The savage beasts of Explodingheadsville, who’ve been spinning their bearings over apocalyptic demographic predictions for over a year now, should be soothed by this:
Something dramatic has happened to the world’s birthrates. Defying predictions of demographic decline, northern Europeans have started having more babies. Britain and France are now projecting steady population growth through the middle of the century. In North America, the trends are similar. In 2050, according to United Nations projections, it is possible that nearly as many babies will be born in the United States as in China. […]
These sharp reductions in fertility among Muslim immigrants reflect important cultural shifts, which include universal female education, rising living standards, the inculcation of local mores, and widespread availability of contraception. Broadly speaking, birthrates among immigrants tend to rise or fall to the local statistical norm within two generations.
That kind of shits Mark Steyn’s bed, don’t it?
UPDATE: Or maybe not. Commenters who seem to know what they’re talking about argue that the linked report agrees in some ways with Steyn’s hypothesis.
(via andrew sullivan, .gif from artie.com)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://i0.wp.com/www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/tny_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://i0.wp.com/www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
unrepentant old hippie 
Steyn’s demographics were always crackpot, anyway; besides getting the raw numbers wrong, he always just assumed that today’s trends were forever.
Chet – Steyn is no demographer 😉 Neither am I, but I’ve worked with demographics enough to know that the entire premise of that book of his is a lot of BS. As demographics change, so do psychographics, as the article points out.
Yes, but you know what the spin will be. The ohnooez demowinter whiners will be saying that’s the numbers are reversing due to their warning the civilized (read christian developed white majority countries) world of the dangers. Especially them librul wimmins what was getting uppity awhile, but now see their true space is in the home, saving their race.
Steyn is no demographer
Yep. He’s a musical theatre critic, or at least was a musical theatre critic until someone *cough* Lord Black *cough* mistook him for something else.
Niles – LOL, more likely it’ll just be that the source of this information has an AGENDA, and is not to be believed.
I haven’t seen any comments yet from any of those who were so terrified by all this population fearmongering, so maybe they’re just planning to ignore it. That plan always works well 😉
Ahh.
So spirited on ONE (count that—ONE report) now hovering and spreading over the blogosphere like a praire fire.
And when even solid trends cannot be extrapolated endlessly (as can be pointed out that caterpillars actually DON’T follow their current growth trending and turn into very large, 400 pounders), how can those events which supposedly are now turning on a dime?
Do NOT mock the crocodiles until you’ve crossed the river, sayeth the humble villagers.
It was always acknowledged that things could make a temporary uptick. Possibly does no good to give the finger to those behind you in the river while your raft is already over the edge of the falls.
The article mentioned a RATE–not a status quo situation–but rather a RATE, in SOME of the Euro nations and the US of 2.1–which is replacement level only for the sumptious social programs. Actually the US has had the highest rate for years now.
FF – A musical theater critic — that’s kind of an interesting specialty. I didn’t know about him until the NP started carrying his column in the OpEd section, and I actually enjoyed reading him sometimes. Then suddenly they all went batshit, and now only David Frum is on the road to recovery.
Wakefield – I think the lesson here is that demographics are not that easy to predict.
It sounds like you’ve finally acknowledged – thanks only to Steyn – that birthrates actually matter. You seem to differ only on the interpretation. It’s fun to learn, isn’t it?
My 19 y.o. was born in a very strange quarter in which birthrates briefly skyrocketed. But they came back down. But go ahead and fish out your trend, even if you don’t believe it really matters.
And enjoy your Indian Summer. 18 years from now when 45% of the young men who’ve reached fighting age in Europe are Muslim, my money will be on the Muslim winter. Thank God for fecund Hispanics in the US. They may save us yet.
Oh dear- you’ve made terrible mistake (as did Andrew Sullivan) of not bothering to read the article you’ve quoted- or Steyn’s book (or both?).
Andrew Sullivan also cherry-picked that opening paragraph, hoping to debunk Steyn’s thesis in one swift blow.
As far as the world (and Europe) goes, the two most important sentences in Walker’s article- which also happen to FULLY CONCUR with Steyn’s thesis- are in the penultimate paragraph: Perhaps the most striking fact about the demographic transformation now unfolding is that it is going to make the world look a lot more like Europe. The world is aging in an unprecedented way.
Wow- I think Walker actually “paraphrased” a few sentences from America Alone (I won’t go so far as to accuse him of plagiarizing Steyn’s work).
Walker goes on to say- echoing Steyn- that: “The world’s median age is 28 today, and it is expected to reach 38 by the middle of the century. In the United States, the median age at that point will be a ¬young¬ish 41, while it will be over 50 in Japan and 47 in Europe.”
Another few examples of demographic implications (not just statistics/ projections) covered by Steyn and re-iterated by Walker:
Russia: “Even absent Russia’s dire conditions, the social and political implications of an aging population are plain and alarming. In Russia, the effects of declining fertility are amplified by a phenomenon so extreme that it has given rise to an ominous new ¬term—¬hypermortality.”
China: “The official Chinese figures suggest that 118 boys are now being born in China for every 100 girls. As a result, millions of Chinese males may never find a mate with whom to raise a conventional family. The Chinese call such lonely males “bare branches.” The social and political implications of having such a large population of unattached men are unclear, but they are not likely to be ¬happy.”
Also, I would argue that this statement by Walker with reference to European demography is suspect- or at least not very scientific:
“Immigrant mothers account for part of the fertility increase throughout Europe, but only part.” What PART? Using the word “part” (twice in one sentence) renders the sentence completely meaningless. I suspect that the “part” might in fact be a large part….say 80%?
