Please remember that the Episcopalian Bishop mentioned by Steyn speaks only for “Anglicans” (the world-wide church) in the US. Most Anglicans are in Africa and are not pleased that the US has a woman as bishop and gay priests. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury is opposed to what the American bishops have done.
Also, the Episcopalian church in America is losing membership, largely because of their radical stance. They represent, as it were, the far Left of the Christian faith, which is a very small minority. If you looked at Southern Baptists, I believe the picture would be much different.
Still, I agree with most posters here. The Europeans, who are now mostly Liberal secularists, have a tough row to hoe, and the sooner they face reality, the better off they will be.
My coin is on Steyn. The euro’s no longer have the gut to fight back. As long as they can get their lengthy vacations and “free” health care they will follow anyone including the Imam’s.
Peters may have a point that this could provide an opportunist facist room to create havoc. However, the numbers favor Mark.
If the Europeans had the wherewithal to react to the demographic situation, they’d have done it by now. Their governments and EU will never in a million years react let alone recognize the threat.
More likely we’ll just see Europeans with the means to do so flee Europe.
Please remember that the Europeans wanted to take care of the Muslim problem but we wouldn’t let them. The Serbian (thugs) were set to take it on and the Euros were in no mood to say no until we made it our business. Admittedly the Serbs were out after the most benign kind of Muslim but see for yourself, the Bosnians are increasingly militant and obnoxious and the Muslims of the Middle East got the signal they needed to continue their march on the West.
The Serbs are filthy beasts but they were willing to take on a problem that no one else would face. This is the ugly part of the fight that turns our stomachs. Where else do you see it starting? What part of it will you find pleasant?
How many Americans do you think you can find that will see some virtue in a Slobodan Milosevic? It is precious few but this is the kind of fight we are entering and it isn’t at all pretty.
When they talk about our ability to sleep at night being protected by rough men they mean people like Milosevic and Salvador Allende and so on. It is truly scary…
Steyn is correct. Political correctness has proved to be a disease, no, a plague with no vaccine. It appears that those afflicted cannot pull themselves from its grip. I fear we only need to look toward Europe to observe our fate.
For instance, we hear, even from the afflicted, that Iran would never attack the US with nuclear weapons. But should a major city receive a nuclear blow and it be tied to Iran or any other terror state, can anyone imagine the left rising to encourage an attack on Iran, Syria, etc. that would incernerate millions of innocent women and children; even should our own women and children already be dead? I think not. We would hear howls of protests from the usual crowd.
As things look now, I fear we are doomed to destruction by our own making. What is even scarier is that I believe the rise of Islam fits very well with biblical prophecy.
If a US city was struck by a nuclear weapon from Iran, the European left’s reaction would probably be the same as it has been to the assassinations in Lebanon and the UK: they would argue it couldn’t be Iran, because Iran would have nothing to gain (if you read the Guardian, for example, this what they’re arguing to claim that Syria and Russia, respectively, were not likely involved in the two assassinations), and develop a whole bunch of conspiracy theories that would lead back to the Jews or the US being responsible for the nuke.
So far, the European left seems to have transferred the anger and fear toward radical Islam toward anti-Americanism and the old Jew hatred. So that, when Muslims bomb them or kill people it’s the fault of the US in Iraq or the Jews in Israel. I suspect the change will be subtle, in that European foreign policy will become more and more pro-Islamic until it becomes clear they have allied themselves with those states, and, in the interests of understanding, openness, whatever, Islamic customs will become the norm there, as well as Islamic law in certain areas (but will apply to any interaction with Muslims). The US and Israel will be chided to talk to our enemies, and anything other than submission will be criticized as unilateralism or cowboyism or some such. We know that Europe has already been funding the terrorists in Iraq.
Spot on. It is this mindset that will hold back those in their native populations that want to take the muslims on. The european leftists will use their police powers against their own to allow the muslims to take over. We have the same evil that was just elected to run congress. Look at their first action, a stunt by muslim leaders with ties to terrorists at an airline in their new guy’s state of MN. The fight is on, what are you going to do, sit back and complain?
Another reason to believe that Steyn’s forecast is more accurate: simple economics. Europe needs young bodies to do the jobs and pay the taxes so that the old natives have someone to foot the bill for their retirement, medical and other guaranteed social benefits. The Europeans aren’t making their own young bodies, so they need to “import” them—and the bulk of the imports are coming from Muslim countries.
I can’t quite understand where Peters is going with this. Is he advocating European-style genocide for the benefit of the US? Is he acceding that this genocide is inevitable so we should just shrug and wait for it? Is he ironically castigating the Europeans so that they don’t engage in ethnic cleansing of their troublesome Muslim minorities? Are there any suggestions at all in this piece about what the Europeans should do?
Steyn on the other hand has arithmetic (or is it geometry?) on his side. His line about who gets stewardship of the future is hard to argue with. But analyzing the plight of the West on the basis of a female bishop of American Anglicans is not entirely realistic.
The proper synthesis of these two points of view is the observation that as living standards improve, reproduction rates decline. This occurs virtually without exception. Though I don’t have the numbers in front of me I would bet my bottom dollar that the rates of reproduction of European Muslims, while higher than those of native Europeans, are significantly lower than those of, say, Palestinians.
The fly in the ointment here is that the Islamofascists reject the mechanisms that provide for the improvement of living standards. The only other example of this I can think of is that of the Luddites, who simply could not see that industrialism would eventually raise all boats. The Islamofascists see what modernization accomplishes, and they categorically reject it on moral grounds. The extent to which the broader Muslim community gets behind this point of view will largely determine the eventual birth rates among them. Unfortunately the tide of the Islamofascists is apparently at the flood.
If things do not change in the next 20-50 years, there will be a genocidal war which the West will win. Muslim cultures lack the commitment to the truth that is necessary to form and keep alliances. Their rejection of open exchange of ideas makes development, use and maintenance of technology very difficult. The Islamofascists’ insistence that politics and religion are identical means that defeat short of death is not a possibility for them. Therefore, the West will be left with the dreadful necessity of obliging them, and their cultures, with death.
We are going to get to watch the ongoing transformation of ‘Eurabia’ and it will not be a pretty sight. My wife lived in London in the 60’s and has told me that the invasion from India and Pakistan was quite an issue back then. It would seem that the assimilation then mirrored what we have seen in the US today. From my businessman’s perpective the Muslims are a positive force in the economy.
However, what I read that is happening in Europe bothers me tremendously. There seems to be no attempt to take on the mantel of whatever country they reside in. This, I believe, will accelerate exponentially the problems that we are seeing. We need to have people understand that the multiculturalism that some view as the ‘proper way’ to deal with Muslims has helped further the separation that is currently seen in Europe.
Obviously, many view Steyn as a mere ‘pundit’ aligned with conservatives, I think that he is much more and that he is letting us know where we are headed. All we have to do is keep our eyes on Europe.
Steyn lost points, with me anyway, in his “debate†with Peters as he spent most of his time attacking Peters personally, rather than Peter’s points.
The survival instinct is the strongest animal (including the human animal) instinct.
Peters may not be right, but at least he knows biology.
If you believe that the survival instinct is the strongest, I think that you are missing that while each European may be trying to ‘survive’ on his own, the larger ‘group’ of each country is failing. America needs to survive, not just the individuals.
The European’s instincts may have “frozen up” with the good life that they, LIKE AMERICANS, have had for the last few decades, but if the heat goes up enough, those instincts will “un freeze” and “un freeze” FAST!
Now, if the Muslims were smart, they would just keep quiet and play “nicey nice” and wait until they have big enough numbers to prevail.
But what are the chances of them being able to do that?
