Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Posted: 4/21/2007 2:34:59 PM EDT
The Brussels Journal
2007-04-19

Jihad and the Collapse of the Swedish Model
By Fjordman

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2065

I decided to write this essay following the riots in Malmö this weekend. Malmö is Sweden's third largest city and by far the worst city in Scandinavia when it comes to Muslim aggression. I read recently that an Arab girl interviewed in Malmö said that she liked it so much there, it felt almost like an Arab city. Native Swedes have been moving away from the city for years, turned into refugees in their own country by Jihad, not too different from the non-Muslims in some regions of the Philippines, southern Thailand or Kashmir in India, or for that matter Christian Serbs in Kosovo.
Sweden was presented during the Cold War as a middle way between capitalism and Communism. When this model of a society collapses – and it will collapse, under the combined forces of Islamic Jihad, the European Union, Multiculturalism and ideological overstretch – it is thus not just the Swedish state that will collapse but the symbol of Sweden, the showcase of an entire ideological world view. I wrote two years ago that if the trend isn't stopped, the Swedish nation will simply cease to exist in any meaningful way during the first half of this century. The country that gave us Bergman, ABBA and Volvo could become known as the Bosnia of northern Europe, and the “Swedish model” will be one of warning against ideological madness, not one of admiration. I still fear I was right in that assessment.
Jonathan Friedman, an American living outside Malmö, mentions that the so-called Integration Act of 1997 proclaimed that “Sweden is a Multicultural society.” Notes to the Act also stated that “Since a large group of people have their origins in another country, the Swedish population lacks a common history. The relationship to Sweden and the support given to the fundamental values of society thus carry greater significance for integration than a common historical origin.”
Native Swedes have thus been reduced to just another ethnic group in Sweden, with no more claim to the country than the Kurds or the Somalis who arrived there last Thursday. The political authorities of the country have erased their own people's history and culture.
Jens Orback, Minister for Democracy, Metropolitan Affairs, Integration and Gender Equality from the Social Democratic Party said during a debate in Swedish radio in 2004 that “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”
This is a government that knows perfectly well that their people will become a minority in their own country, yet is doing nothing to stop this. On the contrary. Pierre Schori, Minister for immigration, during a parliamentary debate in 1997 said that: “Racism and xenophobia should be banned and chased [away],” and that one should not accept “excuses, such as that there were flaws in the immigration and refugee policies.”
In other words: It should be viewed as a crime for the native population not to assist in wiping themselves out.
Orback's attitude is what follows once you declare that culture is irrelevant. Our culture, even though we try to forget it, is steeped in a Judeo-Christian morality based on the Golden Rule of reciprocity: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Luke 6:31)
Muslims, on the other hand, are steeped in an Islamic tradition based on Muslim supremacy. Muslims view lack of force as a sign of weakness, and they despise weakness, which is precisely why Adolf Hitler stated his admiration for Islam, and thought it would be a better match for Nazism than Christianity, with its childish notions of compassion.
A Swedish man was nearly killed for the crime of wearing clothes with his own national flag while Sweden was participating in the 2006 football World Cup. Some “Multicultural youths” found this to be an intolerable provocation, and the 24-year-old man was run down by a car in Malmö, where Muhammad is becoming the most common name for newborn boys.
Feriz and Pajtim, members of Gangsta Albanian Thug Unit in Malmö, explain how they mug people downtown. They target a lone victim. “We surround him and beat and kick him until he no longer fights back,” Feriz said. “You are always many more people than your victims. Cowardly?” “I have heard that from many, but I disagree. The whole point is that they're not supposed to have a chance.” They didn't express any sympathy for their victims. "If they get injured, they just have themselves to blame for being weak," said Pajtim and shrugged.
The wave of robberies the city of Malmö has witnessed is part of a “war against the Swedes.” This is the explanation given by young robbers from immigrant background in interviews with Petra Åkesson. “When we are in the city and robbing we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes.” This argument was repeated several times. “Power for me means that the Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet.” The boys explain, laughingly, that “there is a thrilling sensation in your body when you're robbing, you feel satisfied and happy, it feels as if you've succeeded, it simply feels good.” “We rob every single day, as often as we want to, whenever we want to. The Swedes don't do anything, they just give us the stuff. They're so wimpy.”
“Exit Folkhemssverige - En samhällsmodells sönderfall” (Exit the People's Home of Sweden - The Downfall of a Model of Society) is a book from 2005 about immigration and the Swedish welfare state model dubbed “the people's home,” written by Jonathan Friedman, Ingrid Björkman, Jan Elfverson and Åke Wedin. According to them, the Swedish Multicultural elites see themselves first of all as citizens of the world. In order to emphasize and accentuate diversity, everything Swedish is deliberately disparaged. Opposition to this policy is considered a form of racism:
“The dominant ideology in Sweden, which has been made dominant by powerful methods of silencing and repression, is a totalitarian ideology, where the elites oppose the national aspect of the nation state. The problem is that the ethnic group that are described as Swedes implicitly are considered to be nationalists, and thereby are viewed as racists.”
The authors fear that the handling of the immigration policies has seriously eroded democracy because the citizens lose their loyalty towards a state they no longer consider their own. “Instead of increasing the active participation of citizens, the government has placed clear restrictions on freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of congregation.”
Mona Sahlin has held various posts in Social Democratic cabinets, among others as Minister for Democracy, Integration and Gender Equality. Sahlin has said that many Swedes are envious of immigrants because they, unlike the Swedes, have a culture, a history, something which ties them together. Notice how Swedish authorities first formally state that Swedes don't have a history or a culture, and then proceed to lament the fact that Swedes don't have a history or a culture. A neat trick.
Sahlin has also stated that: “If two equally qualified persons apply for a job at a workplace with few immigrants, the one called Muhammad should get the job. […] It should be considered an asset to have an ethnic background different from the Swedish one.” In 2004, she was quoted as saying that “A concerted effort that aims at educating Swedes that immigrants are a blessing to their country must be pursued,” stressing that her compatriots must accept that the new society is Multicultural. “Like it or not, this is the new Sweden.”
Mona Sahlin was elected leader of the Social Democratic Party, as thus a future contender for the post of Swedish Prime Minister, in 2007.
Why does the government dispense with the social contract and attack its own people like this? Well, for starters, because it can. Sweden is currently arguably the most politically repressive and totalitarian country in the Western world. It also has the highest tax rates. That could be a a coincidence, but I'm not sure that it is. The state has become so large and powerful that is has become an autonomous organism with a will of its own. The people are there to serve the state, not vice versa. And because state power penetrates every single corner of society, including the media, there are no places left to mount a defense if the state decides to attack you.
It has been said jokingly that while other countries are states with armies, Pakistan is an army with a state. Likewise, it could be argued that Sweden started out being a nation with a bureaucracy and ended up being a bureaucracy with a nation. In fact, the bureaucracy formally abolished the very nation it was supposed to serve. Its representatives are no longer leaders of a people, but caretakers preoccupied only with advancing their own careers through oiling and upholding, if possible expanding, the bureaucratic machinery.
Swedes pay the highest tax rates of any (supposedly) free nation, and for this they get flawed social security, non-existent physical security and a state apparatus dedicated to their destruction.
Anna Ekelund in the newspaper Aftonbladet writes that: “We are a people who allow ourselves to be insulted by the government on a daily basis. We are not expected to be capable of thinking for ourselves, of deciding what we will read, or managing our own money. […] Swedes are as co-dependent as an alcoholic's wife. Yet we do not hurry to the ballot box to remove the prevailing systems. Not because we don't want to but because too many of us have painted ourselves into their corners.”
Moreover, Swedes are keenly aware of the fact that their country is viewed by many outsiders as a “model society.” Sweden is a deeply ideological state dedicated to imposing a certain world view on its citizens, and because the state is ideological, dissenters are quite literally treated as enemies of the state.
In the book The New Totalitarians, the British historian Roland Huntford in the early 1970s pointed out that it was easier to establish the Fascist model of the corporate state in Sweden than in Mussolini's Italy for cultural reasons, since Sweden had a centralized bureaucracy whereas Italians are skeptical of state authority. Put simply: Swedes have tended to trust their bureaucrats, which no Italian in his right mind would ever do.
According to him, “The Swedes have a horror of controversy as something unpleasant, inefficient and vaguely immoral. They require for peace of mind, not confrontation, but consensus. Consensus guides everything: private conversation, intellectual life and the running of the State.”
The then Minister of Education, Mr. Ingvar Carlsson, defined the purpose of schooling: “It is to produce a well adjusted, good member of society. It teaches people to respect the consensus, and not to sabotage it” He also on one occasion said that “School is the spearhead of Socialism.” Mr. Carlsson was Swedish Prime Minister as late as 1996.
Mr. Carlsson's mentor in the Social Democratic Party and predecessor as Swedish Prime Minister (1969 to 1986), Mr. Olof Palme, openly flaunted his disregard, if not contempt for, Western civilization: “The Renaissance so-called? Western culture? What does it mean to us?” Under the watchful eye of the Labor movement, Swedish education has for decades mounted deliberate attacks on Western culture, making it look suspect.
According to Mr. Huntford, “When the Swedes change ideas, they do it to the full, leaving no room for criticism or reservation. The country lacks intellectual defences; anything new will conquer without resistance being offered.” The consensus “assumes that technological advancement is the sole path to happiness, and the Gross National Product the only measure of national success. It also assumes that the good of the collective at all times must take precedence over the good of the individual. It prescribes that the fundamentals of Swedish society must never be questioned or discussed.”
This is how Mrs Maj Bossom-Nordboe, then departmental chief of at the Directorate of Schools, expressed it: “It's useless to build up individuality, because unless people learned to adapt themselves to society, they would be unhappy. Liberty is not emphasized. Instead, we talk about the freedom to give up freedom. The accent is on the social function of children, and I will not deny that we emphasize the collective.”
Roland Huntford ended his book with a warning that this system of soft-totalitarianism could be exported to other countries. He has been proven right since:
“The Swedes have demonstrated how present techniques can be applied in ideal conditions. Sweden is a control experiment on an isolated and sterilized subject. Pioneers in the new totalitarianism, the Swedes are a warning of what probably lies in store for the rest of us, unless we take care to resist control and centralization, and unless we remember that politics are not to be delegated, but are the concern of the individual. The new totalitarians, dealing in persuasion and manipulation, must be more efficient than the old, who depended upon force.”
Following the September 2006 elections, Fredrik Reinfeldt became Prime Minister of Sweden, presiding over a center-right coalition government. This is, in my view, positive. Sweden has been described by some as a “one-party state,” since the Social Democrats have been in power for 65 of the last 74 years. However, the differences between the left-wing and the right-wing in Sweden are not always that big.
The last time these parties were in power, under the leadership of PM Carl Bildt from 1991 to 94, they presided over massive immigration, and have not been vocal in their opposition to the Multicultural policies since. The new Foreign Minister Bildt as a UN Commissioner to the Balkans called for recognizing Islam as a part of European culture.
PM Reinfeldt has stated that the original Swedish culture was merely barbarism: “It can sometimes be good to humbly remind of the fact that a great deal of what constitutes Sweden has been created in [a process of] evolution, exactly because we have been open to accept other people and experiences.”
Reinfeldt said this following a visit to an area called Ronna in Södertälje, near Stockholm. One year earlier a police station in Södertälje was hit by shots from an automatic weapon following a major confrontation between immigrant youths and police. The trouble in Ronna started after a Swedish girl had been called a “whore” and reacted to this. Ethnologist Maria Bäckman, in her study “Whiteness and gender,” has followed a group of Swedish girls in the immigrant suburb of Rinkeby outside Stockholm. Bäckman relates that several of the blond Swedish girls stated that they had dyed their hair to avoid sexual harassment.
I have called Sweden a soft-totalitarian country, but I am sometimes not so sure about the “soft” part. Opinion polls have revealed that two out of three Swedes doubt whether Islam can be combined with Swedish society, and a very significant proportion of the population have for years wanted more limitations on immigration. Yet not one party represented in Parliament is genuinely critical of the Multicultural society.
Is it just a coincidence that the one country on the European continent that has avoided war for the longest period of time, Sweden, is also arguably the one Western nation where Political Correctness has reached the worst heights? Maybe the prolonged period of peace has created an environment where layers of ideological nonsense have been allowed to pile up for generations without stop. I don't know what Sweden will look like a generation from now, but I'm pretty sure it won't be viewed as a model society. And if the absence of war is one of the causes of its current weakness, I fear that is a problem that will soon be cured.
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 2:41:54 PM EDT
[#1]

