Europe is already done

[JerrySeinfeld]

Europe is already done.

When you factor in:

1. Miniscule birthrates of "traditional" Europeans

2. Massive settlements of unassimilated Muslim Immigrants

3. Very Large birthrates of these muslim populations

4. The muslim community's refusal to back down on anything it deems "offensive"

5. The European media/government's willingness to acquiescne to the muslim community's intimidation - even if it means curtyailing basic freedoms such as speech.

Given the rate at which governments, institutions, media and even private enterprise are willing to back down to intimidation by the Islamic community in Europe, we don't even need to wait until the population swings to Muslim majority. The strings of power are already being pulled by the Islamists.

Just look at foreign policy and you'll see the loyalties are shifting.

America and Canada are the last chance for free western democracy. Let's not screw it up by making the same aqcuiescant, asskissing, "tolerance" mistakes made by the Europeans.

If you think I'm wrong, question why political discussions end up in "religious and moral" topics and viseversa. The Islamofascists have already framed the debate.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Europe is already done.

Not if Joseph Ratzinger can help it.

Barbara Amiel said recently: "Pope Benedict XVI dropped one of his Prada shoes recently. We wait for another Prada shoe to drop."

I can't wait!

[JerrySeinfeld]

Europe is already done.

Not if Joseph Ratzinger can help it.

Barbara Amiel said recently: "Pope Benedict XVI dropped one of his Prada shoes recently. We wait for another Prada shoe to drop."

I can't wait!

The pope sees something on the horizon that most lefties can't - there is a serious clash coming (and already here with many European nations)

[geoffrey]

Europe is already done.

Not if Joseph Ratzinger can help it.

Barbara Amiel said recently: "Pope Benedict XVI dropped one of his Prada shoes recently. We wait for another Prada shoe to drop."

I can't wait!

The pope sees something on the horizon that most lefties can't - there is a serious clash coming (and already here with many European nations)

The Pope knows what's going on, most leftist Europeans are blind. Do remember though Jerry that the right-wing, traditionalist European movement isn't always so far from the center of things. France has a very strong nationalist, conservative group that has been viciously opposed to incursions on rights by Muslim immigrants... in fact, suggesting they take an Irish (another conservative policy) immigration policy of only bloodline members gaining citizenship (you must have very recent Irish lineage to apply).

[JerrySeinfeld]

Europe is already done.

Not if Joseph Ratzinger can help it.

Barbara Amiel said recently: "Pope Benedict XVI dropped one of his Prada shoes recently. We wait for another Prada shoe to drop."

I can't wait!

The pope sees something on the horizon that most lefties can't - there is a serious clash coming (and already here with many European nations)

The Pope knows what's going on, most leftist Europeans are blind. Do remember though Jerry that the right-wing, traditionalist European movement isn't always so far from the center of things. France has a very strong nationalist, conservative group that has been viciously opposed to incursions on rights by Muslim immigrants... in fact, suggesting they take an Irish (another conservative policy) immigration policy of only bloodline members gaining citizenship (you must have very recent Irish lineage to apply).

The problem, as I understand it , is that some of the new conservative movements in Europe are very hard line and bordering on racist.

While this is a natural offshoot of whats happening in Europe, it's still not a good thing (and would be a good lesson for Canada and the US, where there is still a chance to preserve our national identity without going nazi).

I don't think the key to the solution lies in lineage, but rather in true citizenship.

Example: 50,000 "Canadians" in Lebanon? Did you hear since the 11,000 were evacuated (at taxpayer expense), 7,000 have since gone back HOME. Citizenship of convenience should becom a thing of the past.

If you are not willing to carry a gun for yuor country, and in fact carry weapons on behalf of our enemies, you do not deserve a passport. Pure and simple.

Actually, Harper is setting this type of legislation into motion, which is a ood first step to preserving what it means to be CANADIAN.

If Canada continues as the "World's Biggest Hotel" (quoted from a famous author - who i think meant it to be a COMPLIMENT hahaha), then we risk becoming another husk of a nation - an empty shell waiting to be occupied by terrorist factions.

France, Belgium, Denmark and Britain are already borderline which Afghanistan once was - a shell awaiting occupation by militant groups. Will Canada be next? It's still up to us.

