Quite a few writers have recently published articles about the future of Europe, looking at various solutions to the problems with its Muslim population. This includes both anonymous blog writers (here and here), as well as more well-known authors such as Daniel Pipes (here).
If in the past it seemed that analyses of this type focused on demographics, today they focus on possible responses by the 'native' European population as it becomes more and more xenophobic.
There are quite a few pitfalls in trying to analyze the future. Taking different forecasts into account, by 2050 the Netherlands will be under water, Europe will be undergoing an ice-age and the world be will be in the midst of a nuclear war. In other words, a flooded, freezing, nuked Europe, with a Muslim majority. That is, if they would still be there .
Putting aside the issue of 'proposed solution' vs. 'trying to forecast what the future might bring', what bothers me with these analyses is that they do not take into account what will happen afterwards.
This article is not going to offer solutions. I think there are quite a few things European countries could do, and I generally write about those options on my blog (see here). Rather, it is an outline and I might update it in the upcoming weeks.
Let's say Europe does not deal with its own problems, that xenophobia and anti-Islam attitudes take over. A possible outcome is that Islam will be outlawed, and any resident of immigrant origin will be forcibly deported or killed. My question is, and then what?
'Solutions' like deportation and genocide remind me of a small child who goes through a tantrum. Ok, so he finally calms down, and then what? The world will probably continue to revolve, Europe would still be facing a serious decimatory threat, and the third world would still be there, looking hungrily towards the West and its job opportunities.
I bring here a few issues to think over.
1. Europe cannot uphold its current lifestyle level without immigration. Will Europe attract anybody after going through a racist upsurge probably inflamed by anti-immigration rhetoric? How many immigrants, of any religion or race, would come to Europe? How many would be left?
2. After its dismal failure in accepting the foreigners who wanted to integrate (Jews), and the likewise failure in accepting the foreigners who didn't want to integrate (Muslims) - will Europe be given another chance?
Given a theoretical assumption that Europe would have a consistently increasing immigrant population that is fully Christian and fully integrated, and that this immigrant population would be non-white. How many people would still talk about the 'demise of the ethnic European'?
3. Will this genocide also extend to the rest of the Muslim world? Are there any volunteers to gas or otherwise murder a billion people? how will such large scale genocide, or deportation, in Europe affect the rest of the world? What would such an attack mean for such small Christian communities like the Copts and Assyrians? Would they survive it?
4. Many European converts are attracted to Islam since they see it as an alternative to Western culture and as the religion of the underdog. These Western immigrants tend to radicalism and terrorism more often than the 'ethnic' Muslims. How would a massive civil war affect the urge to convert? If Islam becomes an illegal religion in Europe, would it attract more or less people?
5. Liberal democracy - the mindset needed for a state to turn against its own citizens in such a way and to massively deport or kill innocents together with subversives, is one of totalitarianism. With the lack of liberal democracy:
- How many people would leave Europe in final disgust and who would be left? Would Europe manage to rebuild itself culturally and economically?
- Who would restore human rights? The US had come to Europe's rescue in the past when totalitarian forces threatened to take over. If the totalitarian force is Europe itself and all Europeans support it, why should the US risk it's neck fighting for Europe's freedoms?
The world continued in its everyday business after the Holocaust, and 60 years later Europe is still dealing with the implications. If Europe once again turns against its own citizens, due to their religion or belief, disregarding the innocence or lack thereof of each victim, I forecast it will take much longer than that to rebuild. Muslims and other minorities will thrive elsewhere, but Europeans would face a much more serious problem.
11 comments:
Whoaa, Esther!
Are you having nightmares lately? This post boggled my mind. You are talking about genocide of continental dimensions as if its a likely future... shocking!
