"You can't buck demography."

So several months ago I read a television headline that was somewhat unnerving. The television sat on mute, as it often does in my household in the morning - I listen to the radio, I watch TV as I'm going about household chores and I and I alone will decide when a television broadcast deserves the right to be heard in my living room, a rarer and rarer occasion these days I assure you. But I digress, where was I? Awe yes, the headline - at the bottom of the FOX News broadcast it read: UK Considering Allowing Muslim Court Rulings To Be Enforceable By Law. Now, I didn't know which one I found more troubling - the fact that the United Kingdom was considering this action, or that within the heart of one of the West's most established democracies there even existed such a room which read on the outside: Welcome to the Muslim Court. So I did what our group does, I went online to research it. And as I did I came across a book I've heard mentioned before on various talk radio programs. And when I saw that the author was advertising - as a badge of honor no less - that the book was about to be banned in Canada, I said to myself, this is our type of guy. America Alone, The End Of The World As We Know It. Ahhh, an optimist! Quite the uplifting title don't you think? Well I bought it on Amazon and cracked it open last night on my breaks at work, and was through the first few chapters before my shifts end. I urge each of you to read it, this is OUR type of author - UK born, Vermont living, sharp tonged writer with that fantastic dry English humor when it comes to our ultimate demise. You'll laugh out loud - that is, when you're not crying. Now ... to the crying part, and what my literary purchase has to do with the FOX News bottom of the screen headline.

As I delve into this subject I want to state categorically that this is a paraphrased weave of both my own interpretations and observations, and that of the author of America Alone - Mark Steyn. Were he to venture on to our little site and notice, "hey, that chap just used my argument", I want to have dutifully given the proper credit. So Steyn if you're reading this, great book so far, and I'm about to use it ...

Alright. Demography.

"When history comes calling it will start with the most basic question of all - who's there?" Would any one venture to guess what the most popular new -born boys' name in Belgium is? No, not some high windy mountain Western European name, like I don't know - Franz. It's Mohammed. Sweden? Mohammed. Amsterdam? Mohammed. In the United Kingdom as of 2005 Mohammed was the 5th most popular boys' name. While that fact is settling in let's think for a second whom the world's last great super power was. Something about a sun never setting ... often Imperial Britain's success is chalked up to their decisive mastery of the seas. Put simply, they had the best Navy, period. But there is a subtext there of equal importance. How exactly did this "pipsqueak" of an island, with 28 million people in the North Atlantic, become more influential and dominant then say, China with their (at the time) 320 million? By 1820 half of Britain's population were under 15 years old. Their advances in health and science allowed them to be among the first to conquer infant mortality on a large scale. A nation full of young, spry lads, heart bursting for adventure and a chance to prove their medal - well one can see how when combined with the world's premier vessels how their influence spread, quite literally, from one end of the earth to the other. And this is not to debate the rise and fall of the British Empire, not at all. But to make a simpler, broader point about demography. As the author noted, "Just because your high school has 200 students and the other has 2000, doesn't guarantee that they'll beat you in basketball. But it at least gives them an advantage." Now imagine if it wasn't Britain whom first conquered both infant mortality and Posiedon. They at least had a tradition of some individual liberties, courts, and property rights. What if had been Japan? Or Russia? Iran? And yes each of these have seen their own empires come and go (Persia most notably off the top of my head) but we are talking about the "last" great imperial superpower (sorry Micheal Moore, it isn't us), the one which shaped the world and borders we live in and by today. Briton. And believe me, this is no anti-Arab rant I'm taking part in. I just happen to think numbers are relevant, you know ... given we are in this whole war for the future of the world with modern-day religious fascism thing. So, back to those numbers, the UK and Europe in general ... At current the percentage of the population 15 years old and under in Spain is 14%. The UK, 18%. The US, 21%. Saudi Arabia, 39%. Pakistan, 40% . Yemen, 47%. Notice anything there? Would anyone hazard to guess what the "fertility stability" rate for human civilization is set at by demographers? That means just maintaining say, 10 million people from 1950 to 2000 with no spike and no decline. It's 2.1%. Every woman must reproduce at least 2.1 babies in her lifetime to maintain the population, wherever it is at. In Europe, currently as a whole their live birth rate per woman is 1.38. Japan, 1.32. Russia, 1.14. Canada is at an all time low at 1.48. Spain's is a staggering 1.1. The Spaniards are on a course to literally halve themselves every generation. 1 child for every two adults. The author noted the folly in Spain renaming the traditional "mother" and "father" listings on their birth certificates and changing them to "Progenitor A" and "Progenitor B." I mean, whose A and whose B? Great! Another thing to argue over with the misses. His observation was, "No point in renaming the teams if you're no longer going to play the game." Ireland is better, 1.8% - thank the Church's stance against birth control and the Irishman's complete inability to utilize a calender for anything other then crop cycles. Germany and Austria are at 1.3. Italy, 1.2. America's is 2.1%. We are the fastest reproducers of the Western, democratized first world. And just a quick aside, the "Blue Sates" are slacking off. Or more like jac... You know the one - the infamous Blue vs Red State map you've seen countless times. Well, the states that went for Bush in 2000 & 2004 reproduce at a 12% higher rate then blue states. Anyone surprised by that? I doubt it. Back to Europe - do you know what happens when an advanced society decides to "invest" heavily into socialized everything - health care, daycare, prenatal care (although less and less a problem clearly), education, retirement pensions etc? You need to maintain a tax base that is broader then those availing themselves of the government services, with no gaps. If you're halving each other every 30 years as the secular, progressive Spaniards are doing, just who the hell is going to pick up the tab as there become 8 times as many retired grandparents as there are employed grandchildren? And this applies to the "blue state mentality" as well. The flawed logic in the secularists, liberal's social agenda via the government is that it requires a religious oriented birth rate to maintain the tax base! Forget outsourcing telecommunication jobs to India from Massachusetts - they are outsourcing the most basic job of all, REPRODUCING. So what does Europe (and Canada) do since they don't have us Red State Bible thumping reproducers around to replace those "workers?" They import them of course. And I know Titus has now officially begun to repeat at the screen his mantra that "no closed society can sustain itself, no closed soc ...", and that's all well and good and quite true. However, it DOES matter who the imports are doesn't it? I mean, if demographics is a game of last man standing, it does matter what the men you recruit to your team think regarding liberty, doesn't it? And again, this is no racist's rant or point of view that looks down upon the color or ethnicity of new immigrants to Europe. Just set aside the fact that my dearly beloved nephew and niece are half African-American, and that I'm so tan myself that any white racist airport security guard worth his neoNazi credentials wouldn't let me park my truck for 3 seconds in front of passenger pick-up, what I'm talking about is what the imported worker brings to the host country does matter. Does the immigrant change slightly to form the melting pot or does he or she reverse assimilate the host? "Who" the West imports for workers as they decide children are an inconvenience matters to those of us raising children. To the numbers on "who" we can import from ... Whose got the extra manpower as we (in specifically Europe and Canada) look around the globe? The global fertility leader is Niger, at 7.46%. That's 7 and a half births PER WOMAN. Next is Mali at 7.42. Somalia is 6.76. Afghanistan, 4.7 (these are all UN census numbers I might add). Add that to the "under 15" numbers I ran from above. Notice what the commonality is among demography's "high-enders?" Islam.