Muslims, on the other hand, are steeped in an Islamic tradition based on Muslim supremacy. Muslims view lack of force as a sign of weakness, and they despise weakness, which is precisely why Adolf Hitler stated his admiration for Islam, and thought it would be a better match for Nazism than Christianity, with its childish notions of compassion.


Cliff notes....

class dismissed.
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 2:44:17 PM EDT
[#2]
I guess ill give up the fight and convert to islam then.
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 2:45:59 PM EDT
[#3]
I thought it was going to have pics of a swedish model.
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 2:48:03 PM EDT
[#4]
Great read.
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 3:02:42 PM EDT
[#5]
Like I've said before, places like Sweden and the UK are great, because they allow you to see what the liberals want for us put into action. And it's so horrible it just re-affirms all my political beliefs and faith in the American way.



I remember one time I was reading DU, and they were singing paeans to Sweden and Finaland about what ideal countries and systems they were.  Then a Finn who emigrated to the US joined the discussion and started raining on their parade.

He said almost the exact thing the essayist in the original post said: the Finnish government bureaucracy was an ever-expanding, self-serving institution that controlled nearly every aspect of life.  How it was really really hard to get ahead, and that if you were ambitious and wanted to get ahead, your best bet was to work for the government because that's where all the opportunity is.

Went on to say how living standards were not so great, how conformist everyone is, yada yada.  So how did the American leftists he told this to react?  They told him-a guy who used to LIVE there for over 20 years-that he didn't know what he was talking about.

Fucking DU.
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 3:12:58 PM EDT
[#6]
Fuck them for their own perversion of their part of the world or...

let the socialists find their own Milošević and may the world leave them alone.  Whom ever wins gets the dirt.
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 3:17:49 PM EDT
[#7]

Don't have a lot of sympathy for Sweden, because a lot of what that article says is 100% true - and they have brought their problems on themselves.  Now they get to sleep in the bed they have made.


Still - there is definitely some exaggeration in that article too.  Indigenous Swedes are in no danger of becoming a "minority" in Sweden anytime soon (still today, almost 90% of the population is Lutheran), and the country certainly isn't as "totalitarian" or "socialist" as the article paints it as.

