People who take the idea of Eurabia seriously are almost as dull and pointless as people who take the idea of one world government seriously, and few are as dull and pointless as Mark Steyn, a man who makes me ashamed to wear a beard. However it’s not enough to ignore people like Steyn, because they poison the well of public discourse, undermining our opportunities to really talk about critical issues such as identity and immigration. On the always-interesting Demography Matters blog, Randy McDonald tears down the rich fantasy world which people like Steyn (and more mainstream figures like Mitt Romney in the United States) long to inhabit, and explains why this is a problem:
What’s the problem with all this? For people like ourselves, interested in researching population trends here at Demography Matters and elsewhere, this sort of rhetoric creates yet another set of myths that have to be debunked. It is interesting to trace out some of the likely population futures of different regions, countries and continents, as is determining the different factors operating in different communities within a given territory. Turning a field that could be filled by an ongoing stream of productive research into an endless cycle of disproved popular mythologies would be boring. More to the point, the constant repetition of myths like the ones enunciated by Romney — that the European continent is declining, that Europe is threatened by foreigners — poisons public discourse by legitimating ever more radical statements. If Europeans at large are concerned about the extent to which communities of recent immigrant origin are or are not acculturating to the norms of a wider society and want to influence public policy accordingly, how likely will the debate be calm and rational if many the people who participate seriously believe things scarcely more sophisticated than “OMG the Muslims are going to P3WN Europe”?
My thoughts exactly. Imagine if, in the real world, every discussion you tried to have was dominated by somebody who did nothing but shout in your face about how it was all the Muslims (or Jews, or Hispanics, or blacks – take your pick). It would be utterly unbearable, and people would eventually stop talking about those issues because they couldn’t face the prospect of being harangued by a incoherent belter. That’s Steyn, right there, riding his hobby-horse and protesting that he’s just misunderstood.
These are interesting and important issues which need a healthy public discourse, see? Specifically, what it needs is more people like Randy and fewer people like Steyn, otherwise we’ll all end up like the poor benighted souls that Johann Hari wrote about in his classic piece on The National Review cruise. While acknowledging that Johann was always going to be biased against the sort of people who would go on the cruise on the first place, he wasn’t making any of that stuff up:
But facts, figures, and doubt are not on the itinerary of this cruise. With one or two exceptions, the passengers discuss “the Muslims” as a homogenous, sharia-seeking block – already with near-total control of Europe. Over the week, I am asked nine times – I counted – when I am fleeing Europe’s encroaching Muslim population for the safety of the United States of America.
Look, it’s 2008 – forget about my jetpack, all I want is an internet that isn’t an echo chamber for people who would previously have been confined to their bedrooms, where they could safely fulminate about how their genius has never been recognised by ignorant fools such as myself. They were better off there, and so were we.
Paul Currian
I’m an Iranian living in London. As an apostate, Islam condemns me to death, and it ain’t a nice place to be. Whilst you and your progressive mates culturally cringe and do your self loathing multi culti dance, me and millions of other victims of the vicious, uncompromising and totalitarian ideology of islam have to fight against not only islamism, but the wretched, ad hominem spouting, apologists from the modern left. I’m with Steyn all the way. You can stick with your cowardly defence of supremacist ideology and keep sucking the lemons. But drop the moral self righteousness, bro, you’re a traitor to reason.
best wishes
TYM
[...] A BIG FAN– Demography clearly matters, although Mark Steyn doesn’t …. [...]
Your disdain and contempt for Steyn’s posit is noted. However, would you please be so kind as to actually, you know, refute any of Steyn’s aforesaid “myths”. Please struggle a little harder.
B Clarkson
So who let you out of your bedroom.
Well, shave it off then
This may be the most incoherent thing I have read in weeks, but hey, Mark noticed you big fella, so groove on.
So convincve me. Steyn’s book had a lot of figures which, if true, I guess we would call facts. Which ones were wrong and why?
Whoever asked Johann that question, all nine of them, weren’t scaremongers! They were homophobes, trying to get rid of the attentions of a raving gay!
Get your hate-terminology right!
Dear sport, er, I thought you were talking about you! Um, I think you forgot to actually make an actual point and refute a particular statement of Mark Steyn’s with er, evidence.