To these "importing nations." The "post-Christian" birthrates are unsustainable given the lavish welfare sate of modern day Europe and Canada. Toronto's large newspaper, Globe and Mail stated, in regards to the record low fertility rate among Caunucks, "Luckily for our future economic and fiscal well-being, Canada is well positioned to counter the declining population trend by continuing to encourage the immigration of talented people to this country from over crowded parts of the world." Overcrowded places? Why so unspecific? It's clear that the highest birthrates, and populations with the largest and quickest expanding young workforce are those dominated by Islam, and that is EXACTLY where Europe and Canada is importing from. So what Ryan! You racist! You're an Islamaphobe! First off, I'm pretty sure that in my book -and my compatriots on this site will concur - that any religious, self sufficient, patriarchal, well to do , i.e. CONSERVATIVE group of peoples are aces in my eyes. In fact I may have more in common with the newly arrived moderate Muslim then I do a California born and bred Berkley professor - in fact I know I do. But that's just it - are they arriving, (and again for now this is the question Europe has to grapple with rather then the US, we won't run out of Mexicans for at least another 60 years) and adapting their religion with the democratic rule of law and outlooks on personal (namely female) liberties? Or are they for the first time in modern history, changing the host country? And bare in mind, this doesn't fall prey to the argument that, "when I was a kid it was the Italins, then the Greeks, and the Irish" etc. Those are all races, nationalities that the UK, and the US imported. Islam is a religion, with very specific codes of conduct and views on those whom don't oblige. It's not just transatlantic, it's trans-earth! And I'm certainly not subscribing to the view that every Muslim is a whacked-out high-jacker, certainly not. If 100% of your population believes in a liberal pluralist democracy it doesn't matter whether 70% of your population is one color or another in terms of preserving "freedom" as we know it. But if a code of conduct, and just for fun lets call it a religion, of even 10% of your population is at odds with that very concept, then you have a real societal problem on your hands. Especially if that 10% are the only ones having babies. Consider this: in the 2005 rankings of Freedom House's survey of personal liberty and democracy around the world, 5 of the 8 countries with the lowest "freedom" score were Muslim. Of the 46 Muslim majority nations in the world, only 3 were "free." Of the 16 nations in which Muslims form between 20 and 50% of the population, only another 3 were ranked free - Benin, Serbia/Montenegro, and Suriname. Which begs the question - where will Spain and France be in say 30 years?