(By the way- Chet Scoville- which “raw numbers” did Steyn “get wrong”? Obviously future projections can be inaccurate (and Steyn makes the point that only a fool would attempt to make an accurate prediction), but you seem to suggest that the figures (on current demographic trends) are flawed? In that case, you should not view Walker’s article as a vindication.)
So (back the original question)- I think the whole piece “kind of sh*ts Mark Steyn’s bed” to a much lesser extent than changes in projections on global warming (make that cooling….or just “change” to cover everything) “sh*ts the bed” of your average eco-warrior.
Oops- meant to put Walker’s statement in inverted commas:
“Perhaps the most striking fact about the demographic transformation now unfolding is that it is going to make the world look a lot more like Europe. The world is aging in an unprecedented way.”
(Good to have the chance to reiterate one of the most important points that both Steyn and Walker make.)
A final point. You quote Walker: “Broadly speaking, birthrates among immigrants tend to rise or fall to the local statistical norm within two generations.”
I have not seen Steyn disagree with this assertion, and in fact, he makes reference to this trend (from another angle): “True, birth rates are FALLING ALL OVER THE WORLD….but demographics is a game of last man standing. The groups that succumb to demographic apathy last will have a huge advantage…” (America Alone, Chapter 1.)
I’m guessing “two generations” would qualify as an advantage.
So you guys aren’t soothed? I thought you might be soothed.
Of course not, JJ. It takes away their pet issue: rank demagoguery and fearmongering about the mexislamofemiabortonazi hordes who are coming (or is it cumming?) to rape your virgin white daughters and infect them with t3h ghey.
JJ- you made me smile- but no, I’m not soothed.
In the UK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jan/29/thinktanks.religion:
“while 37% of 16 to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5621482.ece:
“Muslim population ‘rising 10 times faster than rest of society”
As they say, you do the math.
Let’s hope the math (with respect to the future) is wrong. I would like nothing more than for Mark Steyn to be “wrong”.
Then I will be soothed.
Hahahahahah! I don’t have any kids, and I won’t be around for more than another 40 – 50 years, so ask me if I give a shit! The answer is NO! 🙂
There, there now. Move along. Nothing to see here. Mr. Steyn is just a bogeyman. Don’t let him scare you. Everything will be okay. Just look at Malmo, Sweden. Those swarthy looking youths have been Westernized and reportedly are starting to use their free, state-issued condoms. Voila! Problem solved.
Yup- exactly the kind of hedonistic self-absorption that’s leading us down this path. (Also fatalist.)
Let me guess- you’re a Frenchman……just not a very sophisticated one. (I say Frenchman, but I’m not necessarily assuming you’re a man.)
PS. That post was intended for Dr. Prole
That’s the spirit, Ken. Can’t live your life in fear, after all.
Wow J.A. Baker, that’s scintillating work. T3h gene pool’s really gonna seem empty without you.
Julie – You make some interesting points — I would suggest writing to Andrew Sullivan and he may publish your letter as a “Dissent of the Day”. Worth thinking about — your efforts in debunking this report are kind of wasted on a blog with such a small readership.
Not that I mind, it’s interesting stuff for the most part. I used to work extensively with demographic research and the subject still fascinates me.
Ok- what I simply do not get is how someone like JA Baker dismisses the entire thing as crazy. It simply has to be an act of monumental self-delusion on his part.
At least the likes of Dr. Prole acknowledge that the future- beyond his/her existence- is going to be unpleasant (in large part as a result of this kind of European “who cares…just keep the benefits coming until I’m dead” attitude that Steyn describes.)
There are certain FACTS that are irrefutable.
See the link above: Nearly 40% of young British Muslims say they support the introduction of Sharia law in that country. Forty percent of a couple percent. What happens when (perhaps JA Baker would prefer me to say “if”) it becomes forty percent of forty percent?!!!
If there are loads more British Muslims in this age group in 20 years, and assuming the same proportion have this wish, that’s a lot of people believing, for instance, that a women’s legal testament is only worth half that of a man’s. And that’s the least of the problems with Sharia.
Just slightly scary- no?
The only direct explanation for the response of JA Baker and co would be
a. The demographics are made up (ie. the facts are wrong)
b. The demographic projection is wrong (acceptable line of argument- if refuted with evidence
c. Muslims may increase in number, but they are likely to become less radical in their views (possible but unlikely- evidence to refute)
d. Sharia law isn’t all that bad…really…(please don’t let this be the option you go for.)
So JA Baker- which one is it? A calm, reasoned, logical answer will suffice.
I’m sorry. I inadvertently forgot to complete a sentence in my earlier post. Here’s the correct version.
“Those swarthy looking youths have been Westernized and reportedly are starting to use their free, state-issued condoms … for Molotov Cocktails.”
At least the likes of Dr. Prole acknowledge that the future- beyond his/her existence- is going to be unpleasant (in large part as a result of this kind of European “who cares…just keep the benefits coming until I’m dead” attitude that Steyn describes.)
Robbie, Dr. Prole is a woman, and an American citizen. A midwestern American woman. But, by all means, don’t let that interfere with your flights of fantasy.
I believe you misread her comment. The only thing she acknowledgedwhen she wrote, “I don’t a give a shit,” is likely that she “doesn’t give a shit” what you have to say or what you think.
At least, that is how I read it.
Speaking of ‘cherry-picking’ or ‘misinterpreting’, there’s Julie
“while 37% of 16 to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law”
Ummm… yeah. 37% do, 63% don’t.
The full paragraph was…
You can’t be certain they won’t lose their religion as they get older. I cast off my catholicism in my teens, my parents tossed theirs away in their late-50’s. I would also like to see a figure/percentage for the number of young Christians, aged 16-24, who also say, “their religion was the most important thing in their lives.”