“Healthy debate” eh? That means having only your opinions, right? You presented zero evidence on a single of Steyn’s empirical points. That’s standard Left denial for ya. Stay with the usual ad Hominems, mate. Looks like that’s your high mark…
You say “all the Muslims (or Jews, or Hispanics, or blacks – take your pick). ”
Er, disingenuous in the extreme, fluffy. Neither the Jews, Hispanics nor blacks etc, are er, problematic. You KNOW its Islam, unless you really are as dull and ashamed as a beard for the mental illness of PC Leftism and apologia can be.
Islam is a complete way of existing and eternal warfare system created by a 7th century paedophile, rapist, mass murdering warlord and Jew hater. Do you think THAT could be a problem? A delusional and phoney dhimmi Left is the greatest friend any Islamist could wish for.
You’re neither really funny, interesting at all, a good writer nor honest, are you? Still, good luck kid.
Maybe get help and visit drsanity.blogspot.com, dissectleft.blogspot.com, thepeolescube.com, thereligionofpeace.com and jihadwatch.org etc, etc…
Colonel Robert Neville dot blogspot dot com.
Ps.
Dear kid, I don’t know if you’ll put this or the previous comment up, but ah, I don’t moderate ANY comments I may receive. i’m just glad to get ‘em and I’m always interested whatever anyone write about.
All the best, Colonel Neville.
Found your wonderfully inept attack on Steyn by visiting Mark Steyn’s site. Could you please post another one like this one, except, perhaps it would be good if you would actually rebut a few of the points Steyn makes about Europe’s mildly concerning demographics.
It appears you want “discourse” only with people with whom you agree.
To call Mark Steyn, on eof the most intelligent and witty writers out there dull & pointless calls in to question your judgement if not your sanity..
“…what it needs is more people like Randy and fewer people like Steyn…”
Yes, that would make debate easier, wouldn’t it? Just include only those with whom we agree, and ignore those we don’t.
At least Mr Steyn is able to ‘poison the public discourse’ by providing statistics. Can you offer any statistics that refute his argument?
Wow, what can I say? You appear to take no issue with what Mr Steyn (and many others) assert, only with the “Tedious?” manner in which you claim they assert these things. OK, so fill me in about which of these is incorrect:
(a) demography is a game of last man standing
(b) a society in which the main source of immigrants is an increasingly alienated and fundamentalist-led people must in the end itself become more alienated and fundamentalist-led
(c) host societies are preemptively disrobing themselves of their own cultural attire in order to try to make everybody else “comfortable” (which leads directly to (b) as very few people on the planet are all that interested in multiculturalism)
(d) dependence on levels of immigration previously unheard of in states not at war, as an organising principle of a state is seriously flawed.
Discuss, please.
Paul – you’ve clearly managed to annoy a lot of reactionaries! Good show!
Now, I’m an American, so perhaps I’m not qualified to comment on Europe’s interaction with Muslim immigrants…but then again, I’ve lived in plenty of Muslim countries, so maybe I am. Notwithstanding the good Colonel’s assertion that “Islam is a complete way of existing and eternal warfare system created by a 7th century paedophile, rapist, mass murdering warlord and Jew hater” – there are quite a large number of Muslims in this world who 1) drink alcohol, 2) pray fewer than 5 times a day, 3) like watching R-rated movies, and 4) are, generally speaking, capable of engaging with the modern world in a constructive way. Heck, I’ve met loads of ‘em. From what I have seen of Islam in my life abroad, it tends to become more moderate, the further it gets from the Middle East – i.e. the more it interacts with different cultural norms and contexts. This would indicate to me that Muslim fundamentalism is more tied to cultural norms in the Middle East than it is to anything inherent to Islam itself.
So one could plausibly argue that despite the “sky is falling” hysterics of Mr Steyn et. al., the presence of an increasing number of Muslims in Europe is a good thing in the long run, as it is likely to spur the development of a more moderate and modernized stream of Islam. Religions do…evolve…after all. Islam is about 1300 years old now….where was Christianity in 1300 AD? Invading the Middle East, killing Jews, holding inquisitions, etc (maybe 1300 is just a difficult age for religions…like adolescence). The Reformation began changing that, and by creating a more moderate stream of Christianity it eventually served to moderate many of Rome’s excesses as well. Are there some holes in this scenario? Sure. But certainly no fewer holes than there are in the ravings of the anti-immigrant right.
