Western society, demographics, and the future - EXCELLENT article

[longrifleman]

I have some questions for our european members, or anyone who has been ther recently. Are the problems with the declining population in most countries widely known, or is this info suppressed? is the increase in Islamic population as a % of any increase known also?

Chris, the demographic numbers have been available from several sources for a long time. Are you questioning the acccuracy of that data? If so, why?

Is it his analysis of Islam being the core problem that offends you?

 

[LawDog]

The more things change, they more they stay the same.

Anyone else here ever read an opinion piece from the late 19th century/early 20th Yellow Peril days? Change a word or two here and there, and it'd fit right in.

The invasion of Irish papists following the Great Potato Famine was expounded upon with similar language and point-of-view.

*sigh*

LawDog

 

[taliv]

i don't know anything about the author's career, but i pretty much agree with chris.

the author makes several obvious mistakes for the purpose of selling his hysterical fantasy. not the least of which are

.that there are lots of troublespots around the world that don't involve islam. his list was hardly comprehensive, and it provides no support for his premise unless he's contending, for instance, that muslims vs christianity is due to out-of-control-tolerance in africa

.it IS a war on "terror"

.birth rates are NOT declining all over the world, only in some places. also, they fail to mention that while the US birth rate is at an all-time low, llife expectancy is at an all-time high.

.his argument about europe's need for immigration from africa is absurd. for us to get as hysterical as he wants, his argument requires us to accept that the crazed islamic immigrants are net consumers from the gov, not net tax payers. if they're consumers, (which they are) then importing bazillions of them isn't going to solve europe's welfare problems; it's going to crush europe. in otherwords, it's no catch-22. europe just needs to close its borders.

.hellena kennedy was correct and his interpretation of what she was saying was incomprehendable and irrelevant. PC "tolerance" is in fact intolerance, as anyone attempting to espouse conservative viewpoints on college campi will quickly find out.

.while empires may fall from "suicide" i can't think of an empire that's downfall has been multiculturalism or tolerance. corruption and good old fashioned butt-kicking are far more likely (of course, europe's ripe for both of those)


i could go on, but the most serious error is that the author assumes that people won't naturally correct these things. this is no different, fundamentally, than the economic discussions we've been having. (supply and demand will work out an equilibrium)

the fact of the matter is that people will respond to racism (as evidenced by numorous recent posts on THR). when the situation becomes more obviosly dire, folks like this author will stir up the youth, who will contest the outcome that the author apparently feels is inevitable.

there's plenty of history to support this, from the hitler youth to the recent unpleasantness in the netherlands (firebombings in relatiation to the firebombings that were in retaliation to the assassination of that filmmaker) to the surfers vs. the lebanese in australia that was recently discussed on THR.


for the record, i do think liberal policies have allowed the situation to go too far in europe and i think it's done a lot of damage. and i think it's going to get a lot worse. i do believe multiculturalism, as described by the author, is stupid and is a problem. i just think the author is out of bounds.

it might be the end of france, but then france changes governments like we change underwear. it won't be the end of germany or russia or italy.

 

[Chris Rhines]

My primary objection to Steyn's diaper-load is as follows:

Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the western world will survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most western European countries.

I disagree with this premise, and I do not believe that it is factualy supportable.

Steyn's essay is mainly his tortured opinions, dressed up with a handful of disconnected statistics and quotes. For example, he spends a lot of time of the alleged problem of declining birthrates in western nations, without mentioning immigration rates (and rates and modes of acculturalation among immigrant communities,) variances in lifespan, death rates, etc. All things that would seem to be important in the discussion, but that may or may not support Steyn's contention that western civilization is doomed.

Steyn's essay also is heavy on what Harry G. Frankfurt called "humbug" - i.e. meaningless statements, designed not to inform but to obfuscate. All his ranting on multiculturalism (most of which I agree with, BTW) falls into this category - sounds great, but irrelevant to the actual discussion.

What is it that you find so wrong with his thesis other than you don't like him?

It's not so much that I dislike Steyn as I dislike his philosophy - the neo-Jacobian, invade the world, export-democracy-at-bayonet-point, arrogant stupidity really toasts my bagel.

Chris, the demographic numbers have been available from several sources for a long time. Are you questioning the acccuracy of that data? If so, why?

I'm questioning the relevance and the completeness of the data (hah!) that Mark Steyn presented in the article. Reasons above. I'm also challenging the conclusions that the draws regarding the fate of the western world, which strike me as no different from the Population Bomb BS that he was so critical of. Steyn gives no good reasons at all why we should reject Paul Ehrlich and accept Mark Steyn.

Is it his analysis of Islam being the core problem that offends you?

No. I myself dislike Islam. However, the arrant bigotry behind his analysis of Islam is...distasteful.

- Chris

 

[longeyes]

It's BELIEF that drives a civilization.

And we have lost ours.

Hold on there, we have SHOPPING!

 

[Standing Wolf]

Demographic trends are a factor. I'm not entirely sure they're the enormous factor Steyn proposes, but they are, indeed, a factor.

