Western society, demographics, and the future - EXCELLENT article

[longeyes]

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

Most of us on this board are concerned about the erosion of the liberties hard-won from the Renaissance through our Constitution. Most of us have also zeroed in on the repressive collectivism of the State. Worrying about the decline of the West because it is in process of being swamped by a religious collectivist ideology isn't hysterical. Europe's welfare statism is locked in a fatal dance with its religious counterpart. Europe's weakness is inviting a Caliphate. Whether radical Islam comprises a tiny percentage of Islam isn't the ultimate question, it's whether under Islam there would be any remnant of political and social liberty as we now understand it.

Every time the finger is pointed at Islam, someone comes out of the woodwork to suggest an equivalency with "violent zealotry" in Christianity. Let's talk about the here and now: there are no organized persecutions by Christians, and there haven't been any in a good, long while (thankfully).

 

[ken grant]

?????????????????????

What is going to happen in the USA when the Muslims,blacks and Mexicans start fighting to determine who is going to be the ruling class?

Whites will soon be the minority

 

[Gordon Fink]

Every time the finger is pointed at Islam, someone comes out of the woodwork to suggest an equivalency with “violent zealotry” in Christianity. Let’s talk about the here and now: there are no organized persecutions by Christians, and there haven’t been any in a good, long while (thankfully).

Your memory is a little short.

~G. Fink

 

[longeyes]

Obviously, I am talking in terms of scale. Please don't mention the Crusades. Please.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Longeyes, how many people do so-called Christians have to kill to tip your scales?

~G. Fink

 

[longeyes]

How much mass slaughter is going on TODAY in the name of Christianity?

Christianity has certainly had its share of violent zealots, no doubt; no one argues that. Everytime we get -isms we get that propensity toward philosophical "cleansing."

 

[Herself]

...And what would you rather have these soi-disant maternity-ward conquerors of Europe meet when they come to the New World: a paranoid, totalitarian Security/Welfare State, with well-fenced borders, strict linguistic laws and a well-developed fear of even its closest cultural neighbors -- in short, their very own reflection --, or the open, well-armed, pluralistic and independant nation that the brilliant Yamamoto feared, remarking that any invader would face "a sniper hidden behind every blade of grass?"

You cannot have it both ways; the States are either a nation of subjects looking to the Great White Father in Washington to pay our pharmacy and medical bills, provide low-interest education and home-purchase loans, food stamps when we're out of work, housing assistance "for the children," and even more help still if those children happen not to have a father -- or a nation of free citizens who stand on their own two feet, pay their own bills, and help their own neighbors or not according to their own lights.

It should be obvious from their behavior in office what most members of both of the two main political parties want the U. S. to be, and it is not "free."

Of course, it's for our own good, our leaders tell us. Just for the present emergency. (Funny how there's always an emergency, isn't it?). Just to help the hapless (and there are always the hapless, aren't there?). And they're all of them philosopher-kings, wise and brave, with only our own interests at heart.

Aren't they?

You can't ever "conquer" a nation of independant, self-supporting cusses, no matter how varied their political and religious beliefs, accents and and skin colors. But a centralized state falls easily: grab the center and the rest will follow. It doesn't make any difference what banner that center flies, not a bit.

--Herself

 

[DRZinn]

Radical Muslims are a tiny minority within Islam, but Steyn would have us worry about the birthrates for all Muslims.

Like any other virus, the spread of the host leads to the spread of the disease. Thus the spread of Islam aids the spread of radical Islam. So yes, vastly disproportionate birthrates are cause for concern.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Everytime we get -isms we get that propensity toward philosophical “cleansing.”

So you haven’t forgotten about the “ethnic cleansing” in the Balkans. Is that history too ancient?

~G. Fink

 

[spartacus2002]

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.

You assume that the Europeans and their African immigrant workers all think like economists.

As for his article, I took from it that declining European birthrates teamed with large-scale immigration of rapidly-reproducing Muslims will create a radical culture change in Europe. Is that so hard to argue with? I guess so; there are those who cry RACIST when we note how this is happening to America with Mexican immigrants.