OK, I should have read the linked scenarios first, now I guess you are trying to retort those predictions? Still, I think you are wrong. Wrong for (1) taking the forcasts of those nutjobs serious (it`s barely veiled hatespeech and fearmongering), wrong for (2) accepting the premises of their "descriptive scenario" and wrong for (3) inventing facts (veiled as questions) as your counterarguments that are really your normative questions/ counterarguments. You are basically saying: Europe should not engage in genocide because it would hurt its workforce and taint Europe`s image abroad - when it should be enough to say that genocide is plain evil and abhorrent!
Plus, (1.) are you absolutely sure that Europe is depending on immigrants? There are lots of costs by and little use for immigrants with the wrong education (or none) and wrong language. And there is and has been inter-european migration, why further migration? (I would really like to see data that supports this pro-immigration view, not opinions.) There might be benefits by immigration in the US, Canada, Australia, but even then - does this apply to Europe too (different selection of immigrants, other social system)?
Secondly (2.) you mention Jews as "foreigners who wanted to integrate". Were they foreigners? The earliest written(!) record of Jews in Germany dates of 321 AC (Roman Empire then), a letter of Cesar Constantin acknowledging Jews in the city council of Cologne. That was way before Turks came to Turkey or Arabs to Egypt. So, why a foreigner? On the other hand: Did they want to integrate? In Pre-Enlightment times? Or rather live apart and by their own religious laws? This characterization is obviously as imprecise as the Muslims "unwilling to integrate".
OK, I`ll stop the rant.
Esther,
I`d like to read what you really think is a likely scenario for Europe or Muslims in Europe in 50 years or so. Europe is not monolithic, so may be diverse, even contradictory trends will develop? I read a german (south-german!) study predicting (for 2030) a schism of an "arabic Islam" and a "european Islam" in Germany, the latter supported by turkish and other muslims educated and successful in mainstream society and the former the underprivileged undereducated in migrant-ghettos.
http://tobias-lib.ub.uni-tuebingen.de/volltexte/2006/2397/pdf/Islam_in_Deutschland_Prognose_2030_Seminarbericht.pdf
(There are actually several different scenarios, some optimistic, some pessimistic)
What is your opinion / your forcast?
Good night!
8-)
Berliner
solution:
strict french conception of secularism
Yes, I think Esther has been a round through the nightmare section.
Not to worry. A recent study shows that, at least in Denmark, conversions to Buddhism alone outnumbers conversions to Islam. It's good with some population influx, but Islam tends to make so much trouble that it distracts us from real problems, like running out of oil or global warming. Conversion is a very nice tool for that.
As for the libel that 'Europe' refused to integrate its Jews, it remains just that - libel.
But it's the worst kind, namely blood libel, and I'm onestly offended. We defeated the Nazis 60+ years ago and their crimes against the Jews stands as the archtypical crime against humanity, a crime never to be repeated. I think that should be clear. Bringing up the idea of genocide is plain evil.
Thank you.
Regarding your statement, "Europe cannot uphold its current lifestyle level without immigration".
Have you stopped to consider that perhaps it is current lifestyle expectations that are unrealistic?
And how can anyone assume that 'current lifestyle levels' can be maintained by throwing open the gates to ideologies and customs that are in opposition to your own?
Hi,
I do not know which of the possible outcomes is the most probable and I hope anything happens it wont be as bad as was what happened to Jews during nazism, but with what I must really dissagree is the need of immigration for maintaining of our current status.....
If there has to be huge economical crisis, uneducated and hardly integrable masses of immigrants from third world countries (especially Africa, Arrabic Pennisula, Pakistan and so on ) will cause us more harm than good. If there wont be anything like this (about which I am doubtful), we will cope with our problems quite fine even without immigrants (Japan can be really good example of state which is able to cope with negative demographics even without influx of masses of immigrants...) Maybe our living standards will deteriorate a bit, but so what?
Can' they politely ban immigration and demand that Muslim already there choose between allegiance to the their new country and respect for the laws or a ticket back home. This includes monogamy and mutual respect of other religions and cultures. Of course, Europe is not going to do another Holocaust bt they sure can limit and stop immigration. There are other places in the world they can draw immigrants from as well as trying to build up their native birthrates.
