Make more white children!

That’s why those are forecasts, not statements about the present situation.

I read an article that tried to make out that very claim, but it was terrible.

Have you considered the possibility that there might be other articles on the subject that are less terrible? Or maybe just tried to use a little math and common sense?

Falling birth rates among immigrants are likely, but it is not likely that they fall quickly all the way to the extremely low level among the natives. The latter already go as low as 1 child per woman which means that the total population halves each generation. On the other hand, sources for continuing immigration do exist since many Muslim countries are populous, poor, and fairly close to Western European countries.

Assuming that a Muslim minority of 10% merely retains its total numbers (hardly an outrageous assumption given some continued immigration and gradual conversion of non-Muslims), we’d go from a 10-90 split today to 18-82 in one generation, 31-69 in two generations, and 47-53 in three generations. Shortly thereafter, in about 100 years, there would indeed be a Muslim majority. No outrageous assumptions or projections made here.

Moreover, believing in the automatic assimilation of Muslim immigrants is foolish. While their total share in the population is still low, they are not evenly spread across the country but concentrated in large cities where they already reach 50% of the local population. Assimilation to the rest of the country no longer happens in those homogenous communities since the rest of the country is effectively no longer present.

On top of that, unemployment is very high among immigrants from poor countries in general which further reduces exposure to lifestyles outside their own group, as well as economic opportunities to participate in that lifestyle. All this makes blanket assumptions about falling birth rates and an increasingly secular attitude as a result of assimilation rather questionable.

Why don’t you show me an article that proves it to be true?

You assume with your back-of-an-envelope calculation a minimum of 10% of the population, when that is the maximum possible estimate from the country with the largest population of Muslims in Europe. The actual average for Europe as a whole (excluding Turkey) is less than 1%. I’d like to see you take some scaremongering figures and extrapolate that out to 50+% over 100 years.

While their total share in the population is still low, they are not evenly spread across the country but concentrated in large cities where they already reach 50% of the local population.

Can you point to one single city in Europe, aside from Bosnia and Albania, that has more than 50% Muslims as the population?

Britain is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in Europe, and its most ethnically diverse city is only a third ethnic, and only a fraction of those are Muslims. Even Marseilles, France’s most Muslim city, is not more than 25%. Where do you get this idea that large cities in Europe are already majority Muslims?

It seems to me that the historical case in the U.S. is that large immigrant populations have altered American culture while allowing the political institutions to remain more or less intact. (Despite the Constitution there has been some change or “drift” in American political institutions since the 1780s – the overall strengthening of the executive branch, to name one – but I don’t see a particular correlation between this and the influence of immigrants.)

Is there any reason to suppose this would be different with future influxes of immigrants, either in the U.S. or in other countries? The question isn’t meant to be rhetorical. Are there examples in history in which the political institutions of a nation have been irrevocably changed or subverted by the cultural or religious baggage of immigrant populations?

Rome. The Gothic tribes didn’t want to bring the empire down, they wanted to be part of it, they envied the wealth and stability. They immigrated, to live within it. Once in, they weren’t all that keen on giving up their own ways of doing things. They also were loyal to their own tribes first and the empire second. The empire, meanwhile, found it easier to rely on barbarian auxiliaries and mercenaries than troops of its own people, who didn’t particularly want to fight and die for anything. The result was that when push came to shove, things fell apart; there was no national feeling keeping the empire together.

You’ll tell me the parallel is silly, invalid, leaves out a lot, whatever. I hope such criticisms are right.

As for the issue of white vs brown babies, it depends what kind of brown babies:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/MultiCulty.shtml

This, in particular, I find hard to argue with:

Right now, there is a tremendous repressed hostility between blacks and whites, the lid being held on by federal power, tight control of the press, and rigorous political correctness. Whites, huge numbers of them, detest Latino immigrants and would love to expel them from the country. Serious friction grows between blacks and Latinos as Latinos push blacks out of regions they once controlled. We’re not moving toward accommodation. We’re moving toward trouble.