[Higgly]

The fact that Barbara Amiel has been quoted seriously in this thread is like the proverbial canary in the coal mine.

[JerrySeinfeld]

The fact that Barbara Amiel has been quoted seriously in this thread is like the proverbial canary in the coal mine.

Stick to the issues. Ad hominem gets us nowhere.

[Higgly]

You mean you think this was going somewhere?

[JerrySeinfeld]

You mean you think this was going somewhere?

Well - Europe is going somewhere. We could learn from it.

[Higgly]

OK, here's something you can learn.

Europe is made up of countries which have been for centuries made up of largely homogeneous populations and they are having trouble absorbing immigrants from different cultures. Canada is a country of immigrants that has been doing this from day one.

Europe is indeed dealing with a large Moslem immigrant influx. It is also dealing with a large influx of Africans as well as Eastern and southern Europeans. Canada's largest immigrant groups come from Asia.

You are over-reacting as a result of your own biases.

[JerrySeinfeld]

OK, here's something you can learn.

Europe is made up of countries which have been for centuries made up of largely homogeneous populations and they are having trouble absorbing immigrants from different cultures. Canada is a country of immigrants that has been doing this from day one.

Europe is indeed dealing with a large Moslem immigrant influx. It is also dealing with a large influx of Africans as well as Eastern and southern Europeans. Canada's largest immigrant groups come from Asia.

You are over-reacting as a result of your own biases.

Nope.

And you are wrong - the only real trouble Europe is having is with one PARTICULAR group of immigrants.

And even THAT is incorrect. Many of the London Tube bombers were not immigrants. They were Muslims, born and bred in England.

That's the scariest part about the Muslim community - it sees itself as superior to you and me, and it does all it can to protect it's offspring from the "filthy pigs" (ie. non-muslims).

Europ and Canada have a great deal in common - we both tried to create an atmosphere of tolerance which has since morphed into a nation with no identity. With no "Canadian" or "British" or "French" identity to fuse to, young Muslim men look to the strong, fierce and unequivocal idenity provided by radical Islam.

This is why America may very well end up Alone in it's battle to protect the "western" way of life while other more "tolerant" societies buckle under the intimidation of "sensitivity".

[Higgly]

And even THAT is incorrect. Many of the London Tube bombers were not immigrants. They were Muslims, born and bred in England.

You are only paying attention to one part of the story. England's biggest problem was with the South Asian immigrants who not too long ago were rioting in the streets. They have also had problems with the IRA and with Eastern European immigrants. I don't see you shouting about those.

One country that has had a major problem with Moslems was France and that appears to be under control for now.

You are seeing only what you want to see, just like Barbara Amiel. The difference, I imagine, is that you stand less of a chance of ending up in prison.

[Liam]

Trivia -- The US has the fastest growing population in the developed world and our population is expected to cross 300 million people sometime next week (on or about October 11, I think I read somewhere).

http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

Only China and India are more populous.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Trivia -- The US has the fastest growing population in the developed world and our population is expected to cross 300 million people sometime next week (on or about October 11, I think I read somewhere).

http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

Only China and India are more populous.

Think about the country to the south of the USA, the flood of immigrants from that country and they're propensity to have LOTS of babies and I think yuo have your explanation.

[JerrySeinfeld]

And even THAT is incorrect. Many of the London Tube bombers were not immigrants. They were Muslims, born and bred in England.

You are only paying attention to one part of the story. England's biggest problem was with the South Asian immigrants who not too long ago were rioting in the streets. They have also had problems with the IRA and with Eastern European immigrants. I don't see you shouting about those.

One country that has had a major problem with Moslems was France and that appears to be under control for now.

You are seeing only what you want to see, just like Barbara Amiel. The difference, I imagine, is that you stand less of a chance of ending up in prison.

"Under Control" as in the Middle East was "under control" for a few decades?

Interesting you bring up the IRA.

I used to get into big fights with my IRISH family about the IRA. I used to say how wrong terrorism was and how against the IRA militantism I was. And every other Irish person I knew (and know) favored the attacks. Heck there are even songs about it.

This is an interesting phenomenon because I think it's a good parallel for Muslims.

