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.

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.

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”:

The Serbs figured that out - as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you can’t outbreed the enemy, cull em.

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’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 children soldiers 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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.