Posted on 11/26/2006 8:11:28 AM PST by Spacewalker
A RASH of pop prophets tell us that Muslims in Europe are reproducing so fast and European societies are so weak and listless that, before you know it, the continent will become "Eurabia," with all those topless gals on the Riviera wearing veils.
Well, maybe not.
The notion that continental Europeans, who are world-champion haters, will let the impoverished Muslim immigrants they confine to ghettos take over their societies and extend the caliphate from the Amalfi Coast to Amsterdam has it exactly wrong...
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
'This chart shows the popularity of "Mohammed" as a baby name in France.'
Well, if it was good enough for Cassius Clay. . . .
Basically his argument is that Europe should ignore the growing threat of the growing Muslim minority because when the problem becomes really bad, Europeans will muster the ferocity to expel or kill them, most likely with brutal abandon. That's some cockamamie argument.
Peters seems more interested in debunking the growing alarms that he does in saying that Europeans should actually take steps now to avoid more horrendous solutions later.
No, I think he's a very sharp military mind, but one who is for some reason worried that he needs to show he's not as harsh a guy as his military guy would suggest. He seems to compensate for this by acting like a sensitive, Kumbaya singing hippie when the topic turns to Islam. Maybe he hopes it will take the edge off of his military ideas, and make them more palatable.
military guy = military writings
I hope Peters is right.
But I suspect he should go back and read more about how Frenchmen
handled a "Phony War" when they had a discernible enemy lying in front
of them in mass formations.
I suspect they'll fair even worse this time.
Because they've allowed the Islamic enemy to fully infiltrate the
French cities, become part of the workforce that runs the infrastructure,
and given them the housing and transportation that will allow the
savages to cut the throats of millions of the French in the dead of the night.
The French won't know what hit 'em.
And they won't even be able to call "To Arms" as their heads and
bodies will be detached.
(I pray I'm wrong on this. And that the French fight back and win.
I'll gladly eat crow if that happens.)
....then again, outlawing headscarves has nothing to do with addressing Islam. The headscarves were banned from schools by the French governmant because it represents religious expression in a public place. The French revolution was a prototype for Lenin ---it was radically and vociferously anti-religious. In many palces the revolutionaries literally bricked up the churches no nobody would go. The French State continues to be passionately secular (only government bureaucrats can marry you for example, since the government regards church weddings as legally invalid).
As for Peters saying Le Pen got 1/3 of the vote, remember that it was a run-off (Le Pen got about 18% in the first vote) and many people have deep misgivings about Chirac, the posturing quintessential "empty suit" who belives in nothing and stands for nothing.
I have family in France, I find the French very passive. Well-dressed and well-fed sheep, who never seem to think think beyond next year's Beaujolais.
I'm with Peters in that I believe that there a substantial risk of a serious ethnic conflict in Europe. I don't really know (or care at this point) who is the most likely to win it. I don't want to see Western European culture disappear into the garbage can of history and I don't want to see holocaust-like ethnic brutality against Muslims either.
We have been through times like this in my lifetime in Kenya, Rhodesia, South Africa, The Holy Land. I dont' doubt that we will see it again and again. In each case I worry that something precious to our civilization will be lost-- our open Western culture or our compassion toward our minorities. Neither prosepect pleases me at all. I want peace. I love peace. I am called by my faith to stand and witness for peace, particularly at this season.
We cannot achieve peace by faint-heartedness, though. Either European leaders can stand for their culture or they will see terrible conflict. Either they can stand for compassion for all the ethnic groups in their countries or they will see terrible conflict.
Finally, I hate pessimism about this huge challenge. Europe is facing a very hard and long period of testing. Surely, our pessimism makes the test even harder.
I think Peters is wrong, but it's also wrong to suggest that it is likely America will step in to save Europe again. FDR did not have to contend with an omnipresent press which exalts itself as the "4th Branch of government" and sees it's role as constant b*tching and sniping from the rear.
It was liberal and fluffy in Germany (Weimar socialist republic) before Hitler. Fluffy in Britain and France just before WWII.