I have to wonder whether western culture hasn't suffered grievous wounds from our adoption of assorted forms of socialism: communism, national socialism, and contemporary European socialism. I believe we may have poisoned ourselves.

 

[longeyes]

Looking ahead several decades is risky business, but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying. Demographic trends are vital, though not necessarily more important than technology or the competition for resources or the impact of disease. From my perspective Islam and the Euro-welfare state will probably meld well, as they are both of a collectivist stripe.

 

[cracked butt]

It's BELIEF that drives a civilization.

And we have lost ours.


Hold on there, we have SHOPPING!

LOL

I believe that until we elect representatives and presidents who are willing to bulldoze the UN building, we will continue to head down the same path the Europeans are.

 

[natedog]

The more things change, they more they stay the same.

Anyone else here ever read an opinion piece from the late 19th century/early 20th Yellow Peril days? Change a word or two here and there, and it'd fit right in.

The invasion of Irish papists following the Great Potato Famine was expounded upon with similar language and point-of-view.

*sigh*

I got the same impression as well.

 

[longrifleman]

It's not so much that I dislike Steyn as I dislike his philosophy - the neo-Jacobian, invade the world, export-democracy-at-bayonet-point, arrogant stupidity really toasts my bagel.

I disagree with his (see above) philosophy myself. But, the first time I read any serious presentation of this basic idea : Demographics are Destiny; was in "The Death of the West" by Pat Buchanan. I don't think he and Steyn spend a lot of time bar hoping together. You may not like Buchanan (I think his economic ideas are generally batty) any more that Steyn, but when such different folks start saying the same things, I start paying attention.

As for death rates and such, one article doesn't give much time to develop the data. It was presented in much more detail in Buchanan's book. But death rate is ultimately irrelevant if the existing population doesn't replace itself; it just postphones the inevetable. It is the immigration from Islamic countries that is at the heart of the problem. If they can turn most of Europe into part of Dar al Islam without firing a shot, probably through the ballot box, what happens to the existing culture? I haven't noticed any great upsurge in tolerance for other religions (secular humanism is a religion)anywhere Islam is in control.

Hold on there, we have SHOPPING!

And ESPN!

 

[Wllm. Legrand]

Demographic trends are a factor. I'm not entirely sure they're the enormous factor Steyn proposes, but they are, indeed, a factor.

I have to wonder whether western culture hasn't suffered grievous wounds from our adoption of assorted forms of socialism: communism, national socialism, and contemporary European socialism. I believe we may have poisoned ourselves.

The demographics are real and have been in place for some time. Surprisingly, one the nations most on the "fast track" to non-existence as a nation is Italy, an ostenstibly Roman Catholic (birth control officially frowned upon). But as much of Europe, it doesn't take its hard-core beliefs very seriously, nowadays, except multi-culturalism and socialism (more like cultural Marxism).

The secular, hedonistic, self-absorbed culture of the Cosmopolitan Left (say, as opposed to the arrogent, self-absorbed culture if the Imperialistic American Right) is simply coming to fruition.

Since Europe tries to believe in everything, it believes in nothing. Not even itself.

I'm surprised that there is even any opposition to this thesis.

P.S. And I believe that Steyn has "neo-con" thinly covered with "reasonable person" makeup. Those parts of his screed are easy to discern...that's why I wrote that I object to him regularly. He is correct on the decline, and eventual destruction of Europe. You all might want to read Pat Buchanan's "the Death of the West". I read it a year or so ago. He makes the same arguments from the same perspectives.

 

[Oleg Volk]

LawDog -- you mean predictions like this: http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/London/Writings/Revolution/yellow.html ?

 

[Gordon Fink]

What a load of xenophobic garbage! But please don’t let my humble opinion prevent you Jehovanists from killing each other over you petty disagreements on which way God’s cap is tilted. Just leave me and mine out of it.

Damned monkeys!

~G. Fink

 

[Tokugawa]

It seems like on the one hand, he is deriding the "population explosion" as a myth, and on the other hand, warning us that the Muslim hordes are going to out number us. Which is it? Or does he think the "population explosion" that we have been warned about is only relevant if it applies to Westerners?
Fact- the world population is going thru the roof.
Fact- a lot of the west is at or below the replacement rate.
Fact- the fastest growing populations in the world are in predominantly muslim countrys.
fact - this still equates to a population explosion. How does he figure it is not occuring?

Supposition- The US population is aging, the Latino immigration is burgeoning, maybe we are going to need all those Christian , spanish speaking folks to help fight the radical Islamists. Pretty soon we will have Iran juggling nukes around...

 

[longeyes]

The Death of the West that both Steyn and Buchanan are decrying is the death of Enlightenment values in the face of tribalism and collectivism. Both are aware that the threat comes not only from without but from within. Outpopulating your enemy, when you have militant intent, is most definitely a strategy of war--and an effective one if your opponent does not check it.

I suppose WW II was about "xenophobia?" The intentions of radical Islam to impose a universal Caliphate are accessible in any number of writings by their "visionaries."