You’ve also made an assumption that the rates quoted in your second link remain the same indefinitely. And assume everyone born into a Muslim family will either a) remain religiously Muslim forever; or b) be a radical religious Mulsim.
What I see is Britain (2008) figures): 42.6 million Christians / 2 million Muslims. Ma gawds, they’re soooo overwhelmed.
I’m not convinced you’ve proven anything. Except your own fear.
hey,
you should consider setting up a gov’t agency which would monitor steyn’s writings (and those like him) in canada and possibly prosecute him via a biased, unaccountable bureau with the fake shine of an actual legal body; oh, it’s already been done? sorry bout that
I read Walker’s report and to me it looks like he agrees with Steyn.
rzr –
I don’t know, that sounds a little fascist to me.
Just so you’re up to speed, last year I repeatedly expressed support for Steyn, Levant et al when they were dealing with (what I considered to be) a frivolous human rights complaint. Speaking of research, you might want to do some before beaking off.
No, Frank Frink, I really don’t give a shit about the oooooooh scary future OR these people’s fear of a black planet. Too f’ing funny though that Robbie thinks I get benefits! That’s a good one. Nope, sorry, this self-absorbed hedonist has worked since age 15 and have never collected anything from the government but a tax return.
I’d rather be a self-absorbed hedonist than think it’s a good idea to have a bunch of white babies for the state. That’s just sick. But you go right ahead, Robbie and the rest of you. Have a quiverfull. Knock yourselves out.
Yes, JJ–Demographics, like next Wednesday’s weather–and global warming–is, or can be, a fool’s errand when it comes to any long term claim, even IF you take into account a resurgence in politically popular neo-natalist policies, etc.
As to Prole and the commentary: Whether or not someone “gives a shit” personally or on some theoretical level or the said person is giving the shit on something else in the mind’s eye not mentioned, the problem here is that will be the perfect epitaph for whatever remains of Western civilization in a few short decades of, well–not giving a shit one way or another.
Thus for example Europe gives not a beshatted fecal moment that her unaffordable entitlements are all but based on the false math of some wild assumptions they know to be wrong instinctively. Else pour on the immigrant class, as we’ve done here in the USA. So even beyond the glimmer of light at the end of this tunnel but NOT mentioned by the Wilson report is the bare fact of both legal and illegal immigration–which some nations, like Australia, don’t tolerate as they want to know who the hell you are when you hit their shores and just why you’re there, and what you might contribute to their society before you fall into the mode of takey-take on benefits and meds. Good show.
But to us, it means someone to clean golf course.
Not so good. If we really needed 20 million ignorant peasants, we can get that from the frowsy public schools anyhow…
And when it comes to even the most minute, up to the minute (the last “minute” is in fact pronounced differently, for those of you in Rosa Linda CA) trending in demographics, I WILL NOTE HERE that SOME liberals themselves DO give that be-shatted raised eyebrow on numbers of productive wombs. When it comes to certain groups having babies that are not even likely to upset the American domestic apple cart on whatever issue or cultural bias, it still raises hackles.
Observe:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/joyce
The old Childcatcher of Vulgaria is BACK!
(I know there are CHILDREN in here….I can smell them!)
“But then, there is the “progressive” class … that aimless mass of Western humanity so burdened by cultural self-loathing that it is to Islam, as ungulates are to lions.”
Wakefield, what the heck are you doing here writing long indulgent screeds when you should be out making white babies to fight the illegal immigrant non-white non-Christian welfare state? Go forth and fertilize any willing womb you can find, man! The future depends on it!!!
gee, thanks for proclaiming the frivolity of it all; that’ll bring down the…what was it?…the fascist barricades; also, i hadn’t, in fact, spoken of research but will concede that, in these trying times, any old segue will do
rzr – I think someone here may have at some point mentioned something about research, it’s not all about you, pally.
BTW — Some others on this thread are managing to make their case without being assholes about it. Something to think about.
Dr. Prole.
Thanks for the snark.
But as I’m sure you know by now (and yet another reason to stop all the crappola about white babies), it is not about race.
It is about culture. I thought that was mentioned with even longer quips than some of mine elsewhere. One would think you’d have caught on to that by now……..”doctor.”
It would be better, for example, to have 10 million Kenyans enter the nation than 10 million whining socialist Brits.
The latter would be a net drain on society and you’d have to clothe and feed them. So they can keep their white hides in the Isles, for all I care.
As to the whole thing about babies of one brand or another–first of all, my duty is done in that department. Second, it seems that usually it’s decidedly NON-white guys who’re threatening to “stick it to the misses” with more than usual vigor in order to try and scare Steyn.
ALSO: I noted from the Nation article that the author was more concerned about a few mere thousand extra lily white babies than the 20 million ignorant peasants now about to be given a birthright by the Bambi administration. Fascinating.
Dr.Prole – I think at least Wakefield is making his case in a reasonable manner — I don’t have a problem with that. I would rather hear people out, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. Extra perspective never hurts 😉
Frank Frink: “The survey of 1,003 Muslims by the polling company Populus through internet and telephone questionnaires, nearly 60% said they would prefer to live under British law, while 37% of 16 to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law, against 17% of those over 55. Eighty-six per cent said their religion was the most important thing in their lives.”
The sentence I quoted was in keeping with the rest of the paragraph. So please explain how you arrived at conclusion that this is “cherry-picking”.
Cherry picking (definition): “is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.” (It’s what Andrew Sullivan did, as I pointed out.)
In fact, the entire paragraph is more alarming than that sentence in isolation- so thanks for pointing it out that “Eighty-six per cent said their religion was the most important thing in their lives.” Really drives the point home to readers here.
As for the statistic of the 37% (of 16 to 24-year-olds preferring to live under sharia law), that is an astounding number, don’t you think? You obviously don’t- and that’s fine, be reassured by the other two thirds.