Nonetheless, if there were a country that had the potential to become another fascist state some day, I could totally see it happening in Sweden.  I've always seen it as "the Germany of Scandinavia" - and there is a very strong undercurrent of strong conservatism and nationalism in the population, even if they bend over backwards pretending to be all PC and touchy-feeley.  

Link Posted: 4/21/2007 3:20:35 PM EDT
[#8]

Quoted:
I thought it was going to have pics of a swedish model.

Preferably blonde, at that...
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 3:21:59 PM EDT
[#9]
DK-Prof,

May you always post after one of my knee-jerk... spouts.

Dave S
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 3:23:01 PM EDT
[#10]

Quoted:

Nonetheless, if there were a country that had the potential to become another fascist state some day, I could totally see it happening in Sweden.  I've always seen it as "the Germany of Scandinavia" - and there is a very strong undercurrent of strong conservatism and nationalism in the population, even if they bend over backwards pretending to be all PC and touchy-feeley.  



Hey, it's the way Scandinavians are. We act all compassionate and touchy-feely just to get along without a big fuss, but sooner or later we all snap and someone ends up dead.
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 3:23:22 PM EDT
[#11]

Quoted:
DK-Prof,

May you always post after one of my knee-jerk... spouts.

Dave S



Is that good or bad?  


I feel bad enough already at having had to defend Sweden, even in the small and back-handed way I did.  
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 4:16:49 PM EDT
[#12]

Quoted:
I thought it was going to have pics of a swedish model.



swedish model?





Back on topic, I'm not sure who's Imagration problem is greater, Europe or America.


pa-15
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 4:38:35 PM EDT
[#13]
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 4:52:00 PM EDT
[#14]
The part about the Muslim gangs doing robberies and beatdowns.......funny, we don't have that problem in Texas. I wonder why?hotgun.gif
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 4:55:04 PM EDT
[#15]
I believe there is an unwritten rule that if you use "Swedish" in a post title that it must include  some Swedish Erotica........

Video or pictures are acceptable.
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 5:01:41 PM EDT
[#16]

Quoted:
I believe there is an unwritten rule that if you use "Swedish" in a post title that it must include  some Swedish Erotica........

Video or pictures are acceptable.



As you wish:

Link Posted: 4/21/2007 5:02:48 PM EDT
[#17]
I'd recommend reading the book "While Europe Slept" - Eye opening, on how Islam is taking down europe from within, using their tax dollars.
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 5:09:28 PM EDT
[#18]

Quoted:
The part about the Muslim gangs doing robberies and beatdowns.......funny, we don't have that problem in Texas. I wonder why?


You do actually.
The problem Europe is having is not a matter of Islam, but of uncontrolled immigration.
So tell me how you don't have any problems with immigrant gangs doing robberies and beatdowns...
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 5:14:59 PM EDT
[#19]

Quoted:

European whites have stopped having children and have decided to let immigrants (read muslims) come in and do everything for them.
If current trends continue, Europe will be a muslim country in 60 years.

I, however, believe the inherent facist tendencies of the europeans will kick in and you will see a muslim holocaust before then.



I don't know how many times I have to point out that is mathematically impossible.

Most European countries have less than 5% muslim populations, and it is a complete untruth that "european whites have stopped having children" - obviously, I am most familiar with Denmark.  Pretty much every one of my army buddies I know of (except one), has children - usually two.  My brother has two children.  My cousins all have children.  How is this possible, if european whites have stopped having children?  Am I lying?  Or is the original claim pretty much incorrect?

It IS correct that first-generation muslim immigrants probably have more children than indigenous populations - but those differences are perhaps something like the immigrants having two or three kids, and the indigenous people having one or two.  The birth rates among indigenous Europeans have absolutely been dropping - and may be below self-sustaining rates - but all that means is that the populations will very gradually drop over time.

There is simply NO WAY that 5% of a population can suddenly become a majority in 60 years, just by having slightly higher birth rates.  (And, once you get to second and third-generation muslims, their birth rates are close to the indigenous ones anyway - so the rate is NOT compounded as some might think).

Some countries, like France (in particular) ARE going to have big problems, and have a much higher than average proportion of muslims because of their North African connection - but these general statements about european whites "not" having children, and muslims being a majority in 60 years, are simply not correct (or even mathematically possible).
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 5:15:18 PM EDT
[#20]
That's mainly in the bigger cities where there are more liberals that are less likely to be armed. Out in the country, even if there's a heavy hispanic population doing agricultural work, they don't do this much. Also, most robberies here, especially against men, are ARMED robberies. Very few of our criminals try the strong-arm approach anymore. It's a good way to get shot.
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 5:30:01 PM EDT
[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
I thought it was going to have pics of a swedish model.



swedish model?


www.scratch-golfer.com/WoodsMarriesSwedishModelinBarbados.jpg


Back on topic, I'm not sure who's Imagration problem is greater, Europe or America.


pa-15

Europe's is much, much worse.
European whites have stopped having children and have decided to let immigrants (read muslims) come in and do everything for them.
If current trends continue, Europe will be a muslim country in 60 years.

I, however, believe the inherent facist tendencies of the europeans will kick in and you will see a muslim holocaust before then.



Promise?
I kid!  I kid!
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 5:36:37 PM EDT
[#22]

Quoted:
The part about the Muslim gangs doing robberies and beatdowns.......funny, we don't have that problem in Texas. I wonder why?


Because the latino gangs don't allow that crap in Aztlan?
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 5:46:11 PM EDT
[#23]
Fjordman is a great blogger. Visit this blog for more good reads and perspective on the European/Muslim problem.
gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 5:51:38 PM EDT
[#24]
According to this article from the Brookings Institute, Europe 's Muslim Street
Muslim  birthrates in Europe are 3 times that of Europeans. The Cia Factbook says that Swedish birthrates are below replacement levels at 2 children per woman (replacement is about 2.7 children per woman, not 2 as the simplistic figure it). That means Muslims are having about 6 children per woman in Europe. With continued immigration (they haven't stopped it, have they? No...that would be "racist"!) it won't be that long before Sweden is majority Islamic.

I do believe it is invasion by other means, and hopefully Europe will rise up like Charles Martel and expel the invaders.
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 5:54:28 PM EDT
[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:

European whites have stopped having children and have decided to let immigrants (read muslims) come in and do everything for them.
If current trends continue, Europe will be a muslim country in 60 years.

I, however, believe the inherent facist tendencies of the europeans will kick in and you will see a muslim holocaust before then.



I don't know how many times I have to point out that is mathematically impossible.

Most European countries have less than 5% muslim populations, and it is a complete untruth that "european whites have stopped having children" - obviously, I am most familiar with Denmark.  Pretty much every one of my army buddies I know of (except one), has children - usually two.  My brother has two children.  My cousins all have children.  How is this possible, if european whites have stopped having children?  Am I lying?  Or is the original claim pretty much incorrect?

It IS correct that first-generation muslim immigrants probably have more children than indigenous populations - but those differences are perhaps something like the immigrants having two or three kids, and the indigenous people having one or two.  The birth rates among indigenous Europeans have absolutely been dropping - and may be below self-sustaining rates - but all that means is that the populations will very gradually drop over time.