Anyway, keep it up. If you’re pissing off this lot, you must be doing something right.
@TYM:
Clearly you mistake my dislike for Steyn’s politics as unqualified cheerleading for fundamentalist Muslims, whereas in fact I am even more opposed to fundamentalist Muslims than I am to Steyn. As far as I know, Mark Steyn has yet to murder any of my friends or colleagues, whereas fundamentalist Muslims have killed and maimed a good number of them.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that I “culturally cringe and do [my] self loathing multi culti dance”; I’m not sure what you even mean by that, and I’m even less sure that I care. However I absolutely support your right to whatever faith (or lack of faith) you choose, and actively oppose anybody who’d seek to curtail it.
You can fight me if you want, but do bear in mind that I’m probably a better ally to you than Mark Steyn. Any support that he might offer to you is conditional on your not being a Muslim; any support that I might offer you is based simply on your right to freely believe whatever you want.
@Arden, James Goneaux: I don’t just want debate with people I agree with, otherwise none of these comments would have appeared. QED.
@Wayne: Mark Steyn’s writing ability has little or nothing to do with his pointlessness.
@Sholto Douglas: Now the winter is over, I am indeed considering shaving the beard off. Although the weather’s looking a little dodgy today.
@B Clarkson, Terrance McManus, Colonel Robert Neville, Mike Jonze, George:
Perhaps you missed the entire point of my post. Steyn’s arguments have taken a beating elsewhere, including on the Demography Matters blog, and there seems little point in flogging a dead horse. The argument I was making was that the very tone of Steyn’s discourse precludes reasonable debate, but instead demands an “us or them” response which I really have no time for. Most of the comments that this post has received so far tend to confirm that.
As to yer actual refutations of yer actual arguments – my god, who has time to wade through this drivel? I’ll stick with the introduction, and here’s a sample of Steyn’s “points”:
“Why did Bosnia collapse into the worst slaughter in Europe since World War Two? In the thirty years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 percent to 31 percent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 percent to 44 percent.”
It’s strange how this magical theory overlooks the Croat presence in Bosnia entirely, fails to account for the fact that the Bosnian government was never solely “Muslim”, doesn’t explain the Croatian-Serbian conflict over the Krajina, or express any insight at all into the wider dynamics of the break-up of Yugoslavia.
What was the single most important cause of the increase in the proportion of Muslims in that “thirty years before the meltdown”? It was the amendment to the Constitution to recognise the status of “Muslim” as a nationality within Yugoslavia, which enabled a number of Bosniaks to move out of their previously-declared nationality (predominantly “Yugoslav”, which saw a massive drop in the 1971 census). In the 1961 census, “Muslims by nationality” constituted 25.7% of the population; in the 1971 census, “Muslims” were 39.6% – all because of an administrative decision.
Now I won’t dispute that in absolute terms the “Muslim” population grew more quickly than the Serb population from 1971 to 1991. Yet Steyn’s failure to mention the census issue at all – or indeed to provide a citation, as far as I can tell – doesn’t inspire much confidence in his argument.
“In a democratic age, you can’t buck demography – except through civil war.”
What does this even mean? I’ll give you a clue – it doesn’t mean anything. We might be in a “democratic age”, but when Yugoslavia broke up, it wasn’t actually a democracy – and that was one of the problems. Luckily he moves on swiftly, as does any good con artist:
“Demography doesn’t explain everything, but it accounts for a good 90 percent- including the easy stuff, like why Jacques Chirac wasn’t amenable to Colin Powell’s schmoozing on Iraq: if the population of your cities was 30 percent Muslim, with spectacularly high youth unemployment rates and a bunch of other grievances, would you be so eager to send your troops into an Arab country fighting alongside the Great Satan?”