When the Irish (Muslims) are born and raised with tales about how terrible the British (Americans / Infidels) have treated their ancestors in the past, it's only natural that most Irish (Muslims) will grow up with a certain bad taste about the Brits (West / Infidels).

This is what I think is likely going on in the mosques. While not all Islam is militant and violent, the great majority have a bad taset about america / infidels / the west and don't mind seeing the bombs go off - the same way many "non IRA" Irish secretly cheered when car bombs would go off in belfast...

[Higgly]

Edit. I am out of this thread.

[geoffrey]

I never cheered when car bombs went off in Belfast, but the IRA was significantly different than Islamic terrorism. There is clear occupation in Ireland, where as Islamic terrorism is just lashing out at everyone that's non-Islamic in their path.

Targetting civilians is wrong no matter who does it, but the motives are cleaner with the IRA than holy war for Allah killing the non-believers.

The IRA weren't crazy, they came to peaceful resolution because violence wasn't what they wanted. With al-Qaeda and the Taliban for example, they'll only be satisified with the complete destruction of the western world, that is their religion, their goal. Ireland wanted a democratic process to get out of the UK... when they got it, they settled quickly. Fighting for democracy and rights is significantly different than killing non-believers because of your religion.

Sure the war was partially Catholic vs. Protestant, but the motives were not religious.

You wouldn't apply the same to the French resistance that fought the Nazi's would you? They could be 'terrorists', but the intention was far different than al-Qaeda.

[jbg]

Just look at foreign policy and you'll see the loyalties are shifting.

That started right after the 1967 War when DeGaulle pulled France away from its pro-Israel position and shifted loyalties towards the Arabs.

America and Canada are the last chance for free western democracy. Let's not screw it up by making the same aqcuiescant, asskissing, "tolerance" mistakes made by the Europeans.

If you think I'm wrong, question why political discussions end up in "religious and moral" topics and viseversa. The Islamofascists have already framed the debate.

Sounds like the theme of Marc Steyn's most recent book.

A country that is helpless, either because of political correctness or lack of necessary police or army resources, to stop the carbeque and insist on lawful behavior is in damnable trouble.

It is crystal clear to all objective viewers that these people are not willing or able to assimilate into European society. Essentially, the barbarians are inside the gate.

The pope sees something on the horizon that most lefties can't - there is a serious clash coming (and already here with many European nations)

The Pope knows what's going on, most leftist Europeans are blind. Do remember though Jerry that the right-wing, traditionalist European movement isn't always so far from the center of things. France has a very strong nationalist, conservative group that has been viciously opposed to incursions on rights by Muslim immigrants... in fact, suggesting they take an Irish (another conservative policy) immigration policy of only bloodline members gaining citizenship (you must have very recent Irish lineage to apply).

The Pope sees realities that the Left does not see. The lefties don't want to face the unpleasant truth that certain people cannot, will not be assimilated. A healthy round of "Kumbaya" or "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing (in Perfect Harmony) will not come close to solving the problem. The Left mumbles about "dialogue" and "negotiation" and, when you ask them "with who and about what" there's never an answer except "there's got to be a better way than war".

You mean you think this was going somewhere?

Well - Europe is going somewhere. We could learn from it.

Europe has a romanticized view of Europe as a cradle of civilization. A continent that spent almost 1000 years, ending in 1945, in a state of war is hardly one to preach about civilization and refinement. Europe may have beautiful churches and architecture. Some Arab mosques are quite beautiful. That does not mean that either has a culture or tradition worthy of emulation. Maybe that's why the Europeans aren't trying to save it; it may have always been a Potemkin village.

Now's my chance to wax lyrical. America (including Canada) has, in my opinion, always been a very special place. In general, the people who came here have been unconstrained by class or religion. With some shameful exceptions such as the initial treatment of Orientals, Blacks and Natives, America has always cared what people could do, not what they look like. My people, the Jews, have intermittently been welcomed here or shut out from immigrating. Never, however, have Jews suffered persecution or discrimination of a kind that has been a constant of European history.

Back to the topic of the thread. While Europe may be worth "saving" as a "buffer zone" it has never been worthy of emulation. Our mother country is England, not Europe. There is a huge difference.