(And thanks for doing the sums…as if most people here aren’t capable of subtracting 37 from 100. Gee.)
Most people who’ve commented seem unbothered about the fact that they demonstrate that they’ve read neither Steyn’s book, nor the Walker article.
Walker’s article is pretty much a short-hand version of much of Steyn’s book. A poster above (Rob H) has obviously read it and spotted the absence of any major difference. And Steyn himself has said that Walker’s entire column (if people bothered to read beyond a few choice sentences) is pretty much in agreement with everything he’s said about global demographic changes. He makes the point that they seem only to disagree on the projected rate of Islamisation of Western Europe.
So in other words, everyone here who jumped on the band wagon of “that kind of sh*ts Mark Steyn’s bed” shot themselves in the foot- through sheer intellectual laziness. Anyone can read a headline or a paragraph…..but gee, a whole article….an entire BOOK? And not only read it, but actually digest it…..and synthesize the information? Instead of screeching the whole reflex “Aaahhh…..raaaaaaciiiiiiist” thing.
Anyone who’s read America Alone knows that the book isn’t about “whites”, but about culture/ Western civilisation….. not race (or even religion per se for that matter.). India, for instance, is part of the Britannic inheritance, is a thriving democracy…..and it’s full of “brown” people. So please stop obsessing over your “pet issue” (to borrow JA Baker’s term) of “white people” vs the rest.
(Yeah- Western civilisation- the thing that has brought us to the point where we can all contribute to this page. Loverly, ain’t it?
I think it is possible to agree with Steyn without being alarmist.
FACT: There has been mass immigration to European countries.
FACT: The demographic ethno-cultural makeup of some of these countries will change markedly based on babies born already (without any predictions, even assuming constant birth rates amongst all people from now on and no further immigration).
(likely) CONJECTURE: These changes are likely to be furthered by continuing disparities in birth rates and further immigration.
(likely) CONJECTURE: Frictions and tensions between different cultural groupings in these countries are likely to grow.
(possible) TERRIBLE OUTCOME: Civil strife being ethno-cultural groups, eventual triumph of some form of Islamized westernism.
(possible) BAD OUTCOME: Reduction in traditional freedoms and civil liberties due to activism on all sides of the culture wars (eg. Blasphemy laws, reduction of individual rights versus group rights, laws banning homosexuality).
(possible) BEST OUTCOME: A renascent and tolerant social conservatism. Increased popularity of organized religion among populations. Increased restrictiveness of social mores, but with limited legal enforcement.
Wow, lots to go through but let’s start with Frank’s post.
“Speaking of ‘cherry-picking’ or ‘misinterpreting’, there’s Julie
“while 37% of 16 to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law”
Ummm… yeah. 37% do, 63% don’t.”
Sharia law has traditionally been an integral part of Islam and every Islamic country defers to Sharia law. A substantial portion(and 37% is) of Muslims do believe that aspects of the Sharia should be implemented in their own communities in family matters, etc. There is a good chance of this happening. This would be a bad thing for the human rights of many women in those communities, because Sharia is biased in favor of men. Therefore, even if it doesn’t affect non-Muslims, it should and must be resisted.
“You can’t be certain they won’t lose their religion as they get older. I cast off my catholicism in my teens, my parents tossed theirs away in their late-50’s.”
Well, I’ll assume that your parents weren’t instructed to kill you per the Bible for abandoning your religion. ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'” Haditha Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57, therein lies the continuing problem, yes? The fact that this haditha’s authenticity is unquestioned and legally sanctioned by the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence suggests suggests potential apostates do have something to worry about.
Google ‘Honor Killing’ and ‘UK’ to see how that’s been working out for the UK.
“I would also like to see a figure/percentage for the number of young Christians, aged 16-24, who also say, “their religion was the most important thing in their lives.”
I’m making the figures up, but imagine interviewing adherents of a variety of world views on what should happen with apostates should reveal that 30% of muslims, 0% of Christians, 0% of Buddhists, 0% of Hindus, 10% of Fascists, 2% of Communists think that the death penalty is appropriate, then I think Islam does have something to answer for on that point.
“You’ve also made an assumption that the rates quoted in your second link remain the same indefinitely. And assume everyone born into a Muslim family will either a) remain religiously Muslim forever; or b) be a radical religious Mulsim.”
The next time Unitarians blow themselves up on trains and buses, or Episcopalians threaten to behead those who insult Jesus, we’ll start worrying about them too, but don’t let sappy ecumenism get in the way of the obvious…
“What I see is Britain (2008) figures): 42.6 million Christians / 2 million Muslims. Ma gawds, they’re soooo overwhelmed.”
Demographics don’t matter. What counts is the effectiveness of intimidation especially in regards to free speech. Extremists don’t need to get you to believe, but to merely to comply in doing what they want, and not doing what they don’t want. The Mohammed cartoons episodes showed they did a very good job in securing the ‘respect’ of a media and liberal establishment that shows nothing remotely like the same ‘respect’ to Christians, for instance. The BBC for example showed ‘Jerry Springer: The Opera” but did not even reproduce those cartoons on its news site. Now why would that be? Meanwhile, the police and government even cowered in the face of the placard protesters who carry signs stating “Behead those who insult the prophet” until the public, opposition MPs and some papers kicked up enough of a fuss. Lord Ahmed threatened to storm Parliament with 10,000 Muslims if Geert Wilders was allowed to speak in Parliament. Subsequently, Wilders never made it past UK customs. Who needs an official ban on the free speech when most of the UK authorities and media enacted a flawless unofficial one.
“I’m not convinced you’ve proven anything. Except your own fear.”