The illegal immigration subject came up at a work lunch recently (this is a company that makes a big deal of being proud of its diversity). There was a lot of negativity about the rules-breaking aspect of the Latino illegals, and their not assimilating. I tried the comment that immigrants from Asia (in contrast) often do a good job of fitting in and becoming Americans, rather than imposing their own culture. An Asiatic immediately spoke up and argued at great length and quite persuasively to the contrary. I don’t know what conclusions to draw from that, except maybe that we aren’t complaining about a flood of Asiatic culture and people because there’s an ocean between here and there so it’s forced to come in by comparatively small amounts.

I would LIKE to live in a country or world where the ideals of multiculturalism held true. I WANT them to be true. I grew up assuming they were true. I don’t think they are true.

You overlooked that I also assumed that the absolute number of Muslims would remain exactly stable when in fact it is continually growing. That should more than offset the higher initial estimate over the course of a few decades.

Can you point to one single city in Europe, aside from Bosnia and Albania, that has more than 50% Muslims as the population?

Sorry for being unclear, I was referring to inner city districts with the term “local population”. The point was that the number and concentration are high enough for self-contained cultural communities to form. A comparatively lower share over the whole city area does not invalidate this statement because the city limits also includes suburbs with a very low share of immigrants.

Some googling reveals that you appear to be correct that the Muslim share of the population has not yet reached 50% anywhere but Berlin/Kreuzberg already has an impressive 36% of Turkish immigrants, for example. And the 25% Muslims which you now discovered for Marseilles are more than twice as high than the 10% you previously cited as the maximum estimate for France. QED.

Rollory,

Unless Asians are the only minority, they’re considered white by many people.

Depending on what you “need”, skin color is the be all end all when it comes to perception.

There’s a reason why people spend tens of thousands of dollars to fly across the world to adopt chinese babies when there plenty of ready and waiting non-white children in the United States.

It’s why most people don’t see asian-caucasian marriages as interracial. Yes, I know the asian side of the family is more likely to see it for what it is.

The assimilation argument for minorities is the same. Try and assimilate too much and you risk very painful and biting digs at your sense of self worth and racial pride. Black kids get it with the whole, “talking white, acting white, oreo” line of logic. I was a little surprised to find out that it happened in the asian community (using the term “banana” ie yellow on the outside, but white on the inside) mostly because I always figured it was “black thing”. I know it’s going on in the hispanic community as well.

By “it” I mean the belief by some people who believe that parents shouldn’t encourage their children to learn english because it represents the loss of cultural identity. These same people belief that parents should only speak their native languages at home and that learning English is secondary to mastering the native language.

Like I said earlier, I was surprised to learn that it happens in all cultures.

Chris and Tim, you both make good points. Meshed together and ran through a strainer, most of what you’re both saying makes sense:

  • News emanates from cities versus rural areas.
  • Most minorities reside in cities versus rural areas.
  • News from cities will feature minorities occassionally
  • Perception: there are many more minorities than reality

Was the comment about kids being the source of poverty a joke?

Extrabags, I think the issue was talking about white babies instead of babies in the first place and trying to cover by saying hispanics can’t do it all.

QED what? That immigrants tend to gather in the same place? It doesn’t prove your argument that Islam is going to take over Europe now or ever.

The Irish gather in the cities of Britain too, and congregate in certain boroughs, like Islington, but we don’t hear about Britain being taken over by Catholics. There are millions of Irish in Britain too, they are the biggest foreign born group living in London, but they aren’t a threat to the Protestant nature of the country. The Irish also once had a reputation for breeding like rabbits, but that’s changed along with their prosperity and integration into the community.

You overlooked that I also assumed that the absolute number of Muslims would remain exactly stable when in fact it is continually growing. That should more than offset the higher initial estimate over the course of a few decades.

I don’t believe I overlooked anything. Your calculations suffer from numerous flaws, which is why I described them as being of the “back-of-an-envelope” kind. You claim, incorrectly, that the birth rate for Europeans is as low as one per family. The actual figure is 1.5, and this is a BIG difference. You also claim that one child per family would result in a halving of the population every generation, which is just wrong.

According to Brian C. O’Neill, who co-authored an EU study into population decline, stated that assuming the current birth rates, and assuming no increases to the average life span (which isn’t likely), the population of the EU could drop by as much as 88 million, from it’s current total of 375 million.

According to the most Islamaphobic sources, the current Muslim population of the EU is, at most, 20 million. So somehow your calculation needs to take that population of 20 million to 300 million in the space of 100 years. The only way it could do that would be to assume a straight line doubling of the population every generation, which defies all evidence and logic.