There is simply NO WAY that 5% of a population can suddenly become a majority in 60 years, just by having slightly higher birth rates.  (And, once you get to second and third-generation muslims, their birth rates are close to the indigenous ones anyway - so the rate is NOT compounded as some might think).

Some countries, like France (in particular) ARE going to have big problems, and have a much higher than average proportion of muslims because of their North African connection - but these general statements about european whites "not" having children, and muslims being a majority in 60 years, are simply not correct (or even mathematically possible).



Yea but the others are having four and 5 children thus making your natural population zero growth.
Link Posted: 4/22/2007 10:39:56 PM EDT
[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
I thought it was going to have pics of a swedish model.



swedish model?


www.scratch-golfer.com/WoodsMarriesSwedishModelinBarbados.jpg


Back on topic, I'm not sure who's Imagration problem is greater, Europe or America.


pa-15

Europe's is much, much worse.
European whites have stopped having children and have decided to let immigrants (read muslims) come in and do everything for them.
If current trends continue, Europe will be a muslim country in 60 years.

I, however, believe the inherent facist tendencies of the europeans will kick in and you will see a muslim holocaust before then.


Of course Iran will respond to that with a their second mass nuclear strike!  Israel being vaporized years earlier by the first one.
Link Posted: 4/22/2007 10:54:31 PM EDT
[#27]
Well, since they can't kill us all; then they'll outpopulate us by virtue of their growth; they are begining to outreproduce the native inhabitants of other nations; then use their numbers to force governments to bend to their will.

I think there was a good article somewhere about how Muslims are outreproducing Europeans almost 10 to 1; look how their numbers are growing in places like France, Germany, Denmark and the UK; since the Euro-weenies are not reproducing; eventually within 10 years time, most of Europe will be predominantly Muslim (probably in less time) because they are breeding like rabbits (I'd rather use another term, but...)
Link Posted: 4/22/2007 11:23:30 PM EDT
[#28]
Link Posted: 4/22/2007 11:53:30 PM EDT
[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:

European whites have stopped having children and have decided to let immigrants (read muslims) come in and do everything for them.
If current trends continue, Europe will be a muslim country in 60 years.

I, however, believe the inherent facist tendencies of the europeans will kick in and you will see a muslim holocaust before then.



I don't know how many times I have to point out that is mathematically impossible.

Most European countries have less than 5% muslim populations, and it is a complete untruth that "european whites have stopped having children" - obviously, I am most familiar with Denmark.  Pretty much every one of my army buddies I know of (except one), has children - usually two.  My brother has two children.  My cousins all have children.  How is this possible, if european whites have stopped having children?  Am I lying?  Or is the original claim pretty much incorrect?

It IS correct that first-generation muslim immigrants probably have more children than indigenous populations - but those differences are perhaps something like the immigrants having two or three kids, and the indigenous people having one or two.  The birth rates among indigenous Europeans have absolutely been dropping - and may be below self-sustaining rates - but all that means is that the populations will very gradually drop over time.

There is simply NO WAY that 5% of a population can suddenly become a majority in 60 years, just by having slightly higher birth rates.  (And, once you get to second and third-generation muslims, their birth rates are close to the indigenous ones anyway - so the rate is NOT compounded as some might think).

Some countries, like France (in particular) ARE going to have big problems, and have a much higher than average proportion of muslims because of their North African connection - but these general statements about european whites "not" having children, and muslims being a majority in 60 years, are simply not correct (or even mathematically possible).


LEts GET REAL here OK? Even if what you said Mathmatically were true, i say, so what??
Since when does it become a problem when 100% of the population is Muslim? I'd say that was the END of the problem! (just ask all the countries that have become 100% Islamic in just the last 100 years like Turkey or Iran or Pakistan) The plain fact is if you look at the "numbers" as based on a percentage of the population the "problems" begin at a very, very, low number. You wont have to wait for 51% for the problems to really begin. You wont have to rely on "hypothsis" or "speculation" or "racist propaganda" either. There are so many historical examples of countries where the initial population was 3-4% but in the end it ended up 95%. The story was always the same. I cant give you a whole essay on the subject but if you are really interested you can look up the "histories" of these countries and their ethnic makeup and the eventual "displacement". Kinda like how originally England was 100% Celtic and now they are a "germanic" people.
      FOr example take the netherlands, What is the population there? Yet despite this small number they have already transformed the peoples attitudes! 500 years since the dutch attacked a house of worship yet the muslims manage to make them do it in 25 years of immigration?? thats gotta be some kind of record. An artist killed in the street while riding his bicycle and his throat slit? One politician killed by an insane Islam apologist leftist and another gone into hiding and eventual expulsion?? And what is the population? 5%? wait till its 15 or 20%.
Link Posted: 4/22/2007 11:59:11 PM EDT
[#30]
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 6:49:38 AM EDT
[#31]
Where are the Swedish models???

Link Posted: 4/23/2007 6:57:18 AM EDT
[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

European whites have stopped having children and have decided to let immigrants (read muslims) come in and do everything for them.
If current trends continue, Europe will be a muslim country in 60 years.

I, however, believe the inherent facist tendencies of the europeans will kick in and you will see a muslim holocaust before then.



I don't know how many times I have to point out that is mathematically impossible.

Most European countries have less than 5% muslim populations, and it is a complete untruth that "european whites have stopped having children" - obviously, I am most familiar with Denmark.  Pretty much every one of my army buddies I know of (except one), has children - usually two.  My brother has two children.  My cousins all have children.  How is this possible, if european whites have stopped having children?  Am I lying?  Or is the original claim pretty much incorrect?

It IS correct that first-generation muslim immigrants probably have more children than indigenous populations - but those differences are perhaps something like the immigrants having two or three kids, and the indigenous people having one or two.  The birth rates among indigenous Europeans have absolutely been dropping - and may be below self-sustaining rates - but all that means is that the populations will very gradually drop over time.

There is simply NO WAY that 5% of a population can suddenly become a majority in 60 years, just by having slightly higher birth rates.  (And, once you get to second and third-generation muslims, their birth rates are close to the indigenous ones anyway - so the rate is NOT compounded as some might think).

Some countries, like France (in particular) ARE going to have big problems, and have a much higher than average proportion of muslims because of their North African connection - but these general statements about european whites "not" having children, and muslims being a majority in 60 years, are simply not correct (or even mathematically possible).


LEts GET REAL here OK? Even if what you said Mathmatically were true, i say, so what??
Since when does it become a problem when 100% of the population is Muslim? I'd say that was the END of the problem! (just ask all the countries that have become 100% Islamic in just the last 100 years like Turkey or Iran or Pakistan) The plain fact is if you look at the "numbers" as based on a percentage of the population the "problems" begin at a very, very, low number. You wont have to wait for 51% for the problems to really begin. You wont have to rely on "hypothsis" or "speculation" or "racist propaganda" either. There are so many historical examples of countries where the initial population was 3-4% but in the end it ended up 95%. The story was always the same. I cant give you a whole essay on the subject but if you are really interested you can look up the "histories" of these countries and their ethnic makeup and the eventual "displacement". Kinda like how originally England was 100% Celtic and now they are a "germanic" people.
      FOr example take the netherlands, What is the population there? Yet despite this small number they have already transformed the peoples attitudes! 500 years since the dutch attacked a house of worship yet the muslims manage to make them do it in 25 years of immigration?? thats gotta be some kind of record. An artist killed in the street while riding his bicycle and his throat slit? One politician killed by an insane Islam apologist leftist and another gone into hiding and eventual expulsion?? And what is the population? 5%? wait till its 15 or 20%.