I think most people recognize that this is a minority of Muslims. however, you’re really not helping matters when your reaction is to ask everyone else (and everyone else isn’t only whitey) what their problem is.
BTW, the next time someone wants to give you a cup of kool-aid, just say ‘NO’.
I think most people recognize that this is a minority of Muslims. however, you’re really not helping matters when your reaction is to ask everyone else (and everyone else isn’t only whitey) what their problem is.
Hardly my question at all. But thanks for assuming. The only thing that anyone should question, and confront, is their own fear.
I just love these quaint sites where all the baby boomers (a generation he so ruthlessly and deservedly exposes) come to give each other I’m-OK-you’re-OK type therapy by pretending that no one reads Mark Steyn.
Tdot – 😆 Thanks, that was good.
Frankie-poo just doesn’t get it, does he?
“The only thing that anyone should question, and confront, is their own fear.”
Assume you’re a gay man in say, Sydney Australia.
If several hundred Muslim men made a trip from the “outer suburbs” specifically to rain on your parade, would you feel “fearful”??
http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-rise-and-rise-of-new-gangs-20090328-9eri.html
And- if you were to “question, and confront” it, would that fear be justified?
I’ll tell you the honest answer to the question:
Yes- it makes me scared.
Yes, I think I’m justified- not paranoid- if feeling this way.
Btw- the smh is a lefty publication.
Gangs, everywhere Georgie-boy. I dont’ have to travel to Australia. I live in Vancouver which is mostly assumed to be gay-friendly. Emphasis on mostly. Gay men and woman anywhere have to confront fear daily. yes, even here in Canada and undoubtedly in the USa.
Keep in mind also that gangs in the Vancouver-area encompass all races more often than not within each criminal gang.
So, not sure what your point is exactly.
Anyhoo, I just came back to take more abuse from so-cons… no, not really. Water off my back. Actually just to mention the other speculation (beside the one posed by TdotTim). That is, those pretending to have read both Steyn and the actual Wilson Report.
And yes, my dear little fans can continue to freely assume as they will whether I’ve done one or the other. Or both.
Knock yerselves out.
(and yes, JJ, it does inked report ‘agree in some ways with Steyn’s hypothesis’. Heavy emphasis on some.)
FF –
Well, it’s hard for me to say because I’ve read the report and I’ve only read excerpts of the book, so I’m taking it on good faith from the commenters who sounded rational that there might be at least one point of agreement between the two. (Because I know these guys never lie!)
Some of them make decent points, like the guy who talked about intimidation… that is true. Others, like the Spokesman from Generation Whine a couple of comments up (“Boomers! WAHHHH!”) are a waste of bandwidth.
But they are all True Believers, and we all know what that means. So take what you need and leave the rest 😉
What’s so great about the feudal, oppressive, barbaric culture that built the cathedrals, other than they were amazing builders of beautiful structures on the sites of ancient Druidic planetary oracles?
I dunno, I just trust that modern (i.e. DEMOCRATIC) western culture and values will survive and flourish on its own merits, until/unless something better comes along. I feel no need whatsoever to have children just for the sake of demographic projections that are in all probability not going to be correct. Mostly all of the children of immigrants in my area wear jeans (girls too), listen to their iPods, and slowly but surely reject their parent’s and grandparent’s traditional ways. I certainly don’t feel a need to live in fear, and I’ll be long gone in the future. So will all of us. Why get worked up about something that you not only can’t control, but that you won’t even be around for?
If you don’t like snark, you’re likely at the wrong blog. And that’s DOCTER Prole to you, mister. Like how Chuck McVety is a Docter.
😉
Frank Fink is definitely not gay (and I say that with 100% certainty) and clearly has no knowledge of what actually took place at the Mardi Gras this year (and I say that with 110% certainty).
The frightening thing about the attacks on gays in Amsterdam and Paris (described in Steyn’s book- where you might least expect to find a true account of homophobia!) is that I personally know people who’ve had similar experiences in Europe recently- and now Sydney- of all places!
The attacks in Darlinghurst this year were frightening- in terms of a large scale, semi-organised/ co-ordinated attack. I only hope that Sydney isn’t where Amsterdam is 10 years from now- otherwise the outlook is very bleak. In recent years, I have found that visiting European cities is less-welcoming (to say the least), and explicitly hostile (at worst) – which is a big change. (And before you dismiss my personal experiences- yes, they are, of course, anecdotal- but I have many friends who have similar stories. I’m not aware of clear “statistics” to support what I’m saying, as I don’t think anyone’s officially checking.)
Yes, yes….I can hear people writing me off as “fearful” etc. But I would ask people not to dismiss what I (or others) have seen and experienced, and not to fall back on “gay men and women anywhere have to confront fear daily”.
I have not had to “confront fear daily” in the 8 years I’ve lived here, and the comment about Vancouver, for instance, being “gay friendly” seems to contradict this anyway. (So which one is it Frank?)
All I can say is that if you (or a friend/partner) haven’t been on the receiving end of serious gang intimidation, then it is wrong to trivialize someone else’s justified concerns- ie. “fears”. The suggestion of “living with fear daily” is simply not acceptable to me, Frank. It should not be an excuse for what happened at the GALMG, and I take exception to it, as it sounds to me like you’re apologizing for violent behaviour as “the norm”, or somehow being understandable. Two of my friends were admitted to inner city hospitals with serious injuries that night, so please don’t label me a racist etc., as many people here (including members of the police force and hospital staff) said that they had not encountered such intimidation and violence since the beginning of the event- 20 years ago!
By the way, the gang members who showed up on Oxford St all wore jeans, many on motorbikes- so, Dr Prole, that is a really uninformed statement (about jeans and ipods.)