[Black Dog]

Now's my chance to wax lyrical. America (including Canada) has, in my opinion, always been a very special place. In general, the people who came here have been unconstrained by class or religion. With some shameful exceptions such as the initial treatment of Orientals, Blacks and Natives, America has always cared what people could do, not what they look like. My people, the Jews, have intermittently been welcomed here or shut out from immigrating. Never, however, have Jews suffered persecution or discrimination of a kind that has been a constant of European history.

I love it when people undermine their own thesis. Why not just rephrase is it?

"America has always cared what white people could do, not what they look like."

That's better.

[Black Dog]

Sounds like the theme of Marc Steyn's most recent book..

Which is the first clue that everything is gonna be fine.

A country that is helpless, either because of political correctness or lack of necessary police or army resources, to stop the carbeque and insist on lawful behavior is in damnable trouble.

It is crystal clear to all objective viewers that these people are not willing or able to assimilate into European society. Essentially, the barbarians are inside the gate.

Mmm...cross-posting makes me thirsty. Also: "objective viewers?" guess we can rule you out.

Anyway, as to the substance, such as it is, of the fears of a Muslim takeover: projecting trends indefinitely into the future without accounting for the possibility of change may make good headline copy for World Nut Daily and may help Steyn keep himself in cupcakes and theatre tickets, but they seldom hold up over time. The Muslim conquest of Europe is base don so many shoddy, shitty assumptions and is so reminiscent of other historical conspiracy theories that its very hard to take it seriously.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Sounds like the theme of Marc Steyn's most recent book..

Which is the first clue that everything is gonna be fine.

A country that is helpless, either because of political correctness or lack of necessary police or army resources, to stop the carbeque and insist on lawful behavior is in damnable trouble.

It is crystal clear to all objective viewers that these people are not willing or able to assimilate into European society. Essentially, the barbarians are inside the gate.

Mmm...cross-posting makes me thirsty. Also: "objective viewers?" guess we can rule you out.

Anyway, as to the substance, such as it is, of the fears of a Muslim takeover: projecting trends indefinitely into the future without accounting for the possibility of change may make good headline copy for World Nut Daily and may help Steyn keep himself in cupcakes and theatre tickets, but they seldom hold up over time. The Muslim conquest of Europe is base don so many shoddy, shitty assumptions and is so reminiscent of other historical conspiracy theories that its very hard to take it seriously.

But again in lefty fashion your swear words and emotion (typical lefty behavior) don't present much of an argument. And it's hard to argue with pure demographic fact.

I suppose in your world China and India don't hold much relevence for the future either - since you don't put much weight into demographics.

But since you bring up hocus pocus trend extension, let's talk about global warming

[Black Dog]

But again in lefty fashion your swear words and emotion (typical lefty behavior) don't present much of an argument. And it's hard to argue with pure demographic fact.

Actually it's extremely easy to argue, especially since your "pure...fact" is no such thing. First of all, your assumption is that Mulsim birthrates will remain the same. That in itself is a whopping great assumption. Can you point to any historical examples of immigrant birthrates remaining above the replacement rate over the course of several generations? Take a look at France, your favorite case study of how things are going downhill. Reliable estimates of France's Mulsim population peg it at around four million or seven per cent of th epopulation. Assuming a increase of 2 per cent per year for Muslims and a decrease of .5 per cent a year for non Muslims, it will take about 100 years for Muslims to reach parity with the rest of the population. Again, that's using articifically high and static rates of increase and decrease.

Second, your argument also posits no change in Muslim culture itself over time and, indeed, implicitly suggest the existence of a uniform, homogenous (conservative, anti-western) Muslim culture: another highly dubious assumption. Going back to France, its mulsim population includes Muslims of Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian, Turkish, and Senegalese descent, among others. So you're suggesting that this population, diverse in cultural background, political beliefs and national origin is behind a massive cross-cultural conspiracy to overwhelm western culture. Given the sole unifying trend here is their faith (and even then we're talking about a highly polarized and sectarian faith), I think that's another dodgy assumption to make.