Sure the influence will increase, but many of the Muslims in the EU are from countries with stable populations, like Turkey. There are also plenty of immigrants here now, and who will come later, who are from non-Islamic nations, like India, China, and the rest of Africa, Latin America and Asia. Europe will no doubt become a lot less white, but I don’t think it’s going to become an Islamic caliphate.

In my opinion, they aren’t considered white, they are just actually accepted as “equal”. The way white folk treat the asians compared to other “others” is a good reference for how racist we still are as a nation.

I understand what you mean. I find the way you worded it (“equal”) to be interesting.

Yeah, it’s not the right word, I just don’t really know what the right word is. What did you find interesting about it?

I just recalled a few things like the phrase, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, the Brendan Fraser movie School Ties (he’s the cool dude till they found out his heritage), the movie Gentleman’s Agreement, the Human Stain, Cotton Club, etc.

Equality is fine and dandy until there’s a reason not to be equal then it’s off to the races.

This argument is absolutely inflammatory. Everyone knows that dark skinned people wear 70% more bling than white skinned people. Bling has nearly a 100% albedo and is surely a better anti-warming agent. Typical Fox News misrepresentation.

I do believe that the Irish are a wee bit more culturally similar to the English than Arabs or Turks are to West Europeans. That whole language thing, you know, and what with Catholics and Anglicans or Protestants all being Christians. Also, they’re visually indistinguishable from the natives which should help integration quite a bit…

I don’t believe I overlooked anything. Your calculations suffer from numerous flaws, which is why I described them as being of the “back-of-an-envelope” kind. You claim, incorrectly, that the birth rate for Europeans is as low as one per family. The actual figure is 1.5, and this is a BIG difference.

The 1.5 figure is a misleading average. Birth rates are already at around 1.3 in Italy, Spain, and Germany (see UN table for up to 1999; UN page containing the table). Moreover, birth rate averages include both indigenous non-Muslims and immigrant Muslims, and I was considering them separately which was the point of the whole discussion. France’s higher natality figures are suspect precisely for that reason: they include the relatively large number of North African immigrants.

Sure, my 1.0 figure was a simplification but you continue to overlook my simplifying assumption that the absolute number of Muslims remains constant when in fact it’s growing.

You also claim that one child per family would result in a halving of the population every generation, which is just wrong.

Sorry, but this is exactly correct – once the low fertility rate has propagated through the age pyramid. You don’t see the effect immediately because birth rates have fallen only recently while life expectancy is increasing, so a lot of oldsters are hanging around for a while. Once they die off and life expectancy stops increasing, the population will in fact half every generation at a sustained 1.0 birth rate.

Besides, a bunch of ineffective senior citizens tucked away in hospitals or old-age homes aren’t going to be nearly as effective at shaping the cultural face of a nation as the same number of active and aggressive young Muslims.

assuming no increases to the average life span (which isn’t likely),

Beg pardon, but it is in fact quite likely that the life span won’t be increasing that much anymore, anytime soon. Lots of old people are already being nursed to an unavoidable death (general organic failure rather than acute disease), and costs of care & treatment for typical old-age conditions are already prohibitive.

According to the most Islamaphobic sources, the current Muslim population of the EU is, at most, 20 million. So somehow your calculation needs to take that population of 20 million to 300 million in the space of 100 years. The only way it could do that would be to assume a straight line doubling of the population every generation, which defies all evidence and logic.

Again, you’re just taking misleading averages. Let’s have a look at France where official figures state 4 million Muslims out of roughly 60 million inhabitants. For a majority they would only have to go from 4 to 30, or a factor of 7.5. That’s just half the factor of your 300:20 estimate, and it doesn’t even include the projected decline of the overall French population!

Sure the influence will increase, but many of the Muslims in the EU are from countries with stable populations, like Turkey. There are also plenty of immigrants here now, and who will come later, who are from non-Islamic nations, like India, China, and the rest of Africa, Latin America and Asia. Europe will no doubt become a lot less white, but I don’t think it’s going to become an Islamic caliphate.

Caliphate or not is another question but there is actually a strong likelihood that France, Germany, Italy or Spain will have a Muslim majority by 2100, even if this isn’t the case in Britain, Greece, Poland or Belgium.

