel Irish, French, German, whatever, something that should come natural to them.

                      It's easier to do that when they aren't automatically assumed to be threats to our lifestyle by the national media, because alienating them just makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

                      And unfortunetely for my thinking it's too easy for people like Insayn to take potshots from the sidelines because once they do, they're automatically secure:

                      Either assimilation fails, and they can harp about Sharia ghettos and Western obliteration, or it succeeds, and they can move back to the Pinko Commie brigade and their fascists ways.

                      As long as the world turns Marky Mark will have someone to moan about.

                      Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
                      And anyway, we all know that there is no way that a socialist welfare state with its unsustainable entitlements and a declining population base can afford to limit immigration. So, Europe gets more Muslim and less European with each passing day.
                      Hurm.....I disagree:

                      'There are at least three mitigating factors to be considered, which suggest that the German welfare state and others in Europe might not have to be dismantled *wholesale.

                      The first is that the traditional retirement age of 60 in Italy, France, and Germany is very early indeed, especially considering that life expectancy is approaching 80 and that modern diets and medicine allow many elderly people to continue working well into their seventies. An increase of the retirement age to 65, which is being slowly introduced in France and Germany, would sharply reduce the number of *non*workers who depend on the employed for support, as would more employment for people below the age of 20. A retirement age of 70 in Germany would virtually end the problem, at least until life expectancy rose as high as 90 *years.

                      Second, the work force participation rate in Germany (and much of continental Europe) is relatively low. Not only do Germans retire on the early side, but the generous social welfare system allows others to withdraw from work earlier in life. An increase in employment would boost the revenues flowing into the social security system. For example, only 67 percent of women in Germany were in the work force in 2005, compared with 76 percent in Denmark and 78 percent in Switzerland. (The average rate for the 15 “core” EU states is 64 percent; for the United States, 70 percent.)

                      David Coleman, a demographer at Oxford University, has suggested that the EU’s work force could be increased by nearly a third if both sexes were to match Denmark’s participation rates. The EU itself has set a target participation rate of 70 percent for both sex*es. Reaching this goal would significantly alleviate the fiscal challenge of maintaining Europe’s welfare system, which has been aptly described as “more of a labor-market challenge than a demographic crisis.”

                      The third mitigating factor is that the total depen*d*ency ratios of the 21st century are going to look remarkably similar to those of the 1960s. In the United States, the most onerous year for dependency was 1965, when there were 95 dependents for every 100 adults between the ages of 20 and 64. That occurred be*cause “dependents” includes people both younger and older than working age. By 2002, there were only 49 dependents for every 100 *working-*age Americans. By 2025 there are projected to be 80, still well below the peak of 1965. The difference is that while most dependents in the 1960s were young, with their working and saving and contributing lives ahead of them, most of the dependents of 2009 are older, with more dependency still to come. But the point is clear: There is nothing outlandish about having almost as many dependents as working *adults.


                      There is still room for a European welfare state, just scaled back in certain areas, sorry to dissapoint you're Objectivist twitch - taken from this report Muslim Birthrates Falling Worldwide Terryorisms, which is about, drumroll.......Falling Muslim birth rates!!

                      Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
                      Insist if you'd like, but it's the same brain-dead insistance that is personified by that feckless and silly 'coexist' bumper sticker: we canNOT coexist with the intolerance that is represented by the agressive and violent faiths that cannot abide sharing the planet with the 'other'. That's YOU, mate, and ME, and all of us that don't want to be submissive to Islam.

                      The difference, though, is that I'm perpared to see it for what it is, and push back. You, though? You're just dead weight, inhibiting me from defending either of us.
                      I think you're deranged, no point skipping around I suppose.

                      Are there terrible Muslim in the world?