Right. So if the population of your cities is 30% Muslim, you won’t send troops to an Arab country – by which he presumably means a Muslim country, otherwise the sentence doesn’t make sense? Except of course that
i) the estimated number of Muslims is 5-10% of the population (CIA world factbook, y’all), their unrest is generally nothing to do with Iraq, and the anti-war protests in France were not (as far as I can recall) predominantly made up of Muslims;
ii) France sent forces to Bosnia (Operation Deliberate Force), the Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) and Afghanistan (Mission Heracles); and
iii) God bless’ em, the Bosnians sent a contingent to Iraq, and I’m guessing that the cities are 30% Muslim, high unemployment, blah, blah, blah.
So Steyn – once again with no citations – tries to make an argument that falls at the first hurdle. Let’s have another go – writing in 2006, Steyn asks “What’s the most popular boy’s name in Belgium? Mohammed.”
Only one problem – in 2006, Mohammed was the 10th most popular boy’s name in Belgium (http://statbel.fgov.be/figures/d22a_nl.asp), dropping from 8th in 2005. And of course the reason there are so many Mohammeds is because a huge number of Muslim boys from those immigrant groups are given “Mohammed” as a middle name – so the proportions are nowhere near as alarming as they sound. So Steyn manages to get his factoid wrong – again – and overplays a relatively straightforward point.
I could go on, but I really can’t be bothered to provide a point-by-point rebuttal of Steyn. In any case, I doubt that any of my points will convince you that Steyn is an obnoxious charlatan who merrily rides his bandwagon without regard for any other vehicles on the road, a man whose research is questionable, whose arguments are nonsensical and who has little to contribute to the discussion.
JMK: Indeed. One might point to developments such as this as supporting your point about any such Islamic reformation.
[...] last post on Mark Steyn drew a number of comment, one of which accused me of “moral self righteousness” and [...]
Mr. Currion:
I’d like to thank you for linking to my essay.
“It’s strange how this magical theory overlooks the Croat presence in Bosnia entirely, fails to account for the fact that the Bosnian government was never solely “Muslim”, doesn’t explain the Croatian-Serbian conflict over the Krajina, or express any insight at all into the wider dynamics of the break-up of Yugoslavia.”
Actually, it does reflect worryingly well the kind of junk pop demography that was popular in Serbia from the 1980s on, which interpreted relatively higher Muslim birth rates as “demographic aggression” at the same time that women who refused to become mother to as many
childrensoldiers as the motherland needed were denounced. That all ended, well, quite badly.TYM:
As someone who would be classified as a sodomite, I assure you that religious fundamentalists of all stripes concern me. I saw those photographs from Iran.
That’s part of the reason why I took a look in 2004 on the situation in France–I wanted to see if the worst-case scenarios for France were true. I was surprised to see that they were not, and even more surprised to find out that any number of people were treating these scenarios as true without bothering to take a look at the numbers for themselves.
“(a) demography is a game of last man standing”
No, no, no.
Is France bound to surpass Germany economically because of its relatively younger population? That’s not obvious. Population does play a major role in economic growth, but it doesn’t play the only role. What’s overall productivity like, and likely to be like?
Moreover, the assumption that populations will naturally transfer themselves across short distances from poor countries to richer ones is false. Look at the case of Spain, where, since the beginning of the recent massive immigration around 2000, the proportion of Moroccans in Spain’s total foreign-born population has declined from 50% to a bit above 10%, even though Morocco is nearby as almost as poor relative to Spain as it was at the beginning of the decade. Why did this happen? Any number of factors intervened, including politics (Spanish-Moroccan pacts to limit migration), past migration trends (grandchildren of Spanish immigrants to Argentina and Venezuela returning to the motherland), economic crises elsewhere (Ecuador’s fnancial collapse), and immigration policies elsewhere (the United States’ post-9/11 hardening of its frontiers against Latin American migrants).
“(b) a society in which the main source of immigrants is an increasingly alienated and fundamentalist-led people must in the end itself become more alienated and fundamentalist-led”
1. “Main source”? Europe and European countries, as global economic and cultural powers, attract migrants from very many countries. Germany hosts nearly as many Russophone ethnic Germans from the former Soviet Union as it does people of Turkish background; in Italy, migrants from Latin America, eastern Europe, and North Africa each form similar shares of the total immigrant population; in Spain, there are as many Ecuadorians as there are Moroccans; and so on.