I do believe that the Irish are a wee bit more culturally similar to the English than Arabs or Turks are to West Europeans. That whole language thing, you know, and what with Catholics and Anglicans or Protestants all being Christians. Also, they’re visually indistinguishable from the natives which should help integration quite a bit…

Yeah, I think that “looking different” thing is a real big deal with some people… But you ignore the point: once upon a time the Irish were seen as being significantly different from the British. They were poorer, they were from a noticeably different race (copper coloured hair is still viewed negatively in Britain), they had high birth rates, and they belonged to a religion that British people were extremely hostile towards because they viewed it as a threat. Sound familiar?

Nobody in Britain cares about them now. Nobody in Britain worries any more about the Catholics taking over the country. Nobody in Britain fears the Irish infiltrating the country with their high birth rates and mass immigration.

I think a lot of the differences between groups, like the Germans and Turks, is mostly in the minds of people. Unlike the Pakistanis in England, I hardly notice the Turks in Germany, who make up a large proportion of the Muslims in Europe. They look to me like tanned Germans or Italians. German Turks dress, act and look European. They drink beer, they watch football, they dress in the latest fashions.

I was chatting with my physiotherapist this morning about football, thankfully because of his excellent English. Over the last few weeks we’d been talking a lot about the German national team and his hopes (and fears) for their success in the World Cup this year. I talked about how I thought a few teams, including Germany, had been a bit lucky in the 2002 World Cup because of the upsets. I said especially the Turks, because they didn’t play a single decent team en route to the semi-finals.

I was surprised when he denied this vigourously, but amiably. Of course he was Turkish, I just hadn’t noticed because he was just like every other German I have met.

The 1.5 figure is a misleading average. Birth rates are already at around 1.3 in Italy, Spain, and Germany (see UN table for up to 1999; UN page containing the table). Moreover, birth rate averages include both indigenous non-Muslims and immigrant Muslims, and I was considering them separately which was the point of the whole discussion. France’s higher natality figures are suspect precisely for that reason: they include the relatively large number of North African immigrants.

The average for the EU as a whole is 1.5. It is misleading in another way, in that is excludes the likes of Ukraine and Romania, both populous countries with negligible Muslim populations and relatively high birth rates, I notice that scaremongering Islamphobes like to include Turkey in their calculations, but ignore similarly populous Ukraine.

While the figure maybe “misleading” in that it doesn’t show how some countries have lower birthrates than the average, it is also “misleading” in not showing that some, mostly those without significant Muslim populations, like Poland, have higher than average birthrates. On the other hand, your figure of 1.0 was just plain wrong and not a “simplification”.

Small differences of a few points will make a huge difference in calculations of populations over a hundred years. Instead of choosing the figures you like best, why not just take the figure I gave from an expert in the field who had calculated what the population of Europe would be after 100 years with the present birth rate?

Sorry, but this is exactly correct – once the low fertility rate has propagated through the age pyramid. You don’t see the effect immediately because birth rates have fallen only recently while life expectancy is increasing, so a lot of oldsters are hanging around for a while. Once they die off and life expectancy stops increasing, the population will in fact half every generation at a sustained 1.0 birth rate.

Perhaps your English isn’t so clear, because what you are saying is plain wrong. You are saying the population will halve every generation, which would mean that the population of Germany would be half within about 30 years with a birth rate of 1.0 per family. That is obviously wrong. What you actually mean is that the newborn population will be half in the next generation.

But the birth rate isn’t 1.0, and we have a good population estimate for the EU after 100 years at the present birth rate, so all this quibbling is mute.

Besides, a bunch of ineffective senior citizens tucked away in hospitals or old-age homes aren’t going to be nearly as effective at shaping the cultural face of a nation as the same number of active and aggressive young Muslims.

Aggressive young Muslims? Apart from your ugly wording, your understanding of influence of various groups seems a bit skewed. We live in a democratic society, not one run by angry people of any race or religion. The people who vote most are older people, not younger ones. Therefore your kindly white European geriatrics will be much more influential than your angry Muslim youth.

Beg pardon, but it is in fact quite likely that the life span won’t be increasing that much anymore, anytime soon. Lots of old people are already being nursed to an unavoidable death (general organic failure rather than acute disease), and costs of care & treatment for typical old-age conditions are already prohibitive.