                      Unquestionably, but then there are terrible Christians in the world - Freddie Phelps pickets dead soliders funerals, Gay preachers scream against Gay marriage while dragging marriage through the mud by being unfaithful to their own love....Matthew Sheppard was strung up on a fence by people he thought would be friends and George Tiller was shot point blank while he was praying to the god in who's love for life his killer murdered him.

                      Any other religion can be picked (or none in the case of Mao/Stalin), any amount of atrocities can be examined.
                      The fact is that all religions are potentially bad, that bad people exist, and often use religion as a cover.....sometimes a person is so zealous he takes others lives, this is what we associate Islam today with but then they use to associate being Japanese or German American in WW2 as being a potential traitor, they used to associate being Irish with being stupid and they used to associate being a tutsi with deserving death.

                      I have no time for Sharia, fundementalism or blown up buses, but the difference of my argument is I believe if you asked them most Muslims wouldn't either.

                      So you can keep up the pathetic 'one man between us and Sharia' SHCTICK all you want, it doesn't make it any less illogical or pathetic.
                      Last edited by crooks; 10 Aug 09,, 05:49.
                      Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
                      - John Stuart Mill.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                        Crooks,

                        I think that after a while here at WAB either of us could script some of the responses that you know are coming. Blues has already put in his standard combination of abuse supported by dubious scholarship (if at all). There are some others will be more civilized, but no happier that you are deflating one of the cherished bogeymen of the anti-immigration/anti-multicultural/anti-muslim right (and occasionally left). I'm just hoping that the diversity of opinion usually on display here gives you something more intereasting than that.

                        As you have pointed out, the problem with such hysteria is that it doesn't provide a useful strating point for the discussion that needs to be had - how to manage immigration & cultural diversity. The 'all muzlinz is da same' school of thought is easily the least helpful way of approaching this incredibly complex issue. Like many all-encompassing myths, however, it provides the comfort of not having to think about or deal with those complexities - simple answers to complex problems are the intellectual equivalent of taking hard drugs.

                        Have fun.
                        Nicely put BF, and thanks - I'd love to have some of you're Articulationade ;):)!
                        Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
                        - John Stuart Mill.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Correct in all details, as usual, crooks. Nothing to see here. No connection to any particular creed, or nuthin'. Coulda' been a Methodist...

                          The reason you can name Matthew Shepard, you yob, is that he was a VERY rare instance of homicide against a gay guy. Oh, I mean, it's rare in the WEST, certainly not unknown in the Muslim world. There, in fact, it's actually state-sanctioned. Ditto George Tiller, but I bet you can't name two people that have died in the story I linked to above, now, can ya? How 'bout the Islamic Atrocity Du Jour from yesterday, or the day before THAT? Because not a single day passes without one, SOMEwhere.

                          There is simply no comparison, and you truly are a fool - a real, hopeless, ignorant fool - if you can't see it.

                          And it's worse if you simply WON'T see it. I think that's really where your head's at. You can't face it, so you lie to yourself about it. And that's REALLY pathetic.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Crooks, just live in a muslim majority area out of the first world for a year, all your peaceful fuzzy feelings will evaporate. Heck to give an example from india, just stand at a kebab place in any corner of old hyderbad and listen to the conversation.
                            We in India lost, we have been ruled over many centuries by various islamic kingdoms and many of our countrymen became islamic over the centuries. We have to bite the bullet and coexist and compromise.
                            Europe still has a chance to stay free, dont lose it.
                            For Gallifrey! For Victory! For the end of time itself!!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by bolo121 View Post
                              Crooks, just live in a muslim majority area out of the first world for a year, all your peaceful fuzzy feelings will evaporate. Heck to give an example from india, just stand at a kebab place in any corner of old hyderbad and listen to the conversation.
                              We in India lost, we have been ruled over many centuries by various islamic kingdoms and many of our countrymen became islamic over the centuries. We have to bite the bullet and coexist and compromise.
                              Europe still has a chance to stay free, dont lose it.
                              Guess noone read what I said.
                              Originally from Sochi, Russia.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X