You need to actually READ what I am writing.

I am pointing out that the people who claim that "OMG - muslims are going to be a majority in Europe in no time" are making claims that are basically mathematically impossible.

I'm NOT saying that muslims aren't a problem.  They're a huge problem, and I'm very concened about it.  I'm just not SO concerned that I'm going to believe in impossible "sky-is-falling" scenarios, that's all.

Try not to have a knee-jerk reaction to any disagreement, but appreciate what is actually being said.  I'm specifically commenting on the mathematical claims about population growth, that's all.  It's perfectly obvious that even a 5% proportion of the population is problematic, but that's a completely different topic - and not what I was commenting on.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 6:59:02 AM EDT
[#33]

Quoted:

I think there was a good article somewhere about how Muslims are outreproducing Europeans almost 10 to 1; look how their numbers are growing in places like France, Germany, Denmark and the UK; since the Euro-weenies are not reproducing; eventually within 10 years time, most of Europe will be predominantly Muslim (probably in less time) because they are breeding like rabbits (I'd rather use another term, but...)




Feel free to find a kid in elementary school to check your math for you and explain to you why it's wrong.

Link Posted: 4/23/2007 7:51:52 AM EDT
[#34]
height=8
Quoted:
height=8
Quoted:

I think there was a good article somewhere about how Muslims are outreproducing Europeans almost 10 to 1; look how their numbers are growing in places like France, Germany, Denmark and the UK; since the Euro-weenies are not reproducing; eventually within 10 years time, most of Europe will be predominantly Muslim (probably in less time) because they are breeding like rabbits (I'd rather use another term, but...)


hool
have
The euro population isn't growing, its shrinking.

The immigrants are outbreeding them.

Maybe its simple math as you've said that they still won't catch up, but that assumes no more will come over.

Combine higher birth rates with massive unchecked immigration and things will get entertaining.

How long do you think all of those young muslims are going to want to put up with being second class citizens paying into a system that takes care of a bunch of old white farts?


www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/15/wimm15.xml

height=8

At least 2.2 million migrants will arrive in the rich world every year from now until 2050, the United Nations said yesterday.


Britain's population will rise from 60 million to approaching 69 million by 2050 - almost entirely because of immigration.

The latest figures from the UN's population division predict a global upheaval without parallel in human history over the next four decades.

There will be billions more people in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Of these, tens of millions will migrate to Europe and America, while the indigenous populations of most countries in the rich world will either stagnate or decline.

In total, the world's population will grow by 2.5 billion and reach about 9.2 billion by 2050.

This increase - almost all of which will occur in Africa, Asia and the Middle East - is the equivalent of the global population in 1950.

While some countries will grow exponentially, others will shrink dramatically.

The UN predicts the steady depopulation of vast areas of eastern Europe and the former Communist world, as a result of high levels of emigration and birth rates running persistently below replacement levels.

Bulgaria's population will fall by 35 per cent by 2050. Ukraine's will plummet by 33 per cent, Russia's by one quarter and Poland's by one fifth. There will be 10 per cent fewer Germans and seven per cent fewer Italians.

But the flow of migrants across borders will dramatically increase the populations of other developed countries.

"The population of the more developed regions is expected to remain largely unchanged at 1.2 billion, and would have declined, were it not for the projected net migration from developing to developed countries," said the UN.

The level of sustained, mass migration across borders that the world will experience over the next four decades is unprecedented.

Between 1970 and 1980, the rich world took about one million migrants a year from poor countries. During the next 43 years, immigration will run at more than twice that level and approach 2.3 million every year from now until 2050.

Of these migrants, some 400,000 will leave Africa every year and about 1.2 million will emigrate from Asia. The gap in wealth and opportunity between the rich and poor worlds will be the most significant "pull factor" behind this change. But the pressure exerted by rapidly rising populations in developing countries will also be an important underlying cause.

By 2050, India will have the highest population in the world, totalling almost 1.7 billion people. There will be 292 million Pakistanis, giving their country the fifth biggest population. Nigeria will have 289 million people - making it the world's sixth most populous country - and Uganda's population will rise to 93 million, comfortably exceeding the totals in both its larger neighbours, Kenya and Tanzania.

This massive population growth will lead to land degradation on a huge scale and place an immense strain on the limited water resources of poor countries. Malawi cannot feed its present population of 13 million - and every year its soils become more degraded and yields steadily fewer crops.

By 2050, the UN forecasts that it will have almost 32 million people - more than twice as many as today. Population growth on this scale will almost certainly leave Malawi permanently dependent on international food aid to keep millions of its people alive.

The UN's population predictions have proved largely accurate in the past. While the margin of error for these figures runs into the millions, the broad trends they disclose are undisputed.




Link Posted: 4/23/2007 7:54:33 AM EDT
[#35]
http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2664&cid=3&sid=7

height=8

Is European Civil War Inevitable by 2025? Part I
Paul Weston - 4/21/2007
If I were to tell you that within twenty years Europe could find itself engaged in a civil war so bloody it made WWII look like a bun fight, you might logically consider me a candidate for the men in white coats. You would be wrong, however. Based on the demographic evidence collated for this article, such a scenario looks not merely possible, but inevitable. In 2005 European males aged 20-40 outnumbered Muslim males of a similar age by 18:1. By 2025 this ratio could drop to a mere 2:1.

There is a common misconception that a significant erosion of our present 95% non-Muslim European majority could not possibly occur for many decades to come. People such as historian Bernard Lewis, a man whose views on Islam are held in high esteem, exacerbate this. When he made his prediction in 2004 that Europe would be Islamic by the end of the century, he did so on the basis of an overall Muslim majority.

Although such a dire prediction is shocking, it does not force us into a position where urgent steps need to be taken to alleviate such a future. We will not be here at such a distant point and can therefore presently reject as overly extreme the actions necessary to prevent it. Suppose though, that contrary to Professor Lewis’s benign view of a “democratically Islamic Europe”, Europe’s Muslims felt unwilling to wait another 80 years to expand their caliphate via the voting booth, and decided instead to take Europe through force.

In this scenario our majority is rapidly eroded due to a number of factors. In 2005, European males aged 0-19 (those capable of fighting in twenty years time) accounted for only 10% of their total population. Muslim males in the same age bracket accounted for 23% of theirs. These figures can be seen in this table and are extracted from the population pyramids compiled by the US Census Bureau 2005. (These figures represent all the countries in continental Europe, rather than EU member states alone).

In addition, the Muslim population, with its birth rate of 3.5 children per women effectively doubles its next generation, whilst the European birth rate of 1.5 children per woman ensures the next generation is 25% smaller than that of its parents.

This loss of almost one third of tomorrow’s generation necessitates massive immigration in order to prop up our welfare states, the majority of which is set to come from Muslim countries. According to the Daily Telegraph, the UN predicts Europe will need to take in 2.2 million immigrants per year, through to 2050.

Once the Muslim population climbs over 3% of the population in Western countries, native Europeans start to emigrate. The Dutch, French, Germans and British are leaving in unprecedented numbers, as noted in a Daniel Pipes article entitled “Europeans Fleeing Eurabia” which should be read in conjunction with this article.