The last article I read on the subject suggested that even without new, and therefore expensive, medical treatments, the life expetancy for newborns in the coming years could rise to as much as 150, simply through better basic health care. Expensive new treatments also become cheaper over time, especially as patents run out, so there’s little reason to expect life expectancy to decrease.

An interesting point to make on life expectancy, however, is that those first generation immigrants with the high birth rates also have lower life expectancies.

Again, you’re just taking misleading averages. Let’s have a look at France where official figures state 4 million Muslims out of roughly 60 million inhabitants. For a majority they would only have to go from 4 to 30, or a factor of 7.5. That’s just half the factor of your 300:20 estimate, and it doesn’t even include the projected decline of the overall French population!

I’m not taking misleading averages, you are just picking and choosing which averages you want to make your case sound better. France is an obvious outlier in European demographics, Poland is at the other end of the spectrum, and has a similar population size.

Perhaps you could do me a favour and link to an article from a respected source that shows what you are trying to claim. Surely it won’t be that hard to find if the horror of Sharia law in Europe is just around the corner. There must be lots of reasonable people writing articles to warn us about that, and not just far-right extremists?

The distance between the English and the Irish, and the English and the Pakistanis, in terms of cultural / historical / genetic differences, is far far less, and thus far easier to accomodate.

I was surprised when he denied this vigourously, but amiably. Of course he was Turkish, I just hadn’t noticed because he was just like every other German I have met.

Ok. YOU have reprogrammed your own brain to ignore certain physical cues that are blatantly obvious to most other humans on the planet. Doesn’t mean that YOU are normal. Turks do not look like Germans. Pretending otherwise won’t change that.

For what it’s worth, I am white, with dark hair. On several different occasions when I started work at my current place, people would say to me “hmm … you don’t look American. Where are you from?” I would answer, well, one of my parents is French. And they would nod, and say things like “that explains it”, or “I thought French, but I wasn’t sure”. All of these people were Asiatics, where the PC resistance to recognizing that people from national groups look like each other has not penetrated. One doesn’t have to be chocolate-skinned with thick curly black hair to be recognizeable as a non-European. Again: just because YOU have never trained this particular ability in yourself doesn’t mean nobody else has.

They don’t act like Germans either, when you go into the Turk-only neighborhoods.

The average for the EU as a whole is 1.5. It is misleading in another way, in that is excludes the likes of Ukraine and Romania, both populous countries with negligible Muslim populations and relatively high birth rates, I notice that scaremongering Islamphobes like to include Turkey in their calculations, but ignore similarly populous Ukraine.

Romania = 1.37 child per woman
Ukraine = 1.17 child per woman
(CIA world factbook)

Are you always this accurate?

Instead of choosing the figures you like best, why not just take the figure I gave from an expert in the field who had calculated what the population of Europe would be after 100 years with the present birth rate?

Experts choose the numbers they like best too, and they don’t always tell us why. Sometimes it’s better to fall back on one’s own logic. Assuming a roughly 1.0 birthrate for Europe is close enough to get an estimate of how things are going, particularly when the immigrant birthrate is closer to 4.0.

Aggressive young Muslims? Apart from your ugly wording, your understanding of influence of various groups seems a bit skewed. We live in a democratic society, not one run by angry people of any race or religion. The people who vote most are older people, not younger ones. Therefore your kindly white European geriatrics will be much more influential than your angry Muslim youth.

Right.

… Right. Like in France last fall. The kindly geriatrics were so good at repressing the destruction of thousands of people’s cars, sparked by the police trying to actually enforce the law in a suburb. Voting really had a big influence there.

Like when little old people are walking along and see some punks breaking open a parking meter for the change, and dare to say “you shouldn’t do that!” and get set upon in return.

Like … ah why bother. The Muslim punks are willing to fight and to ignore the rules. The geriatrics are not. The conclusion is simple. Tim, one of these days, reality is going to hit you upside the head with a two-by-four, and it is going to a Muslim hand that swings it.

There must be lots of reasonable people writing articles to warn us about that, and not just far-right extremists?

Bruce Bawer. Homosexual who disliked reactionary right-wing America so much he went to Europe to escape it. And found out things are worse over there.

http://www.brucebawer.com/
http://tinyurl.com/qj8wh

But he disagrees with you, so he’s clearly a fascist.