“What’s so great about the feudal, oppressive, barbaric culture that built the cathedrals, other than they were amazing builders of beautiful structures on the sites of ancient Druidic planetary oracles?”
I am afraid you are repeating a facile Manichean picture of medieval history which is merely the flipside of the old ‘Christians good, Pagans bad’ one. It’s still an absurdly biased and inaccurate caricature. It’s not true. It’s all a bit more complex than your post allows.
“I dunno, I just trust that modern (i.e. DEMOCRATIC) western culture and values will survive and flourish on its own merits, until/unless something better comes along.”
Democracy, secular constitutional government, Western Civilization, Individual rights, women’s rights et al. are things we take for granted and are their status is far more fragile than you think. It took two hundred years and a whole series of revolutions and wars for the ideas of the Enlightenment to begin to overcome the vices of Church, monarchy and aristocracy. All too much of the world, including Islam has hardly even begun this process. The hope and promise of the Enlightenment were annihilated in WWI while the neo-pagan ideologies of Fascism and Communism became ascendent soon after. A mere 60 years after the Holocaust anti-semitism is on the rise. Slavery has returned in full force from Africa to Asia. Sorry, but the past 200 years don’t count for much against the tyranny and oppression of human history.
“Mostly all of the children of immigrants in my area wear jeans (girls too), listen to their iPods, and slowly but surely reject their parent’s and grandparent’s traditional ways. I certainly don’t feel a need to live in fear, and I’ll be long gone in the future. So will all of us. Why get worked up about something that you not only can’t control, but that you won’t even be around for? “
Perhaps you’ve forgotten that those Syndo-anarchists would soon become Bolsheviks, and those Bolsheviks then became the Communist Internationale, and by mid-century Communism would control half the developed world and have mankind shivering under the looming threat of nuclear annihilation all without dealing with the hundred+ millions murdered by and justified by Communism ideologies by its adherents like Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Che, and countless others…
I don’t wish that history be replicated in the future for anyone.
The only side any of us should be on left/right/and center is for individual rights, free speech, and equality under the law.
What we must not do is go down that dead-end of ‘cultural relativism/multiculturalism’ – the most pernicious form of racism there is – whereby pseudo-liberals make excuses for reactionary practices (“arranged marriage/honor killings/FGM/death for gays/apostates is their CULTURE”, etc), therefore not having to do anything to support women/gays/individuals that are crying out for support, and also implying that brown-skinned women/gays/individuals feel differently about being oppressed, owned and controlled than their white counterparts do.
So what can you do in the time you have left on the earth?
Get involved. It doesn’t need to be a full time commitment. Voicing your opinion, discussions with others, volunteering, and if necessary donations should be good enough. Anti-Slavery International, National Freedom of Speech Week, and Transparency International are three of my favorites just to name a few.
However, if you would like to defend the validity of your bravery and lack of fear, maybe you can point out any place where Islam is in the majority and where the human rights of that place measure up better than the west’s against an agreed benchmark let’s say, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and then move there?
“Docter” Prole, let me be the first to express my gratitude at your decision not to breed.
Your nonsense can die with you. Bitter and unmourned.
Boo hoo hoo! JJ’s trolls don’t like me! Believe me, guys, I’m crushed. Jim, you have no idea how involved I already am. Save it for someone who needs the lecture. You keep living in fear, I’ll keep up my anti-fundamentalist (including Christian) activities and skip the fear and worry part over things I have no control over.
“The only side any of us should be on left/right/and center is for individual rights, free speech, and equality under the law.”
Agreed. Our true enemies are religious fundamentalists and theocracy, or anyone else who would stifle liberty and equality.
Heh. It’s ok. I got Dr Prole’s back. I have 4 little white chilluns’ running around, and they are all being raised to think the same way as Me. Which just so happens to coincide with what Dr Prole thinks. Wheeeeeeeee haw!
🙂
I didn’t see this article referenced in the comment (which admittedly I skimmed when things went off the deep end), but it’s a useful debunking of Steyn.
Globe and Mail: The ‘Eurabia’ myth deserves a debunking
I have to agree that extrapolating trends in any direction is a bit naff given that by 2050 the world’s oil will be gone as a useful resource and our economy and lifestyles will be transformed because of it.
GeorgieBoy,
No, I’m not gay.
Yes, I know quite well what happened at the Mardi Gras. I’m sure you would be shocked to know that I do actually read the Antipodean press on occasion or that I am in daily contact and communication with people who live in both Australia and New Zealand.
Gee, guess what GeorgieBoy? “The frightening thing about the attacks on gays” is that I personally know people who’ve had similar experiences across North America, including Vancouver.
Which brings me to this cherry-picking:
If you go back and look at my original comment about “gay friendly” Vancouver it was qualified by the sentence, one-word, following, which was “mostly”. No contradiction anywhere I can see.
As for my personal experience with intimidation? My ‘flight or fight’ reflex has been tested several times. I have occasion to be presented and faced with those who would choose to intimidate based on ethnicity. Not that I have any need to justify anything to you or anyone else. However, I did, in an earlier comment, surmise that those commenting here who have assumed would continue to make assumptions. Thanks for confirming.
“I just trust that modern (i.e. DEMOCRATIC) western culture and values will survive and flourish on its own merits”
“Why get worked up about something that you not only can’t control, but that you won’t even be around for?”
“I don’t have any kids, and I won’t be around for more than another 40 – 50 years, so ask me if I give a shit! The answer is NO!”
“Jim, you have no idea how involved I already am. …
I’ll keep up my anti-fundamentalist (including Christian) activities”
“Our true enemies are religious fundamentalists and theocracy, or anyone else who would stifle liberty and equality.”
So Dr Prole doesn’t give a sh*t as she won’t “be around”, as there’s no use living in “fear” of something which can’t be controlled.