If it is really true that up to 40% of Muslims wish to see Europe operating under Sharia Law, then the ingredients for a Europe V Islamic civil war are already in place, save for the Muslim weight of numbers; an issue being rapidly resolved. By 2025 the combination of factors mentioned above will lead to such a massive transformation in Europe’s demographic makeup that Islam may well have sufficient numbers to confront us.
- - - - - - - - - -
I first read Pat Buchanan’s book Death of The West three years ago, which opened my eyes to the demographic imbalance between the birth rates of native Europeans and Muslim immigrants. Although full of doom and gloom, Buchanan never ventured a particular opinion on the likelihood of a full-blown war, perhaps due to the likely backlash from Muslims in America.

This omission was partly rectified by Mark Steyn in America Alone where he does mention war as a possible scenario, but neglects to predict any particular decade. Indeed, he seems to be of the opinion that Europe will acquiesce without any resistance at all. Much as I respect Mr Steyn, I believe he is utterly wrong about this. Europeans have a history of warfare; it is unlikely we will roll over without a fight.

If a Europe V Islam civil war is a possibility, then it is clearly prudent to look at the demographics of the particular section of our population who will actually fight it: Males aged between 18-40. The ratio of these potential combatants in 2005 was 18:1 in our favour.

Now, 18:1 appears to be a number that we can cope with, albeit with a certain amount of low-level violence, but what happens when that ratio becomes 10:1 or 5:1? What would be the likely result, for example, if twenty-five European chartered accountants were confronted by five machete wielding Jihadists? The answer is fairly predictable; they would run away, to file tax returns another day.

Suppose, though, that inside each accountant’s briefcase, lurking alongside their blackberries and slide rules was a machete twice the size of the Jihadists preferred tools of trade? Same answer, they will still seek to escape. Knife fighting to the death is not on the curriculum at the East Midlands College of Accountancy and Equality, nor is it in the temperament of average European males, be they football hooligans with a penchant for fisticuffs, let alone accountants.

Conversely, when a solitary but fully armed US Marine finds himself confronted by five machete wielding Jihadists, it’s fairly safe to say he will recount the ensuing events to his comrades the following morning. The Jihadists, on the other hand, are more likely to have had an up close and personal chat with Allah, prior to salaciously indulging themselves amongst their newly acquired harem of celestial virgins.

Which brings me to the point of this article. 5:1 is no guarantee that the majority will win and 5:1 is where we will find ourselves long before 2025. When I started looking at these figures, I anticipated that the numbers necessary for a civil war — based on today’s 18:1 — would not be in place until well into the second half of this century, but I was wrong. By 2025 Europe could find itself with a potential combatant ratio of 2:1 as shown in the following extrapolated figures, with the ratio figure rounded up or down:

Year 2005 - Overall Population

Total Population: 519 million
Non-Muslim population: 494 Million.
Muslim population: 26 Million.
Ratio: 19:1


Year 2005 - Males Aged 20-40

Non-Muslim population: 70.3 Million.
Muslim population: 3.9 Million 1
Ratio: 18:1


Year 2025 - Males Aged 20-40

Non-Muslim European Population: 53.4Million
Muslim Population: 5.9 Million
Ratio: 9:1


This ratio of 9:1 is not hypothetical; the people it represents are already here in our maternity wards and schools. It does not however, represent the true picture of 2025. Europe’s welfare states need a constant ratio of workers to dependents, a situation that requires immigration due to feminism’s legacy of career before children. The aforementioned UN report suggests that Europe will require 2.2 million immigrants per year, with the majority coming from Muslim countries. When these extra 28 million immigrants are taken into account the figures look as follows.


Year 2025 - Males Aged 20-40

Non-Muslim Population: 53.4 Million
Muslim Population: 10.1 Million 2
Ratio: 5:1


As these numbers slowly change the character of Europe, many Europeans will simply pack up and leave, a situation occurring already in unprecedented numbers in countries such as Holland which has a 6% Muslim population, one of the highest in Western Europe. According to the Telegraaf an estimated 121,000 native Dutch emigrated in 2006 compared to only 30,000 in 1999. The demographic profile of these emigrants was well educated, 35-44 with good incomes. Their exodus represents a massive 4.5% of their entire age group. In one year.

In Britain, with a lower Muslim percentage but a higher incidence of terrorist activity, more than one in two wish to emigrate. So, to take an overly conservative figure of emigration amongst 20-40 year olds running at a mere 1% per annum, the figures would look as follows.


Year 2025 - Males Aged 20-40

Non-Muslim Population: 44.6 Million
Muslim Population: 10.1 Million
Ratio: 4:1


In the event of civil war erupting, does anyone seriously think that Turkey would remain on the sidelines? By 2025 there will be some 12 millionTurkish males of fighting age. They will probably be part of the European Union well before then, but, if not, it is unlikely that the necessity of a visa will stop them from crossing the border in aid of their fellow Muslims. Should this transpire, the figures are as follows:


Year 2025 - Males Aged 20-40

Non-Muslim Population: 44.6 million
Muslim population: 22.1 million
Ratio: 2:1


Third world immigration into Europe is quite possibly an issue that politically correct Europeans will grudgingly accept; the Islamification of Europe is another matter entirely and I have seen nothing in the rhetoric or physical actions of European Muslims to suggest this is not their aim. Europeans will not allow this to happen, the politicians in suits will find themselves usurped by the men in the streets. This is why these numbers are so important.

And these numbers are probably worse than I suggest here. As events unfold, the 1% trickle of European emigration I cite could well turn into a flood. Daniel Pipes considers an exodus of the bourgeoisie to be a distinct possibility. Also, I am not a demographer3, so I have no idea how to factor in the children of the millions of immigrants predicted to arrive year on year through to 2050. In addition, the majority of immigration is likely to be made up 20-40 year olds, so the 15% figure of their total between now and 2025 could be only half of the true number.

Finally, what statistical advantage do fanatics prepared to die for their cause have over post-Christian Europeans? Unless things change, Europe will find itself with a mere 2:1 advantage within 18 years, and a 5:1 advantage within the next ten. I wouldn’t like odds of 5:1 let alone 2:1, and the argument that moderate Muslims will not become involved is specious; once a few tit for tat atrocities are committed, everybody will be forced to take sides.

The ramifications of these figures will deeply affect Europe over the next ten years, which I will discuss in part two of this article.

Link Posted: 4/23/2007 7:56:09 AM EDT
[#36]
http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2670&cid=3&sid=7

height=8
Is European Civil War Inevitable By 2025? - Part II
Paul Weston - 4/22/2007
Part one of this article was an explanation of why our ratio of combat age native Europeans versus European Muslims could decline from 18:1 today, to 2:1 by 2025. These figures are largely irrelevant if one believes that Islam can peacefully co-exist within the West, but if such a scenario is simply a multicultural fantasy then we will shortly face a situation unprecedented in the history of mankind.

Europeans have been conditioned from an early age to celebrate diversity and multiculturalism, resulting in our genuine ability to co-exist with peoples of significantly different cultures. But, rather than what we want, is this what Islam wants? Islam is as mono-cultural as mono-cultural gets. How can they possibly live in a liberal, multicultural society?

Islam expanded via the sword. Within decades of erupting out of the deserts of 7th Century Arabia it had conquered Palestine, Persia, Egypt, India, North Africa and Spain; its opponents were paralysed in the face of fanatical violence. It was only in 732 that Charles Martel stopped this frenetic Islamic expansion at the battle of Tours, in France.