Finally there's your total lack of belief in the durability of western culture, based on cherry-picked news stories highlighting some politically correct outrage or another. But can you name one society in history that was overwhelmed demographically by immigrants and subsumed? Because experience tells us the reverse is usually true: immigrants eventually assimilate into the host culture: they don't shape the host in their own image. And, more to the heart of the matter: can you name one real example of how European nations like France are "surrendering" to Muslims? France, again, is one of he most aggressively secular nations around: or did you forget about the whole "hijab ban" thing?

Basically, you're theory asks us to ignore statistical realities (such as the very real possibility that birthrates wil decline over time), historically-proven social realities (such as the trend towards immigrant assimilation) and even the demographic realities within the Muslim community itself. And i haven't said anything about just how Mulsim the Muslims in question are. In short: your theory is bunk.

I suppose in your world China and India don't hold much relevence for the future either - since you don't put much weight into demographics.

What does that have to do with immigration?

But since you bring up hocus pocus trend extension, let's talk about global warming

Ah, so scientific models of varying accuracy=bad. Totally made up trends based on no data using no model at all="OMIGOD THE ISLAMOFASCITSLIBRARIANS ARE TAKING OVER!!11!"

[JerrySeinfeld]

But again in lefty fashion your swear words and emotion (typical lefty behavior) don't present much of an argument. And it's hard to argue with pure demographic fact.

Actually it's extremely easy to argue, especially since your "pure...fact" is no such thing. First of all, your assumption is that Mulsim birthrates will remain the same. That in itself is a whopping great assumption. Can you point to any historical examples of immigrant birthrates remaining above the replacement rate over the course of several generations? Take a look at France, your favorite case study of how things are going downhill. Reliable estimates of France's Mulsim population peg it at around four million or seven per cent of th epopulation. Assuming a increase of 2 per cent per year for Muslims and a decrease of .5 per cent a year for non Muslims, it will take about 100 years for Muslims to reach parity with the rest of the population. Again, that's using articifically high and static rates of increase and decrease.

Second, your argument also posits no change in Muslim culture itself over time and, indeed, implicitly suggest the existence of a uniform, homogenous (conservative, anti-western) Muslim culture: another highly dubious assumption. Going back to France, its mulsim population includes Muslims of Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian, Turkish, and Senegalese descent, among others. So you're suggesting that this population, diverse in cultural background, political beliefs and national origin is behind a massive cross-cultural conspiracy to overwhelm western culture. Given the sole unifying trend here is their faith (and even then we're talking about a highly polarized and sectartain faith), I think that's another dodgy assumption to make.

Finally there's your total lack of belief in the durability of western culture, based on cherry-picked news stories highlighting some politically correct outrage or another. But can you name one society in history that was overwhelmed demographically by immigrants and subsumed? Because experience tells us the reverse is usually true: immigrants eventually assimilate into the host culture: they don't shape the host in their own image. And, more to the heart of the matter: can you name one real example of how European nations like France are "surrendering" to Muslims? France, again, is one of he most aggressively secular nations around: or did you forget about the whole "hijab ban" thing?

Basically, you're theory asks us to ignore statistical realities (such as the very real possibility that birthrates wil decline over time), historically-proven social realities (such as the trend towards immigrant assimilation) and even the demographic realities within the Muslim community itself. And i haven't said anything about just how Mulsim the Muslims in question are. In short: your theory is bunk.

I suppose in your world China and India don't hold much relevence for the future either - since you don't put much weight into demographics.

What does that have to do with immigration?

But since you bring up hocus pocus trend extension, let's talk about global warming

Ah, so scientific models of varying accuracy=bad. Totally made up trends based on no data using no model at all="OMIGOD THE ISLAMOFASCITSLIBRARIANS ARE TAKING OVER!!11!"

[JerrySeinfeld]

But again in lefty fashion your swear words and emotion (typical lefty behavior) don't present much of an argument. And it's hard to argue with pure demographic fact.

Actually it's extremely easy to argue, especially since your "pure...fact" is no such thing. First of all, your assumption is that Mulsim birthrates will remain the same. That in itself is a whopping great assumption. Can you point to any historical examples of immigrant birthrates remaining above the replacement rate over the course of several generations? Take a look at France, your favorite case study of how things are going downhill. Reliable estimates of France's Mulsim population peg it at around four million or seven per cent of th epopulation. Assuming a increase of 2 per cent per year for Muslims and a decrease of .5 per cent a year for non Muslims, it will take about 100 years for Muslims to reach parity with the rest of the population. Again, that's using articifically high and static rates of increase and decrease.