2. “Alienated” isn’t the same as “fundamentalist-led.” The recent Paris riots were produced by an ethnically mixed underclass–migrants of Portuguese background have had the same sort of problems as people of North African background, perhaps suggesting that some sort of change in French political economy kept people associated with these two migrations of the 1960s from successfully assimilating on the model of earlier generations of Belgian, Italian, and Polish migrants. Religion plays a role, doubtless, but mainly inasmuch as it’s another barrier to the underclass’ assimilation into wider French society.
3. “Religiously conservative” isn’t the same thing as “fundamentalist,” and “fundamentalist” isn’t the same thing as “terrorist.’ Just saying.
“(c) host societies are preemptively disrobing themselves of their own cultural attire in order to try to make everybody else “comfortable” (which leads directly to (b) as very few people on the planet are all that interested in multiculturalism)”
What, exactly, are you talking about? I honestly don’t know what I can respond to.
“(d) dependence on levels of immigration previously unheard of in states not at war, as an organising principle of a state is seriously flawed.”
The French Third Republic did just fine until it was conquered by the Nazis. That conquest had much more to do with a divided political and military leadership than with a national population that included quite a few immigrants and descendants of immigrants. In fact, that conquest was abetted by collaborators who despised this heterogeneous population–check out the Affiche Rouge.
Randy – thanks for the comment, although it looks like this little episode was a hit-and-run job by the Provisional Wing of the Mark Steyn Liberation Front.
Your point about the Serbian “pop demography” which Steyn appears to have swallowed whole is well taken; and of course that approach was recycled by the Serbian authorities in Kosovo, with equally positive results. Steyn writes in “America Alone”:
That sounds like prescription rather than description to me; but if we overlook the implied cheerleading for genocide and focus on the results of that “culling” policy, it doesn’t look like such a smart move, does it?
“[I]f we overlook the implied cheerleading for genocide and focus on the results of that “culling” policy, it doesn’t look like such a smart move, does it?”
Only inasmuch as the Serb refugees produced by the defeats in these various all-or-nothing wars often had no choice but to end up in Serbia proper. Then again, if one is willing to inflict that kind of enormous suffering on the people one claims to be defending, the electorate has a fairly legitimate right to wonder whether one should be a leader at all.
I come from a lower middle-class Christian background. My parents were/are teachers. Many of us are simply not having children anymore, not because of Muslims but because we’ve seen almost a century of constant war and economic insecurity. Everytime things start to look a little more secure or predictable, the rug is pulled out from under us again. Those who trumpet about all these threats always seem to do very well out of it whilst it is our brothers and husbands who end up with the horrific war wounds, PTSD and come back to nothing or next to nothing. They have all this money for constant war but we see our education and healthcare systems crumbling, high housing prices as a result of ‘funny money’ and population pressure, mass immigration to keep the wages in most jobs low and then they wonder why we give up?
I became very interested in Islam in my early twenties because, from what we saw of the Muslim community here in Sydney, they seemed to practise what our religious leaders preached but rarely, if ever, practised themselves (e.g we had a pastor who was constantly exhorting us to give money, lived in a great house, had a boat and two nice cars but eventually left because he wanted to go back to being an insurance salesman as he could not ‘provide’ for his family). Some of them border on being neo-Nazis and for those of us who aren’t blonde and blue-eyed, church could often get *very* uncomfortable at times, particularly if we have some ‘Jewish blood’. Also Islam seemed to make a lot more sense theologically (since Jesus never said that he was God). Now I’m a little wiser with regards to some undesirable aspects of Muslim culture but the main victims of that seem to be Muslims themselves and it still doesn’t answer the question as to why, if they are deemed to be such a terrible existential threat, we still have such high immigration from the Muslim world.
Which leads a lot of Christians to assume that we are just being set up for war and theft by our own politicians again. Most of us have not forgotten WW2 and the devastating loss of property that many people experienced. We have not forgotten that many prominent people in our churches and society became very mysteriously wealthy after that war (when they didn’t own flourishing businesses or have professional qualifications). We might be left dirt-poor after the wars but we can still put two and two together.