In the 13th century Islam rose again. In 1452 they finally conquered Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, and within 100 years added Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, Romania and Hungary to their empire. Attempts to take Vienna failed twice, before Jan Sobieski finally routed the Ottoman’s Islamic army in 1683 at the Gates of Vienna. The Ottoman Empire gradually fell apart after this defeat, and most occupied European countries reclaimed their independence. Christian Europe had largely prevailed.

But now, in the 21st Century, Islam is back and wants what it has always wanted; a global caliphate. This time, unlike their previous military attempts to overthrow the West, instead they are already within Europe, well funded, radicalised and rapidly expanding. As their numbers grow, so grows the violence they perpetrate — as we have seen all over Europe within the last few years.

And not only within Europe; Islam is engaged in religious conflict all around the world, from America, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Kashmir, India, Russia, the Lebanon, Palestine, etc, etc. Wherever Islam comes into contact with non-Islam there is conflict.

In each and every country, one glaring reality stands out. It is always Islam as the aggressor, even when they are in a minority. In Thailand, where they represent five per cent of the populace, we have a country sliding inexorably toward civil war.

Such is the prevalence of Islamic violence that Samuel Huntingdon, author of The Clash Of Civilisations, coined the phrase “Islam’s bloody borders” the violence of which is represented by Gates Of Vienna’s animated Bloody Borders project which identifies Islamic terrorist activity just since 9/11.

Why do Islamists do this? Because they are commanded to, it is as simple as that. To be a Muslim means to obey the Koran, within which there are numerous commands to wage Jihad, or Holy War, against the infidel. Granted, there is no single explicit command, but it is possible to interpret many exhortations this way, which is exactly what radical Imams are doing all across the West. Unlike a modern day Christian’s tenuous relationship with the Bible, Muslims adhere to every edict of the Koran as slavishly as they did in the 7th Century. Unfortunately for us, the principal edict is to conquer or remove all non-believers.

To this end there are now some 2,000 Mosques in Western Europe, many of them funded directly by Saudi Arabia to the tune of 90 billion dollars. In these mosques are Imams — trained or imported from Saudi Arabia — preaching extreme Wahhabism. They call for the overthrow of the West, and promote suicide bombing and martyrdom. Channel Four recently sent an undercover reporter into various Mosques in the UK. The result was an exposure of these Imams in their call for Holy War against the West. It can be seenhere on Youtube. CNN also ran an interview with Al-Muhajiroun’s Anjem Choudray, where he calls for Sharia law in Britain. This is the same man whoprophesised that the Islamic flag will fly over 10 Downing Street.

Despite the clear warnings, the concept of Sharia is still not fully understood by most Europeans. Under its laws they could either be killed for refusing to convert to Islam or they could accept that second-class status known as Dhimmitude. Homosexuals could similarly be killed, apostates killed, adulterous woman stoned to death, whilst limbs could be amputated for stealing. Forty percent of British Muslims wish this to be introduced.

What percentage of those who desire this are young males? Muslim women have a great deal to be unhappy about under Sharia law, whilst older Muslims are far less radicalised than the young. It is quite possible therefore, that for young males with a favourable view of Sharia, the percentage of those who favour Sharia in Britain is far higher than this.

So, Islam has a history of attempted Western conquest, and a present day policy of global domination. In countries such as Sudan, they are efficiently perpetrating genocide to achieve that end. In the West, their Jihadist rhetoric is accompanied by large-scale violence and lesser atrocities guaranteed to catch our attention. (Leaving out the violence in India and Pakistan and the Taliban) just in the years since 2001, there have been numerous incidents in the West:



9/11, of course;


the London tube bombings;


the Madrid train bombings;


the lesser violence such as the murder of Theo Van Gogh;


the indescribable torture and murder of Ilan Halami;


the rape of European women as described by Fjordman [http://globalpolitician.com/articleshow.asp?ID=2612&cid=3&sid=102];


the civil unrest in France, where policeclaim they are in the midst of a civil war;


and the death threats made against politicians who speak out against them, such as Gert Wilders.

Faced with this relentless tidal wave of Islamic aggression, what is the response of Europe’s ruling elites? Craven submission is the answer. In France the politicians promise more money for the banlieus, within which Sharia law operates and where no white European dare set foot. In Spain they gathered in squares after the Madrid train bombing and held candle-lit peace vigils, before voting out their Government and replacing it with one more in tune to the Islamists demands. In Holland, the Dutch justice minister, Piet Hein Donner has no objection to Sharia law being imposed, providing it is done democratically, and in Sweden, integration minister Jens Orback declared: “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”
- - - - - - - - - -
After the London tube bombings, the government’s immediate response was to worry not about the English, but about the terrible oppression the perpetrators must have suffered from in order to commit such a crime. Much to our rulers’ dismay, the “fabulous four” were educated and middle class; their drive had come from Islam, not from oppression.

In British schools the Holocaust is no longer taught because it runs counter to the Holocaust denial beliefs of Muslims, whilst British historian David Irving was imprisoned for holding the same views as that of the Muslims. Our teaching unions are also of the opinion that the idea of teaching British values is racist, and the BBC is so viciously anti-Christian and pro-Islamic that there is simply not the space here to detail it. The BBC treachery requires an article all its own, and a lengthy article at that (This is one of the more imponderable pathologies the BBC exhibits, considering the corporation has sheltered and encouraged a high number of homosexuals and feminists. As you know, both groups are on the Islamic extermination lists).

There are many more examples of Islamic aggression and of the consequential European appeasement. It is clear that so far we are impelled toward overwhelming submission. European politicians are clearly terrified of Islam. As well they might be. So, what can be done? Can Islam be contained, or is Europe drifting inexorably to all-out civil war?

Essentially, there are five options.

The first is that Islam integrates within Europe’s liberal democracies and we all live happily ever after This scenario takes no account of the moral sewer that Liberal policies have turned Europe into; a Europe which Islam, quite understandably, views with revulsion. Nor does it take into account that Islam today is the same as Islam in the 7th century. Why should they reform now? Given the increasing radicalisation of Muslim youth and the disturbing numbers whoagree with terrorist activity, this scenario is only possible within the mindset of deluded, ignorant liberals, whose naiveté is suicidal in the extreme. Option one can therefore be discounted.

The second option is that Islam quietly takes over demographically through sheer weight of numbers, and Europe is islamised under Sharia law. Bernard Lewis and Mark Steyn think this inevitable, Steyn being of the opinion that any country capable of the type of appeasement prevalent in Europe today, is also a country incapable of rousing a defence. Although this is a possibility, it is unlikely we will not fight back, so option two can also be discounted.

The third option is that Europe wakes up to the danger it is in and expels all its Muslims. This is not going to happen; the European Union positively embraces Islam, as noted in Bat Ye’or book Eurabia (thankfully abridged by Fjordman). Not only does the EU have no intention of such an action, they will not even stop further Islamic immigration. The 2.2 million predominately Muslim immigrants they wish to bring into Europe each and every year up to 2050 is a done deal as far as they are concerned.

Indeed, in an extract from this disturbing report published by the European Policy Centre, the EU seeks immigration not only for economic reasons but also for social reasons:

“However, the arguments against immigration remain dominant in the political debates of many European countries, and must be taken seriously and challenged if immigration is to keep its place on the social and economic agenda.”

Whilst this attitude prevails we can discount option three.