 

[longeyes]

The Balkans situation is about more than "ethnic cleansing."

 

[Wllm. Legrand]

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?

The "racist" tag..the new "scarlet letter" in the age when people are LOATHE to make distinctions, makes me vomit.

If one even raises the issue of cultural dilution, i.e., the reduction of those positive qualitites that make a people A PEOPLE, or a nation A NATION, is at best, a social faux pax, at worst, a sign of the "delusion" of the individual tomake distinctions based upon culture (CULTURE, mind you, NOT RACE).

I remember a class where I was a student and the instructor (full professor..philosophy...gag me..one of my majors) was hammering the point about the equivalence of cultures...

I asked if the assertion was being categorically presented, i.e., all cultures equivalent. Answer, yes. Then I posed the question of which culture was superior, the 19th century Indian (subcontinent) culture that embraced the practice of SATI, the practice of killing the wife and burning her on the funeral pyre of the husband, or that of the British who banned it..

Being an older (37 yrs) returning student at the time, such expositions of BULLSHIIITE were not welcome. But, as I've said before, when you encounter a contradiction, re-examine your premises.

 

[longeyes]

If one even raises the issue of cultural dilution, i.e., the reduction of those positive qualitites that make a people A PEOPLE, or a nation A NATION, is at best, a social faux pax, at worst, a sign of the "delusion" of the individual tomake distinctions based upon culture (CULTURE, mind you, NOT RACE).

Too many Americans haven't a clue what might constitute their Americanism, much less whether they really want to defend it at the cost of grave inconvenience. That we aren't clear about our basic predicates as a nation--try a man in the street survey--is an appalling indicator not only of our educational deficiencies but of the fog of leftism spread by those who prefer us confused, soft, and disorganized.

 

[Gordon Fink]

The Balkans situation is about more than “ethnic cleansing.”

And the current discussion is about more than “radical Islam.”

~G. Fink

 

[longeyes]

Yes, I've noticed that.

 

[CAnnoneer]

A population explosion in the Third World would be self-regulatory if it were not for all the dumbass bleeding hearts in the First World that believe the population excess must be saved on humanitarian grounds. If you turn Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia into a walled ecosystem, then war, famine, and pestilence would naturally wittle down the unsustainable population, just as Rwandan genocide and African AIDS statistics showed. That is also why there can be no direct danger coming from population explosion there, so long as natural factors are allowed to act unfettered.

The real danger IMO lies in the internal decay of the West as engendered and fueled by local leftists, globalists, and commies. They are the killers of the pragmatic individualistic entrepreneurial spirit that built the Western world in the first place. They preach the exact opposite - idealistic collectivist overregulated subordinate statism - and that is why the true western values are so inimical and hateful to them. These crappers are traitorous hypocritical dirtbags of the highest order and would rot the structure from inside as they run unchecked and unchallenged. They are the ultimate cause of our gradual emaciation, as well as other issues such as illegal immigration, 2A infringements, excessive litigiousness, the UN, globalist foreign policy.

Ultimately, before external threats are properly faced, an internal housecleaning is in order. If the war of ideas is won at home, all other wars will soon follow suit.

 

[grampster]

Interesting comment I heard today (slight thread veer) but germain to the lunacy of PC. A small town in the Washington DC area is seeking to pass an ordinance that says that a single family dwelling may only house a single family, ie: not a multiple string of family members. (ie move in your whole tribe). The multiculturalist, PC morons are objecting to the ordinance because it discriminates against ILLEGAL aliens. :banghead:

 

[Balog]

Surprised no ones mentioned it yet.
I think the French riots were a pretty good example of what the author is warning of. Western civilization being taken over from within by alienized elements of Islam.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Muslims,blacks and Mexicans

Errr....religion, geographic origin and ethnicity all mixed together?

 

[longeyes]

Context?

 

[roo_ster]

Steyn's numbers are as good as can be had. He has not pulled them out of a handy orifice.

*shaking my head in amazement*

Mark Steyn is an idiot - a panicked, chicken-little doomsdayer who's made a career out of projecting his fear and bigotry onto global issues of which he has only the most tenuous understanding. It is shocking that otherwise intelligent people take his blather seriously.