BUT – we have no idea “how involved” she is already in stopping our enemies including “theocracy, or anyone else who would stifle liberty and equality.”
So why is she doing so much to fight uncontrollable things that will never affect her? And why is she involved in anti-fundamentalist activities and fighting the enemy of THEOCRACY if she feels that DEMOCRACY will “flourish on it’s own merits”????
Sounds like fear (and denial of it) to me. Or just bipolar. She’s not The Doctor- she’s the patient.
Please, take your medicine before you go online, Dr Prole. The contradictions are just too weird for anyone to follow.
God, who are these people! They so obviously don’t know the people they are attacking — Prole, Frank Frink, whomever.
orange – Steyniacs 😉 Some of them seem okay, though. They made their case for the book (some quite eloquently) and that was that. Not bad input.
But now the thread’s gotten way off-topic and it’s drifting into 😦 negativity 😦 😉
Oh, Jamie.
“So Dr Prole doesn’t give a sh*t as she won’t “be around”, as there’s no use living in “fear” of something which can’t be controlled.
BUT – we have no idea “how involved” she is already in stopping our enemies including “theocracy, or anyone else who would stifle liberty and equality.”
So why is she doing so much to fight uncontrollable things that will never affect her? And why is she involved in anti-fundamentalist activities and fighting the enemy of THEOCRACY if she feels that DEMOCRACY will “flourish on it’s own merits”????”
Duh, I’m worried about the fundamentalist nutcases in my own backyard – the Christian ones, right now. They’re a much more immediate threat than some far off, white-people-extinct future. THAT is what I don’t care about. I’m worried about Sarah Palin, Stockwell Day, and witch hunting evangelicals like them including much of the US Air Force. Thanks ever so much for your concern over my mental state, though. I’m touched, truly, at your amateur diagnosis based on 20 sentences of mostly snark on the internet.
Democracy will flourish on it’s own merits. Once people get a taste of it, they don’t generally settle for anything less. You should give western civilization more credit. You don’t seem to trust the strength of the concept.
JJ has had enough. I’m outta here due to my great respect for her. Ciao, kids!
The point is, Dr Prole seems to think that she can say (EXACT quote): “Our true enemies are religious fundamentalists and theocracy, or anyone else who would stifle liberty and equality” and “you have no idea how involved I already am….I’ll keep up my anti-fundamentalist activities”, and accuse others who express the same sentiment of living in “fear”.
Who’s she to decide that other people are fearful and she’s not? Based on her words, and alleged actions, she’s motivated by the same interpretation of events. So how can she reach a conclusion that this induces fear in others, but calm, rational “anti-fundamentalist activities” in her???
Say it ain’t so, JJ.
(PS to JJ. Well done. You’re a sane, logical individual- impressed by your unbiased analysis of most of this stuff).
No Dr- you just don’t get it.
You have seriously contradicted yourself.
YOU SAID that DEMOCARCY will flourish on its own merits, but you also said that our true enemies included THEOCRACY.
You perfectly contradicted yourself, and if you can’t see that, then there is a problem.
I’ll take your non-reply as an acknowledgment by you of your flawed and contradictory argument.
What exactly does not make sense about that? Democracy will flourish because it is just and logical. People flourish when they are free and equal. Theocracy is when the Pope gets to have you arrested because you’re not Catholic, or when Charles McVety sends thugs to drag you to church because there is an official state religion and he’s the boss of it. Yanno, like in Saudi Arabia. DEMOCRACY = GOOD. THEOCRACY = BAD.
Again, I say to you – DUH.
Dr.Prole – I think what Jamie is saying is that it’s contradictory to be opposed to fundamentalism, consider it a threat etc (something I think we can all agree on), while maintaining that the scenario in Steyn’s book (Muslim fundamentalism takes over Europe) is nothing to be afraid of.
I know that’s not what you mean, but Jamie’s interpreting it a little differently than you mean it because he/she sees the Europe scenario as a real possibility, and you don’t. That’s why it looks like a contradiction.
At least that’s my take.
*steps back*
The Pope arrests you because you’re because you’re not Catholic???
I guess that happens a lot in that well-known theocractic regime, Italy. You seem to share Sarah Palin’s crippling lack of basic, geopolitical knowledge. You should do a TV or radio interview and express those concerns you have about the Pope. It would be a real hoot.
However, there is not freedom of religious practice in Saudi Arabia, as you allude to.
As I said before, it may be non-compliance with your medication, rather than ignorance, that’s the problem. I realise that psychotic delusions are very real for the sufferer, so I will leave you alone now.
PS. Have you tried ECT? Some find this helpful.
Thanks for adjudicating JJ, and softening the blow to Dr Proles’s ego. However, it doesn’t just look like a contradiction, it is a contradiction. Plain and simple.
Please see her further entry above for conclusive evidence of insanity.
And it just gets better!
I had not heard of Charles McVety (not from the North American continent), but I just looked him up.
JJ- as referee- could you please confirm whether Canada has an official state religion.
I have learnt so much on this blog- Italy and Canada are now theocratic states, where one could face arrest on the orders of a religious leader, for not practising that faith.
I was too unkind to Sarah Palin. Even she never said anything that dumb.
The funniest part is this: if anyone is living in fear, it’s Dr Prole. She now very clearly conveyed to everyone her pathological fear (of these non-existent threats).
Gotcha!
Ummm.. Jamie? You seem to be quite unclear about something. Here, let me help you clear up that confusion.
Naah Frank. I’m not buying it. She’s just batshit-mad. Very chivalrous of you to come to her defence though…inverting the whole thing- suggesting that it’s irony, not insanity, that’s the basis of this whole rant of hers.