There are actually tons of other sober discussions of this issue out there, but if you want to discount any that takes a position you don’t agree with as being far-right, there’s not much point in digging them up.

The EU average is misleading because an Orthodox or atheist Ukraine does not in any way prevent or negate an Islamic France. And I sure as hell didn’t talk about Turkey at any point. Those “scaremongering Islamophobes” that you keep hyperventilating about only exist in your head.

On the other hand, your figure of 1.0 was just plain wrong and not a “simplification”.

For the third time, this unrealistically low assumption (made for the sake of simpler calculations) was offset by an unrealistically low assumption for the Muslim birth rate since I was comparing the two, not taking absolute numbers. Do you have trouble understanding that?

Small differences of a few points will make a huge difference in calculations of populations over a hundred years. Instead of choosing the figures you like best, why not just take the figure I gave from an expert in the field who had calculated what the population of Europe would be after 100 years with the present birth rate?

Obviously because that birth rate includes not only countries unaffected by Muslim immigration but also the Muslim birth rate in those countries that are. Didn’t I already say that, too?

Perhaps your English isn’t so clear, because what you are saying is plain wrong.

Perhaps your reading comprehension isn’t so good because your paraphrase of what I’m saying is just plain wrong, not what I actually said.

You are saying the population will halve every generation, which would mean that the population of Germany would be half within about 30 years with a birth rate of 1.0 per family. That is obviously wrong. What you actually mean is that the newborn population will be half in the next generation.

And once the birth rate of 1.0 has propagated through the age pyramid the entire population will half every generation. That’s what I said. Do you understand that, yes or no?

Aggressive young Muslims? Apart from your ugly wording,

Aggressive doesn’t have to mean physically aggressive, you know. Aren’t you a writer or something?

your understanding of influence of various groups seems a bit skewed. We live in a democratic society, not one run by angry people of any race or religion.

Democratic societies are steered by competing interest groups and their control over the mass media, not by the vague opinions of a passive and indecisive majority. The Green party never won more than 10-15% of the vote in any election, yet their aggressive propaganda and the widespread sympathy they enjoyed among journalists ensured that their main talking points, such as environmentalism and pacifism, have been adopted by virtually every German party. It’s possible for a small but active and cohesive group of young people to exert influence far beyond their numbers.

The people who vote most are older people, not younger ones. Therefore your kindly white European geriatrics will be much more influential than your angry Muslim youth.

Not if all the parties they can vote for serve the interests of that angry Muslim youth.

The last article I read on the subject suggested that even without new, and therefore expensive, medical treatments, the life expetancy for newborns in the coming years could rise to as much as 150, simply through better basic health care.

You really should read better magazines. That’s Star Trek bullshit. I’ve seen quite a few 90+ year-olds who are healthy but very frail and basically waiting for death. Pushing the life expectancy past 100 is not a problem of health care but a problem of the body simply falling apart.

Expensive new treatments also become cheaper over time, especially as patents run out, so there’s little reason to expect life expectancy to decrease.

I don’t expect a decrease, just not much more in the way of increase.

Perhaps you could do me a favour and link to an article from a respected source that shows what you are trying to claim. Surely it won’t be that hard to find if the horror of Sharia law in Europe is just around the corner. There must be lots of reasonable people writing articles to warn us about that, and not just far-right extremists?

See, that’s the problem. I’m not claiming such things at all. I guess there are voices in your head that are making those claims and sent you into angry tirades against Islamophobes early in this thread, and with very little outside provocation at that. In the meantime, all I did was point that those forecasts about a Muslim majority might not be totally absurd as you like to claim but actually have some basis in reality, for some big European nations.

Ok. YOU have reprogrammed your own brain to ignore certain physical cues that are blatantly obvious to most other humans on the planet. Doesn’t mean that YOU are normal. Turks do not look like Germans. Pretending otherwise won’t change that.

When you compare to stereotypical, arguably racist, visions of Germans and Turks together, then obviously they don’t look in the slightest bit similar. For those who hold such views, Germans are, obviously, tall blonde haired Aryans, and Turks are short, dark skinned Arabs (or near enough).

The reality is a lot different.

Here’s two German national team players. One’s called Mehmet, the other is called Jens. One’s of German origin, the other Turkish. Which one is which?

