[lit-ideas] Re: Europe's future, catastrophic or apocalyptic

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 09:11:18 -0700

 

Berlinski isn't unique or even the first to describe an impending Eurabia.
As to which cities are soon to have Muslim majorities, Fallaci thought
Amsterdam and Rotterdam are close.  

 

Marseilles & Malmo are about 25% Islam according to someone I read recently
and the trend indicates Muslim majorities in a generation or two.  

 

According to Daisy Sindelar a recently Dutch government study predicted that
not only would Amsterdam and Rotterdam soon have Muslim majorities but also
The Hague and Utrecht.

 

I haven't read Bat Yeor yet, but I imagine she has some other cities to add
to the list.

 

I don't know how you can say statistics don't support the validity of these
trends.  

 

Lawrence

 

-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Teemu Pyyluoma
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 8:41 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Europe's future, catastrophic or apocalyptic

 

> LH: Berlinski had a chapter on Rammstein, did a lot

> of research on them,

> interviewed their members, etc.  After reading her

> book, Menace in Europe, I

> was puzzled as to why she included a chapter on

> Rammstein and another on

> Jose Bove.  I guessed as I said at the time that she

> was using them as

> symbols of the European nature that is anything but

> as acquiescent as

> writers like Oriana Fallaci describes it to be. 

> Berlinski's description of

> them makes them sound menacing.  The lyrics she

> quotes sound menacing.  She

> gives a web site to all of their lyrics:

> http://www.herzeleid.com/en/lyrics.

> 

Menacing hard rock band lyrics, what is the world

coming to?

> 

> I was especially interested in reading her interview

> with Front Page Mag

> 

Reading the interview, I still think she is silly.

Leaving the foaming aside, when she actually mentions

something close to facts it doesn't look particularly

impressive:

 

- "Birthrates of native Europeans have, for reasons

not well understood, plummeted." Plummeted is

overstating it, and they are not notably lower than

for white Americans. Reasons are fairly well

understood:

a) Total fertility rate (TFR) lacks actual fertility

due to postponement effect. To give a theoretical

example, women in generation A have their first child

at 19 and second at 24 on average, women in later

generation B at 24 and 29 respectively. Real fertility

is the same, TFA drops because generation B fertility

is calculated forward using generation A patterns.

Studies estimate this lack to be something like 0.3.

 

b) Education of women lowers birth rates, connection

to literacy in particular is strong, and for quite

obvious reasons. This is true all over the world, TFR

in Iran is in roughly European levels for example.

Birth rates are by Berlinski standards "plummeting"

pretty much everywhere, aka the great demographic

change due to increasing standards of living. Europe

is simply somewhat ahead in this development.

 

c) There are significant differences inside Europe.

Roughly, the more conservative the society, lower the

birth rates, see Spain, Italy, Greece. Nordic nations,

France and Ireland have pretty decent birth rates.

Economic security due to well-fare state and/or

economic growth is the obvious explanation. UK is

somewhere in between. East Europe on the whole is as

low as the Med nations, which can be attributed to

economic insecurity too.

 

"Saudi Arabia now provides 80 percent of the funding

for the 1200 mosques and Islamic centers in France"

 

And she knows this how? The only source for this

figure is MEMRI excerpt from the always reliable Saudi

government English weekly Ain Al-Yaqeen at

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sd&ID=SP36002.

Let's just say I have my doubts.

 

"some forty percent of Muslims in Britain, when

polled, say they would favor the imposition of

sharia."

Q10 in the page

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2006/Sunday%20Telegraph%20-%20Mulims%20
Feb/Sunday%20Telegraph%20Muslims%20feb06.asp

Note that the question as I read  it does not mean

sharia would take precedence over UK law. Also compare

to other answers, such as:

Q5. Which one of the following comes closest to your

view?

Western society is decadent and immoral and Muslims

should seek to bring it to an end, if necessary by

violent means     7%

Western society may not be perfect but Muslims should

live within it and not seek to bring it to an end     80%

Refuse/Don't know       12%

 

It tells something of the pollsters that there was no

"I like Western society" option.

 

"There are more worshippers in Britain's mosques now

than in the Church of England, and there are more

practicing Moslems in France than there are baptized

Catholics."

Given that Muslim populations is 2.8% in UK and less

than 10% in France, I seriously doubt these figures,

even if Church attendance is very low in both

countries.

 

"Within a generation, many European cities will have

Moslem majorities."

Name one. And not just a suburb that is technically a

city of its own.

 

And so and so on. I am not going to waste one more

time with someone that is obviously statistically

illiterate.

 

 

Cheers,

Teemu

Helsinki, Finland

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 05-2006