Second, your argument also posits no change in Muslim culture itself over time and, indeed, implicitly suggest the existence of a uniform, homogenous (conservative, anti-western) Muslim culture: another highly dubious assumption. Going back to France, its mulsim population includes Muslims of Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian, Turkish, and Senegalese descent, among others. So you're suggesting that this population, diverse in cultural background, political beliefs and national origin is behind a massive cross-cultural conspiracy to overwhelm western culture. Given the sole unifying trend here is their faith (and even then we're talking about a highly polarized and sectartain faith), I think that's another dodgy assumption to make.

Finally there's your total lack of belief in the durability of western culture, based on cherry-picked news stories highlighting some politically correct outrage or another. But can you name one society in history that was overwhelmed demographically by immigrants and subsumed? Because experience tells us the reverse is usually true: immigrants eventually assimilate into the host culture: they don't shape the host in their own image. And, more to the heart of the matter: can you name one real example of how European nations like France are "surrendering" to Muslims? France, again, is one of he most aggressively secular nations around: or did you forget about the whole "hijab ban" thing?

Basically, you're theory asks us to ignore statistical realities (such as the very real possibility that birthrates wil decline over time), historically-proven social realities (such as the trend towards immigrant assimilation) and even the demographic realities within the Muslim community itself. And i haven't said anything about just how Mulsim the Muslims in question are. In short: your theory is bunk.

I suppose in your world China and India don't hold much relevence for the future either - since you don't put much weight into demographics.

What does that have to do with immigration?

But since you bring up hocus pocus trend extension, let's talk about global warming

Ah, so scientific models of varying accuracy=bad. Totally made up trends based on no data using no model at all="OMIGOD THE ISLAMOFASCITSLIBRARIANS ARE TAKING OVER!!11!"

1. Muslims don't need parity - they're already starting to run the show.

2. Europe needs to accelerate immigration to finance it's lavish social programs so your numbers are way off.

3. Your assimilation argument is flawed because there has never in history BEEN a history like we're seeing now.

4. If muslim immigrants assimilate, why are 2nd and 3rd generation muslims (a) planning to behead the prime minister and blow up toronto ( bombing the london tube and planning to blow up transatlantuic flights ...etc. Muslims aren't getting more assimilated by the generation, they're getting LESS soa dn more and more aggressive.

5. No one needs to cherry pick news stories about agressive muslim immigrants. They're all over the place.

Second - you make a common socialist multiculti mistake: you're a present tense thinker.

It has been said George W Bush is the longest term thinker in Washington and it's true. You're worried about pantywasite social programs and appeasing the agressive muslims in our society to "feel good" today.

[Black Dog]

1. Muslims don't need parity - they're already starting to run the show.

How?

2. Europe needs to accelerate immigration to finance it's lavish social programs so your numbers are way off.

Proof? Given Europe's high unemployment rates (8 per cent across the EU, even higher in places like France) the problem is a surfeit of warm bodies, not jobs. Thus, it's highly unlikely that immigration rates will accelerate.

3. Your assimilation argument is flawed because there has never in history BEEN a history like we're seeing now.

Nonsense.

4. If muslim immigrants assimilate, why are 2nd and 3rd generation muslims (a) planning to behead the prime minister and blow up toronto ( bombing the london tube and planning to blow up transatlantuic flights ...etc. Muslims aren't getting more assimilated by the generation, they're getting LESS soa dn more and more aggressive.

Again: proof? Incidents like the London bombings are not necessarily indicative of demographic or social trends. In other words: anecdotes ain't data.

5. No one needs to cherry pick news stories about agressive muslim immigrants. They're all over the place.

You obviously don't understand what the term cherry-pick means.

Second - you make a common socialist multiculti mistake: you're a present tense thinker.

It has been said George W Bush is the longest term thinker in Washington and it's true. You're worried about pantywasite social programs and appeasing the agressive muslims in our society to "feel good" today.

Non sequiter.