She’s been ranting on for a bit now….. “Duh, I’m worried about the fundamentalist nutcases in my own backyard – the CHRISTIAN ones, right now. They’re a much more immediate threat than some far off, white-people-extinct future”, and “I’ll keep up my anti-fundamentalist (INCLUDING CHRISTIAN) activities””- whatever that involves, as we, the readers, have “no idea how involved I already am.”
She’s got issues. Maybe, as a child, she was brutally sodomised by a member of a Christian religious order or something. That might explain it. But otherwise, it’s some rabid, lunatic fear she has- and yet she accuses everyone else of “living in fear” of Sharia etc (something to be genuinely concerned about.)
“Moving forward”, I’d be really impressed if she organised an anti-Sharia demonstration in her city on November 21st, to show her commitment to opposing “our true enemies…..religious fundamentalists and theocracy, or anyone else who would stifle liberty and equality.” http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/index.html The movement was started by the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (people who now face the death sentence for apostasy), with a strong representation by female Iranian migrants (and, in case you’re worried about “white natives” stirring up fear, there are lots of “brown immigrants”, especially women, who are trying to stop the introduction of Sharia in Britain and further afield.) Genuinely brave people- the kind who fearlessly campaign against the execution of women and gays in Iran (as opposed to the no-bravery-required activity of campaigning against the Christian fundamentalists in North America who oppose gay marriage).
http://www.equalrightsnow-iran.com/publications.html . Maryam Namazie recently talked in your city, Frank. Did you go?
And so you have it folks.
The world according to Jamie.
(I know jj is just letting this guy prattle on and self destruct. And did he ever…..LOL)
Jamie – Appreciate your comments and all, but personal attacks are uncalled for.
As I noted above, to some extent I think you two are talking past each other, and actually share some common ground. Prole is an ardent supporter of RAWA in Afghanistan and other anti-fundamentalist Islamic feminist groups (it wouldn’t surprise me if she’d gone to see the woman that you talked about).
That’s the downside of these discussions — they generally deteriorate into shitslinging and any common ground you might have is lost. I know people like Steyn have a vested interest in maintaining this culture of divisiveness, but in the overall scheme you have to wonder how helpful it is.
hey jj- great little site here- well done- you’re a balanced arbiter- and the content is interesting- entertaining too- the character dr prole seems like a psychopath with MPD….and the alter egos of frank frink (indignant defender) and pale (sanctimonious moral peacock) have a say now and then- makes for an amusing read- they (the split personalities) make all the right-wing loons look normal.
but well done you on your site.
Linked in from Steyn, so dismiss at will… just as many of you tend to dismiss math, logic, science you don’t like, etc.
It is amusing to think that Western freedoms would be lost to an inability to understand statistics. But that’s not really the issue, is it? No, the problem is that we have thought ourselves into a philosophical death spiral. Humanist materialism turned to hedonist nihlism. Eat, drink, screw, smoke, snort, shoot and pop; for tomorrow we die.
“Progressive” indeed. Good luck with that. Just know that millions of Mormons and Baptists will be happily prosletizing among the Latinos long after disco–mercifully–follows the baby boom leftists and their non-procreating children into the grave.
oh- forgot to add the other dr prole alter ego called mouthyorange, with my favorite line “God, who are these people! They so obviously don’t know the people they are attacking — Prole, Frank Frink, whomever.” Scary
Little uppity-date just in today
But, you know, whatev’, right?
For those commenting about we ‘bat-shit crazy’ folk here in North America… it also does conclude:
And, again, whatev’ I’m sure. You can all go back to your regularly scheduled Steyn-worship now.
“European Muslims want to be part of the wider community and contribute even more to society,”.
The problem lies in that vague reference “European Muslims want to…… CONTRIBUTE even more to society.”
You’ve made the assumption, Frank (and I see you often accuse others of doing so) that the contribution is a positive one.
Looking at other recent polls, one could hypothesize that this “contribution to society” is Sharia law: 40% of young adult Muslims in the UK support its introduction.
(Noticed you dismissed this statistic above.)
They might “identify” because the multicultural paradise welcomes you, along with your otherwise taboo practices (polygamy etc- including welfare for multiple spouses) and 7th century system of law. So that makes a poll saying that “77% of British Muslims identified with the UK” a bit meaningless.
Frank- you haven’t proven anything except your own fear (of being wrong).
Heh. What did I say would happen around a hour or so ago?
I hate being right sometimes. 😉
Didn’t say whatev’.
Just quoted another poll to show you’re wrong.
(But you are master at predictions, that’s for sure. Just wait until someone replies in disagreement- and then you’re proved right. That’s how it works?? Hilarious.)
Yeah.
More likely than Sharia law, a proportion of British Muslims would probably like to “contribute” another July 7.
I’ll have to find the reference to check the actual figure, but I’m sure that it’s a fairly proportion of British Muslims who said they supported the aims of the terrorists/ advocated violence.
Welcome to Britain.
From July 2008:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4407115.ece
“ALMOST a third of British Muslim students believe killing in the name of Islam can be justified, according to a poll.”
“The research found that a third of Muslim students supported the creation of a world-wide caliphate or Islamic state.”
That kind of shits Frank Frink’s bed, don’t it?
Ah, yes. The Center for Social Cohesion. A bit controversial, aren’t they? Ties to the Hudson Institute and Civitas? 😉
Hey, whether it’s accurate or not, it will be an interesting risk to take with our countries, right, libs? 🙂
Trep – You don’t know who’s a “lib” and who’s not around here, so don’t make assumptions.
The “left/right” dichotomy is a dying concept. The sooner we all get used to that, the better we’ll be able to confront real threats. Something to think about…
JJ: Don’t tell me what to do, you bitch.
Internet tough guy, we know what that means 😉