The fourth option is that moderate Muslims reclaim their peaceful religion from the “fundamentalists”, who, as we are told over and over again by our media, are not representative of Islam. But where exactly are these moderate Muslims, what power do they wield within Islam as a whole? When have we seen marches and protests organised by them, waving banners reading “Not in my name” or “Not in the name of Islam?” They are as cowed by the radicals as are our politicians, or perhaps they are in agreement with them, but are squeamish when it comes to spilling blood. The only face of Islam we see or hear in the West is that of the violent Jihadist. As such, option four can be discounted.

The fifth option is that we resist the Islamic take over, and fight back. I disagree with Lewis and Steyn, who both appear to think Europe will roll over and submit. The wholesale and unprecedented racial and cultural transformation of a continent with a history of violent warfare will simply not happen without confrontation.

As options one, two, three and four can therefore be discounted; we are left only with option five: to fight. Whilst it is unfortunate that we should be confronted by an expanding, youthful culture with a set of beliefs they will die for, just at the time we are demographically declining, ageing, and apparently believe only in shopping, celebrity and alcohol, does not mean that we will not fight. We will simply have to. Not for domination, but for survival.

E. Raymond Hall, professor of biology at the University of Kansas, is the author of the definitive work on American wildlife, Mammals of North America. He states as a biological law that, “two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same geographic area.” (Emphasis in the original) Human races are biological subspecies, and Prof. Hall writes specifically that this law applies to humans just as it does to other mammals: “To imagine one subspecies of man living together on equal terms for long with another subspecies is but wishful thinking and leads only to disaster and oblivion for one or the other.”

The history of man is essentially a history of warfare, where territory, tribe or religion drives the impetus for conquest. That our ruling liberal elites in the West today believe that history, current reality and the law of nature no longer apply to us, does not mean the end of warfare. Rather, their wishful thinking simply makes it easier for those who are determined to wage war against us. The idea that wars are a thing of the past is so fantastical that only liberals, who cannot distinguish ideological fantasy from historical reality, could possibly believe that war will ever be vanquished.

Islamic terrorist activity is being constantly thwarted by European intelligence services, but over the next ten years some of these Jihadists will slip through the net and carry out their next very large atrocity. Although most Europeans are still in a deep liberal sleep regarding Islam, this will not last. By 2017 the tensions between Europeans and Islam will have become nerve jangling. Impotent officials will employ ever-stricter government controls in a futile attempt to preserve the façade of societal order.

Somewhere between 2017 and 2030, during a period of heightened tension, Islamists in France, Holland or Britain will blow up one church, train or plane too many. Retaliation will begin and they, in turn will respond. So will the spiral begin.

The police are unable to cope now; they will be even less prepared then. The army will be drafted in, and members of the military who are even willing to carry out orders against their neighbours will find themselves massively outnumbered and outflanked. Civilians will be massacred. And so begins the civil war.

When the violence reaches a tipping point every person — be they moderate or extremist in their views — will be forced to take sides in this war. There will be no bystanders, and no civilians. Moderate Muslims will in all likelihood take the sides of the extremists. This war will resemble none of Europe’s previous conflicts, with their standing armies massed along clearly delineated lines. In the coming conflagration, it will initially be civilians, armed not with tanks and machine guns, but with knives, bombs and terror, who will call out the dogs of war.

I say “initially” because although the army will be of little use in the beginning, it will certainly be capable of forming an impregnable line behind which the native Europeans, unused to knife fighting, will flee and re-group.

And then, enter America — as always— Europe’s saviour. Whilst Europe’s navies blockade the ports, America will deliver technical weaponry to the organised Europeans, weaponry against which Islam will have no response. Whilst they are being annihilated in response to the butchery they carried out in the early days of the war, Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Iran will threaten a nuclear response. If they do, they too will be annihilated.

Such is the future brought about by multicultural liberals. Not only will they be responsible for bloodshed unseen even in the last century, they will also be responsible for the extinction of Islam. In 1907 no one could see the coming carnage, whereas in 2007 all educated people with some knowledge of history can see the inevitable. Quite how large this war becomes is of course beyond any prediction. However, it will not be limited to a merely European conflict. Our civil war could well become a global nuclear war against Islam; and one the Islamists have no hope of winning.

Such a scenario is unimaginable to the vapid multiculturalists, but it is their actions, past and present, which will bring about this nightmare. One can hardly blame Islam for wishing to dominate the world, but one can certainly blame liberals for giving them the geographical means and ideological confidence whereby they feel confident that it is actually possible. Will they attempt it? On a small scale, with their ratio of 18:1 they are attempting it now. How do you think they will behave with a ratio of 5:1 let alone 2:1?

The liberal response to an essay such as this is to make accusations of hysteria and paranoia. To those, I would say only one thing: rather than leave sneering one line comments, give us a thousand word, closely reasoned article explaining why the scenario outlined above is not likely. Use reality-based arguments rather than simply repeating outmoded ideology.

As much as I wish you could present such a case against my scenario, I believe the war is inevitable, and it will be a tragedy for the West, for Islam, and for all of mankind.

Please refute it. I really would like it another future than the one I have outlined.

Link Posted: 4/23/2007 8:15:58 AM EDT
[#37]

“We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”


sure......
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 8:27:05 AM EDT
[#38]
Liberalism is a suicidal philosophy. Any group of people who practice it will die out eventually.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 8:39:26 AM EDT
[#39]

Quoted:

“We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”


sure......


Talk about the most fundamental flaw in reasoning eh?  Lets take a look at how open and tolerant all-Muslim societies are these days...
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 8:42:54 AM EDT
[#40]

Quoted:
Lot of mathmatical stupid in this thread.

Current muslim pop in France is 4.1 million.
4.1 million people with a growth rate of 3.5% (about double what it is) equals 32.3 million in 60 years.

The population of France is 60 million.  Even with a zero non muslim growth rate, and exagerating the muslim birth rate muslims wouldn't even be 50% of the population.


Math sucks for sky is falling scenarios,  sorry.


The key factor is indiginous birthrates in European countries.

Some have rates around 1.1, which basically means two people (a couple) produce one child to replace them.  At such birthrates it means the subsequent generation will be half the size of the one that preceded it.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 8:59:05 AM EDT
[#41]


does anyone know where these white politicians [of various countries] and their families plan to go after the muslim population reaches critical mass in their respective country and decides it isn't going to show the kind of "racial awareness and tolerance", or "celebrate diversity" the way we've been forced to?


ETA: all this discussion about population growth rates is BS. it doesn't matter if there are 10 times more muslims, or only 10% of the population is muslim. "westerners" have been conditioned by our various governments to submit. not doing so is "racist". a few hundred muslims can protest anywhere they want and get an entire country to change its' laws to suit them.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 9:48:09 AM EDT
[#42]
tag
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 10:37:33 AM EDT
[#43]
The Swedes have voted in the policies they have now.

Simply put, Sweden is commiting suicide.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 10:51:59 AM EDT
[#44]
From the 2004 CIA World Factbook (yeah, yeah, I know there's a newer one):

Italy -

Population growth rate: 0.09% (2004 est.)  

Birth rate: 9.05 births/1,000 population (2004 est.)  

Death rate: 10.21 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.)  


Sweden -

Population growth rate: 0.18% (2004 est.)  

Birth rate: 10.46 births/1,000 population (2004 est.)  

Death rate: 10.38 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.)  


I don't know what Italy's immigration policy is, but at the rate things are going Italians will eventually cease to exist.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top