Now maybe your racially atuned eye can tell the difference, and I’m sure there are many subtle things that the average German could pick up on, like accent, but you think that the majority of people could tell which nationality those two came from?

They don’t act like Germans either, when you go into the Turk-only neighborhoods.

Yes, the last time I was in a Turkish only neighbourhood I noticed that they suddenly dropped their pretence, and started acting like the crazed Islamic demons they really are. Gone were the baseball caps and Nike shoes, to be replaced by kufis, jubbas, and dishdashas. No more playing football in the street and listening to hip hop, suddenly they were all praying towards Mecca en masse and listening to the words of the Imams shouted from the minarets across Frankfurt.

Right.

I can see you’ve been to plenty Turkish neighbourhoods in Germany. And don’t bother telling me you’ve been to Germany. I know. You obviously didn’t spend much time with Turks, though. I do. I think your impression of Turkish neighbourhoods comes from the same place as Bruce Bower: newspapers linked in right-wing blogs like Front Page Magazine.

Romania = 1.37 child per woman
Ukraine = 1.17 child per woman
(CIA world factbook)

Are you always this accurate?

A single mistake. The point is still true that there are large populations of Christian Europeans outside the EU, in Romania, Ukraine and Russia, who aren’t included in the statistics that drive those who conclude that Islam is about to destroy Europe from the inside.

Experts choose the numbers they like best too, and they don’t always tell us why. Sometimes it’s better to fall back on one’s own logic. Assuming a roughly 1.0 birthrate for Europe is close enough to get an estimate of how things are going, particularly when the immigrant birthrate is closer to 4.0.

Claiming that the immigrant birthrate in Europe for Muslims is closer to 4.0 shows you know absolutely nothing about the make up of the Muslim population in Europe. The majority of Muslims in Europe come from Turkey and the Balkans (Albania, Bosnia, Macedonia, etc). These countries have birth rates which range from 1.3 to 2.5, and you’d have to assume that these would double when they moved to the EU. As I said before, this follows no logic and goes against past evidence.

Usually the birth rate for immigrants drops, and drops dramatically for second and third generations. I know plenty of Turkish guys in Germany, many whom I work with, and they range in age from 20-40. Unlike your typical 4.0 family, who start having kids as teenagers, the only two guys who have kids had them after they were 30 years old, and only one child, just like many other Europeans. I have anecdotal and empirical evidence for this phenomenon. What do you have? Stories and stereotypes.

Right.

… Right. Like in France last fall. The kindly geriatrics were so good at repressing the destruction of thousands of people’s cars, sparked by the police trying to actually enforce the law in a suburb. Voting really had a big influence there.

Rioting in France by poor young people? Must be because they are Muslim.

Right.

I bet you didn’t hear about the cars being burned in Paris a few months later… by students. This time they weren’t Muslims, although obviously some were, like some of the earlier rioters weren’t Muslims because not all poor people in the Parisian projects are Muslim. The fact that it wasn’t Muslims rioting meant that it didn’t get picked up in the Islamaphobic blogs and newsites.

Young people are more activist, and more prone to violent outbursts than older people. Older people are more likely to vote.

Like when little old people are walking along and see some punks breaking open a parking meter for the change, and dare to say “you shouldn’t do that!” and get set upon in return.

Like … ah why bother. The Muslim punks are willing to fight and to ignore the rules. The geriatrics are not. The conclusion is simple. Tim, one of these days, reality is going to hit you upside the head with a two-by-four, and it is going to a Muslim hand that swings it.

Muslims are criminals? Yeah, why bother. You aren’t going to convince me of your shit. Take it to someone who already believes.

Bruce Bawer. Homosexual who disliked reactionary right-wing America so much he went to Europe to escape it. And found out things are worse over there.

http://www.brucebawer.com/
http://tinyurl.com/qj8wh

But he disagrees with you, so he’s clearly a fascist.

I wouldn’t call this guy a fascist. He’s a man who went to Europe as a left-leaning liberal seeking some kind of utopia and found that Europe is just as messed up as America, only in different ways. He returned, bitter and disillusioned, and wrote screeds about why Europe is shit and going down the pan, and why America is great. He’s a lot like David “Hating Whitey” Horowitz in that, and of course his former liberal stance and his propensity to write exactly what guys like you want to hear (usually without evidence) gives right wingers a hard on for his opinion.