- Chris

All you folks who decry the numbers/conclusions Steyn stated, but believe the numbers that show a coming Social Security crunch/collapse have some cognitive dissonance to hammer out of your psyche, if you are to be taken seriously in arguments that contan fact, logic, and actuarial data.

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

GF, the present conflict with militant Islam is not particularly laden with religious doctrine and dogma, from the point of view of the West. The USA/West has demonstrated that we will accept folks from all religions, if they will behave themselves in the civic arena (no honor killings, human sacrifice, killing their neighbor for disbelief, etc).

What is at stake is liberty and the Enlightenment/Western culture. Christianity, since the 14th century, has been able to reconcile itself and its doctrine with modernity. Thus we have had the First Amendment, "Edicts of Toleration," and so forth. There can be a nation that is majority Christian that still protects the liberty of all.

Islam has had no reformation/counter-reformation. It is still a 7th-century desert-nomad moon cult, societally speaking. It is absolutist and totalitarian in nature. We see examples of this in the nasty regimes in the ME which act like Nazis/Communist/totalitarian regimes, but base their authority on the Koran and its commentaries rather than Marx & theories of racial superiority.

Thus, you see muslim immigrants who assimilate to the "live and let live" point in the West, but no such equivalent in the overtly muslim countries, which can not tolerate unbelievers and "live and let live."

Making arguments of equivalence tells us less about the societies involved than it does about the one making the argument.

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

His argument is not that muslims are the cause of every hot spot. It is that they are in bloody struggles wherever they interface with other religions. Thus you see muslim vs hindu in India, muslim vs christian in Indonesia, muslim vs atheist in the PRC, muslim vs pagan in Africa, etc.

.it IS a war on "terror"

Just how does one war an a technique?

.birth rates are NOT declining all over the world, only in some places.

You have made Steyn's point. Birth rates are falling in Western countries, but remaining high in muslim countries.

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.

So what? So we have legions of geezers who will live a couple of years longer and consume Social Security a couple of years longer? How does this help when the geezers die and no children are left?

.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.

Europe can close its borders and go into absolute population decline, yes, indeed.

The demographic trend is such that there will be too few europeans to do the work of keeping civilisation going and the work of defending it. Tye may have better technology than their potential enemies, but even such technology as Greek fire was not enough to save Byzantium in the face of their enemies.

The bet many euro pols are making is that the newcomers will pay the pensions of the oldsters. I don't necessarily agree.

.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.

Agreed

.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)

Multicultural states have not ever existed in a spirit of tolerance. Take your pick: Russian Empire, USSR, Austro-Hungarian Empire, the early Caliphate, Rome, Zulu Empire, etc. They all were held together with raw power and insisted that their subject peoples make obiescence to the dominant culture.

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)

"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide."
----James Burnham

Internal collapse happens, especially when social palliatives are applied by the elites. Welfare, socialized medicine, etc. serve as social morphine that allow the body of society to decay while those on the opiate live in thier purple haze.

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.

Saying "It can't happen here" or "It can't happen there" is not in accord with the lessons of history. Everything eventually dies, rots, and leeches into the soil. Even cultures.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Thus, you see muslim immigrants who assimilate to the “live and let live” point in the West.…

Exactly, and yet these moderate Muslims are the ones Steyn appears to be afraid of.

~G. Fink

 

[taliv]

i'm not saying it can't or won't happen here (or in europe). i'm just saying the author didn't support his fear mongering with any evidence. he only supported it with a bunch of biggoted preconceptions.


all the population decline stuff is rubbish because he's looking at one decade out of thousands and trying to extrapolate the end of the world. offhand, i'd say it's cyclical, and that the next generation will have another baby boom before the current baby boomers die off. i don't expect to ever see an absolute reduction in population (barring wars and whatnot) until we have actually, undeniably, exhausted the resources of this planet.

that's like the Dow dropping 100 points today and me saying "OMG!!! THE DOW WILL BE AT ZERO BY JUNE!!"