Just speaking for myself, I think what I'm seeing in the posts is not
pessimissm.
What I'm reading is folks being fairly realistic about the chances that
there will be an open, armed contest in Europe between the "indigenous"
Europeans and the imported or first-born Islamics in their midst.
Maybe someone else has mentioned it, but I can speculate another outcome,
while doing this daydreaming about nations.
I suspect there might not be any sort of open conflict.
Instead some of the "indigenous" Europeans will realize how much they
have in common with their new Islamic neighbors: anti-Semitism, a wish
for Israel to be evaported, and an involuntary feeling of joy when
the USA takes it in the shorts.
I wouldn't be suprised if The Islamic Republic of France just doesn't
emerge overnight and peacefully.
Hence the French won't be asking the USA to come rescue them.
They'll be "re-targeting" their nuclear arsenal to "contain American aggression".
It will be interesting to see if the pressure becomes great enough that the governments and old elites get swept aside
And doesn't show out of how many birth...
If you have an actual interest in other information, you might read this:
Allah Mode
Among other things, you might notice that the actual number of "French" muslims used by most sociologists in 2002 was 8 million. You might also notice that the birth rates of Muslim women varied between 4 and 5+, depending on country of origin.
If you really want to assess the condition France finds itself in, you might find some simple math interesting. For purposes of simplicity, I ignored age differentials and the differences in ages when children are born.
First, I used the Brookings number of an overall birth rate of 1.94 for France as a whole, and assumed a composite birth rate of 5.0 for Muslim women as a group. Then, I assumed Muslim women of childbearing age are no more than their percentage of the population as a whole, or about 13% (i.e., 8 million out of a total population of 62 million).
Using these greatly simplified assumptions, and continuing the analysis in the simplest possible way, then it is easy to estimate the total births all the women in France can be expected to produce sometime in their lifetimes. This would be 1.94 x 31 million = 60.1 million. Of these, Muslim women would have produced 5 x 4 million = 20 million. That would mean Muslim women produced 33% of all births.
From that simple starting point it is easy to see how the higher proportion of young women, coupled with the younger age at which Muslim women have children, leads to the current estimated birth statistics in France. And all this, of course, ignores the additional influence of continuing immigration.
Note to "Spacewalker": your insults are wasted. I couldn't care less what juveniles think.
Actually all scholars believe that Shakespeare never met a Jew, given that he didn't go out of England and there were no Jews in England when he lived...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shylock
"It is of interest that William Shakespeare in all probability had never actually met a Jew in his lifetime - at least, not a Jew who admitted to his or her own Judaism. The Jews of England were expelled on July 18, 1290, on decree of Edward I and were only officially re-admitted by Oliver Cromwell in the year 1655, thirty-nine years after Shakespeare's death. Although a small number of Jews did remain, they were forced to keep their Judaism secret."
This is perhaps the stupidest political column I've read in the past year. Steyn is much more on the mark. Peters should stick to military topics.
Again, the religipous symbols were banned in 1905 while the French revolution took place in 1789...
Again, I linked to the report on the only real statistical source on muslims in France... It isn't the French government line, as the government doesn't have and cannot have a line on ethnicity by law...
There is no support whatsoever for the alarmist numbers people are talking about... Neither is there any support for the birth data... Only people inventing data to supportr their prejudices...
BTW, give me not an article in a review but real work by sociologists... There are none supporting your numbers, none whatsoever...
The truth of the matter is that French muslim are maybe 4 millions, that they aren't reproducing like rabbits as you think and that laic France has a much better demography than catholic Italy...
Youy are just an ignorant guy trying to peddle his agenda... In spite of what you say, muslims birth are not a third of French birth, muslims are not taking over France and
Peters is much more right than Steyn on this one...
Oh yes: and maybe you should try and visit France... Where people have children at about the same rate as in most US cities (it is noteworthy that the higher US birth rate is due to Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal).
Sorry to disappoint you: France won't become muslims any time soon...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.