 

[GoRon]

What a load of xenophobic garbage! But please don’t let my humble opinion prevent you Jehovanists from killing each other over you petty disagreements on which way God’s cap is tilted. Just leave me and mine out of it.

What a load of anti religionist garbage!
But please don't let my humble opinion prevent you godless materialists from destroying the cultural and moral foundations that made this country great, all in the name of "separation of church and state".

Just leave me and mine out of it.

 

[Gordon Fink]

GoRon, we “godless materialists”—though all the materialists I know are nominally Christian—don’t want to destroy your religion. We just want you to stop trying to shove it down our throats with a government bayonet.

And if the following isn’t xenophobic, then I don’t know what is.

Radical Islam is an opportunist infection, like AIDS.…

So Islam is a disease, but Christianity is not? I’ve certainly never had any non-Christian try to “infect” me.

~G. Fink

 

[GoRon]

My post was more about your rhetoric than content hence the

Steyns rhetoric may distract from some truth(s) the article may contain.

Your (what sounded like) anti Christian rhetoric diminishes the weight of your argument also.

 

[taliv]

thread closed in...

3..

2..

1..

 

[GoRon]

thread closed in...

3..

2..

1..

I doubt it.

The study of changing demographics is often used by racists and jingoists to "prove" their point or rally the troops.

That doesn't mean that there aren't lessons to be learned and conclusions to be drawn from the trends.

We can be tolerant, open minded and fair while still having our eyes open. To dismiss the argument out of hand because we don't want to be associated with Steyn, Buchanan whomever... is short sighted.

Do we really want a large population of any people living in the United States who refuse to assimulate AND activily oppose what our country stands for?

 

[DRZinn]

So Islam is a disease, but Christianity is not?

Read a little more carefully. RADICAL Islam (i.e. the philosophy that says Muslims must kill non-Muslims) is every bit as dangerous as Steyn says it is.

Typical to (deliberately?) mis-state the argument in order to attack it on grounds of prejudice/zenophobia/racism/whatever the latest Kumbaya buzzword is. Get this through your skull: THEY LIVE TO KILL NON-MUSLIMS. Get it yet?

 

[grampster]

Go Ron,

Well said.

A lot of foolish people today remind me of the 3 monkey's. The West, particularly America, has brought much to the table in the last couple of centuries. That is pretty clear to those who have eyes. Islam may have been a great culture 400 years ago. I do not see much in the way of human progress in the countries that are ruled my Islamic Law today.

Regarding Islam: I harbor no animus in particular. But when I look, and listen, if I have to make a judgment about whether my loved ones and free brothers and sisters would rather be living by the code of sharia, I do not see much in the way of a free or civilized way of living, at least by the standards that I support. I'll pass. So far in this country we have that choice. I have yet to hear otherwise from any highly placed Islamic cleric. Many, many Muslims live in peace, prosperity and good will in America. I wish them well and embrace them as fellow Americans. We are diverse, but at the end of the day we are one, American. I need to hear that this precept is pre-eminent. I have heard and read a bit of double talk regarding this notion.
Matis on APS cites a good deal of quotes that are food for thought. True, they are random statements, not in context, but food for thought nonetheless.

Western democracy may have its warts, but I wonder if there would be any debate about separation of church and state under an Islamic Caliphate? How about gun control? What you eat? Where you work? How you worship?
How you recreate? How you dress? How you educate your children? How you are to think? Again, I can only use my powers of observation, in the present, to make a judgment about that. Again, I harbor no animus against Islam. Worship as you will, or not. But if Islam's stated purpose is to force me to recant my belief, change my culture, accept Islam or die, it will be a fight to the death. (As a sidenote: I would feel the same way if someone were trying to impose Old Testament rules and regulations upon me and mine, at the point of a sword.)

 

[longeyes]

thread closed in...

3..

2..

1..

Is that a hope or a prediction?

We ought to be fearless about what we are willing to discuss here, especially if our survival depends on it.

It is certainly possible for any matrix of beliefs to become toxic. The question to ask today is whether the cultures our leftist elites are so eager to import into America are compatible with the basic precepts of liberty. If they are not, and there is no desire to embrace our values, we are foolish to surrender our national cohesion for some naive notion of diversity for its own sake.

 

[Gordon Fink]

My post was more about your rhetoric than content hence the

And I was mostly venting.

I’ve given up trying to convince religionists to live and let live. Rational decision making simply isn’t part of the equation much of the time.

That said, when I’m not being poked with that bayonet, I often find religious antics to be quite charming. I’m also well aware of the good religion can do.

I was disheartened, however, to see the hysteria of Steyn’s article receive such a warm reception here.

~G. Fink

 

[Gordon Fink]

Read a little more carefully. RADICAL Islam … is every bit as dangerous as Steyn says it is.

Violent zealotry is dangerous regardless of its flavor. Radical Muslims are a tiny minority within Islam, but Steyn would have us worry about the birthrates for all Muslims.

~G. Fink