The demographic trend is such that there will be too few europeans to do the work of keeping civilisation going and the work of defending it. Tye may have better technology than their potential enemies, but even such technology as Greek fire was not enough to save Byzantium in the face of their enemies.

if that's the author's point (i didn't read it that way), then it's irrelevant. we'd be better off with fewer people, not more. your contention requires a belief that our entire civilization is some sort of ponzi scheme, which i don't believe to be the case.
as far as defending it, what does it matter to france if uganda has 50 million or 500 million people? especially if they close their borders. i thought we were talking internal demographics. the real danger is that there would simply be more muslim voters. not that the euro elite would strap bombs onto their concordes

Multicultural states have not ever existed in a spirit of tolerance.

Internal collapse happens, especially when social palliatives are applied by the elites. Welfare, socialized medicine, etc. serve as social morphine that allow the body of society to decay while those on the opiate live in thier purple haze.

then how does that support the author's premise? i'm just pointing out that the author claims the empire's collapse is emminent, and offers as support that your kid is "singing native dirges isntead of rudolph the red nosed reindeer". it's just absurd.

Just how does one war an a technique?

that's a topic for another thread, but it's not all that difficult. we do it all the time. more important is the what. i believe that our gov during the clinton administrator was more concerned about the capability of your avg redneck with a gun than they were about islam, radical or otherwise. I believe our government under bush is STILL more concerned with domestics. Not a day goes by on THR where we don't see new threads about politicans claiming 50bmgs are weapons of terrorists and that we shouldn't have them, or discussions of how the patriot act limits citizens' civil liberties (are muslims really checking korans out of their local libraries?), etc.

Make no mistake. the domestic War on Terror is an attempt to prevent the exact scenario depicted in Ross' _Unintended Consequences_ which is nothing short of using the technique of "terror" to effect political change. It is not a war on radical islam as the author claims. Again "how" you do it is another topic.

but the point again, is that the author claims the war on terror is a war against islam. how exactly does that support his premise that western civ is about to become extinct? it makes no sense. again, he's just tossing out emotionally loaded terms because he knows that most of his readers think the war on terror is really jsut a PC term for the war on brown people, and they won't look at his argument critically. they'll just accept it

 

[longeyes]

The bet many euro pols are making is that the newcomers will pay the pensions of the oldsters. I don't necessarily agree.

The same belief, apparently, that motivates our own leaders in theri support of illegal immigration from South of the Border.

 

[roo_ster]

i'm not saying it can't or won't happen here (or in europe). i'm just saying the author didn't support his fear mongering with any evidence. he only supported it with a bunch of biggoted preconceptions.

all the population decline stuff is rubbish because he's looking at one decade out of thousands and trying to extrapolate the end of the world. offhand, i'd say it's cyclical, and that the next generation will have another baby boom before the current baby boomers die off. i don't expect to ever see an absolute reduction in population (barring wars and whatnot) until we have actually, undeniably, exhausted the resources of this planet.

that's like the Dow dropping 100 points today and me saying "OMG!!! THE DOW WILL BE AT ZERO BY JUNE!!"

I would say you need to take a closer look at the data Steyn bases his polemic on. It is not a mere one decade's worth of data, it is a trend that is several decades long. If not arrested, it will come about as he, Ben Wattenberg, & all the demographers say. Like I said, if you believe the actuarial tables that show Social Security is heading for trouble, not believing the data Steyn founded the column on is inconsistent.

Can the trend be arested? Maybe. Significant cultural and demographic facts on the ground have been curbed in the past. The most notable is the elevation of Britain's lower classes from the vile scum of the 1700's into the much more pious, more law-abiding, and more sober folk who inhabited latter Victorian Britain. Of course, it took the concerted effort of church, society, and heavy doses of government all working toward the same end...and with the goal of bringing civilization to all the benighted peoples of the world (IOW, a mission).

Do you think the governments of the West to have the belief in themselves to push such an agenda? Do you think that enough of their populations would forego welfare statism, embrace their lost Christianity, and put their, ahh, "nose to the grindstone?" Do the mainline churches in western europe even believe in G-d anymore? All the churches I saw in my tour through Switzerland were museums, save one.