Even if Europe were to deport every single Muslim tomorrow morning, they would still be facing demographic suicide.
Abortion, contraception, homosexuality, euthanasia - these are not 'lifestyle choices' but the Culture of Death.
There is only option - Europe must return to it's Catholic roots. It is that simple.
A country without a religion is a country with no future.
There are too many people i n the world. Global warming will continue unless the population is reduced. Rising sea levels will mean less land. More people means more cars, more roads, more houses, more infrastructure. We have to reduce the carbon footprint. The only logical way is to reduce the population.
Hi all,
I'll try to answer some of the questions posed here.
1. I don't know if Europe really needs more people for its workforce.
2. Henrik, I'm sorry I offended you. I'm not the one who brought up the idea of genocide, though.
My point was to try and get people to think beyond the "final solution" scenario, since all these 'what would happen in the end' analyses are just setting up a new reality, that people will have to live in. I don't know if it would be a better reality at all.
Anonymous #1 - it's tough to say what would happen to Muslims in Europe. At the moment the Islamist movement is taking over the Muslim world and gaining strength in the Western world. It's hard to say what will happen next year, much less 50 years from now. By next year Iran might be a nuclear power and Egypt a Muslim Brotherhood stronghold. How would that affect Europe, and the Muslims there?
What would happen if Israel is attacked and destroyed? Would Europe accept Israeli refugees? Send boats to save them? How would that affect European politics?
What about China and India, and how would the world look when and if those countries take over world economy? Twenty years from now, Europeans might be standing in line for a visa to work in China.
In 50 years, we might have colonies on Mars, or Martian colonies on Earth. Who knows?
But, more to the point - I'll try to think about it.
"Europe cannot uphold its current lifestyle level without immigration"
Hehe, this is not correct. First of all, you are assuming something based on a false foundation.
Look at South Korea and Japan. Successful and rich countries without implementing systems such as the "Eurabia project" (european multiculturalism).
"Muslims will go back and thrive somewhere else?"
Where? Name one successful Muslim country which isn't dependant on oil export or commerce with kafir states?
You are assuming we would be worse off when we isolate the Islamic world?
We would be soooooooooooo much better off if we adopted a policy of complete isolation. We MUST create a new international organization of nations which hold regular, free elections and which uphold the UDHR and the Geneva Conventions. We must stop the jizya to the inbred, baby-raping Nazi terrorist nations, even if they claim to 'acknowledge' Israel like Egypt (but only after Israel destroyed Egypt's air force in 3 days during the 6 Day War while being attacked by 4 other nations simultaeously, and they occupied the Sinai which Egypt wanted back). We must deport or inter everyone who practices Islam, as a single Muslim 'prayer' constitutes treasonous sedition and anyone deported and interred should be grateful for not being eviscerated and eaten alive by rats as they deserve to be, but which the Geneva Conventions do not allow. We should never import anyone other than religious minorities from Muslim nations, and even doing that is questionable. There is no legitimate education in the Muslim world, nor is there a real work ethic, since Muslims must never do an honest day's work but rather parasitize infidels like their Pervert did all of his days, so the odds that anyone from a Muslim nation could have anything to offer us but consanguinity-bordering-on-monkeydom is seriously questionable. Nonetheless, I am grateful for Nonie Darwish, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, and Ayann Ali Hirsi and I believe that many religious minorities from Muslim nations somehow manage to adopt the Judeo-Christian work ethic and to educate themselves anyway.
Is Japan having problem with terrorism? Do they pay insane insurance costs? How about their administrative costs? How many billions do they save on international jizya, homeland security, and insurance every day )(no, not year, day)? Why is that? Oh yeah, no jizya, no terrorists on their shores. See? Simple common sense.
Post a Comment