This obviously makes him a darling for the right wing blogs, like Horowitz’s Front Page Magazine and Little Green Footballs, but it doesn’t make him a respectable source. I was thinking more along the lines of, you know, a newspaper or something.

The EU average is misleading because an Orthodox or atheist Ukraine does not in any way prevent or negate an Islamic France. And I sure as hell didn’t talk about Turkey at any point. Those “scaremongering Islamophobes” that you keep hyperventilating about only exist in your head.

It does negate an Islamic Europe. You can cherry pick your areas as much as you like, even going down to individual majority Muslim households, but you can’t create a picture of Europe overrun with Muslims from isolated outliers. I don’t believe France will be majority Muslim in 100 years, and you have shown me nothing to suggest this could happen, so I am not likely to be swayed by arguments applied across Europe on the basis of arguments that relate to the EU’s most Muslim country.

For the third time, this unrealistically low assumption (made for the sake of simpler calculations) was offset by an unrealistically low assumption for the Muslim birth rate since I was comparing the two, not taking absolute numbers. Do you have trouble understanding that?

The assumption was way off, and your calculations based on it therefore meaningless. Can you please just link to a decent research article on the subject, rather than subjecting me to more back-of-an-envelope calculations?

Aggressive doesn’t have to mean physically aggressive, you know. Aren’t you a writer or something?

Did I say physically aggressive? Either way, your portrayal of a people based on their religion is ugly, and that is being polite.

Democratic societies are steered by competing interest groups and their control over the mass media, not by the vague opinions of a passive and indecisive majority. The Green party never won more than 10-15% of the vote in any election, yet their aggressive propaganda and the widespread sympathy they enjoyed among journalists ensured that their main talking points, such as environmentalism and pacifism, have been adopted by virtually every German party. It’s possible for a small but active and cohesive group of young people to exert influence far beyond their numbers.

That’s false reasoning. While only 10-15% of people will vote for the Green party, many people sympathise with their goals, even if they don’t trust them enough to vote for them. People sympathise with their goals partly because they are active in publicising them, but mostly because people recognise that it is in their best interests to follow some of their policies, like recycling and energy conservation.

If 10-15% of the population voted for a Sharia Islamic party, it’s not going to get sympathy from the rest of the population who are secular or Christian!

You really should read better magazines. That’s Star Trek bullshit. I’ve seen quite a few 90+ year-olds who are healthy but very frail and basically waiting for death. Pushing the life expectancy past 100 is not a problem of health care but a problem of the body simply falling apart.

I actually read about it on the BBC. Steve Austad, a gerontologistat at the University of Idaho, believes there are people alive today who will live to 150. This isn’t the article I read, but it is the same issue. In that more lengthy article, even those experts who disagree with him think that it is quite possible people will be living until 130.

“Will the maximum human life span increase in the future? Probably,” Olshansky says. “It’s possible someone might make it to 130. But to go another 20 years? I don’t see it happening.”

Oh hang on, you said it won’t increase. But here we have two experts both agreeing that it probably will, only disagreeing by how much.

See, that’s the problem. I’m not claiming such things at all. I guess there are voices in your head that are making those claims and sent you into angry tirades against Islamophobes early in this thread, and with very little outside provocation at that. In the meantime, all I did was point that those forecasts about a Muslim majority might not be totally absurd as you like to claim but actually have some basis in reality, for some big European nations.

You didn’t mention anything about Sharia law, but the guy you were defending did. If you defend him and agree with him, I assume that you have the same opinion that growing Muslim influence will lead to Sharia law. The Islamophobes are those who think all young Muslims are angry (or criminals), and write bullshit calculations about how Europe’s Muslims are going to overwhelm us in our lifetimes. Islamophobia is all about spreading fear of Muslims: what is writing poorly researched and unsupported calculations to prove Islam will take over Europe in a hundred years other than spreading fear of Muslims?

Allah knows I’m an idiot for even dipping a toe into another holier-than-thou screed by Benetton Partlett, but, uh, this is Mehmet Scholl, right? The guy with the Turkish father and German mother? If so, I think there’s a pretty good reason why he doesn’t look like Mehmed the Conqueror.