And what has become of those progressive pluralistic societies that have taken on more and more "workers" to sustain their socialist Utopia? The Middle East and North Africa are now the principle suppliers in new immigrants to Europe and Canada. Has the culture we would recognize as "free" been affected? Perhaps we should ask the first defendant in the newly established "Muslim Court." By the way, as of yesterday UK lawmakers will allow the legal enforcement handed down by these courts servicing their "neighborhoods." Looks like it's a good time to open up that new clitorectomy office next to the local pub. I'm sure they'll be content to stay in "their neighborhoods." The calls to prayer broad casted on public speakers in Canada? The same Canada that would scream in outrage were the Pope to offer Easter Mass within 100 yards of a publicly owned piece of land - don't worry. I'm sure they'll be content to broadcast only in "their neighborhoods" over the next 30 years. They wont spread out. Want more fun facts kiddies? In the fall of 2001 the Ottawa Citizen conducted a coast-to-coast survey of Canadian Imams and found all but 2 insistent that there was no Muslim involvement in the September 11th attack. 5 years later in the summer of 2006, a poll in the United Kingdom found that only 17% of British Muslims believed there was ANY involvement of Arabs in 9/11. With a sizable percentage making comments such as, "it was done by Mossad." And I'm sure you gay people will have nothing to worry about were you to find yourself in a Muslim Court or Muslim dominated England. The rise of gay-bashing (actual physical assaults) in the city of Amsterdam - the most "tolerant" city on earth - has increased so sharply that Dutch officials actually commissioned a study by the University of Amsterdam to determine what was going on. The result read as follows:

"Half of the crimes were committed by men of Moroccan origin and researchers believe they felt stigmatized by society and responded by attacking people they felt were lower on the social ladder. Another working theory is that the attackers may be struggling with their own sexual identity."

Well that ought to calm things down - tell a bunch of young devout Muslim men that they're closet a** pirates. It's not like if say 19 of them got together they could do any real damage, right? In February, 2008 on the BBC the Archbishop of Canterbury said it was, "dangerous to have one law for everyone." And that the introduction of Sharia Law was inevitable. What? Isn't that the founding principle of the democratic rule of law? The same law applies to all, equally? That's antiquated in 2008? Within days of that comment the British and Ontario governments both confirmed that thousands of polygamous men in their jurisdictions were to receive welfare payments for each of their wives. What does this mean for the future, outside of what will be a sudden influx of fringe Mormons into the great white North? I shudder to guess. Still think I'm just some right-wing whack job that sounds more and more like Micheal Savage the more you read? Also in 2008 the UK announced new "sharia bonds", that will, "make London the world capital of Islamic banking" as they put it. What is "Islamic banking" exactly? There will be "sharia home loans." One can only imagine what the fill-out questionnaire will look like on that application form! "Which of the following methods do you find is most effective in denying the Holocaust? A.) ... " The deeply traditionally Christian town of Oxford, Britain has joined their Canadian brethren in "multicultural tolerance" via the loud speaker. 3 times a day the Central Mosque will broadcast the Muslim call to prayer over loudspeakers that can be heard throughout the city. Tolerance? Broadcasting the supremacy of Allah over the tops of centuries old Anglican Churches is tolerance? How about something more basic - disease? There's a not-so PC problem with British Muslim nurses in public hospitals riddled with Clostridium Difficle and refusing to comply with hygiene procedures on the grounds that scrubbing their hands requires them to bare their arms. And if you think its tough to get Europe on board with invading Iraq now, what do you think the chances will be of putting together a traditional coalition force in say 25 years, should we need to go into Iran? Do you think "Sharia bonds" will finance the construction of new tanks in order to roll into Persia? I don't think so. Their Muslim populations in Europe, if they remain at today's pace, are set to double every ten years. As we learned in Iraq, despite all of our weaponry and technology - numbers matter. Boots on the ground make a difference, and Northern Africa and the Middle East are putting boots on the ground all throughout Europe at a very noticeable rate, or rather the Europeans are! Is anyone going to tell me with a straight face that Islam has actually gone through a reformation (for lack of a better word) and that there is zero danger in what are obviously principles and practices that make it antithetical to the liberties of a Western democracy? Is there any wonder why we shrug off news reports that lead with exclamations like: "The death toll is now 9 in the aftermath of the Dutch cartoon controversy." Even if its only 5 to 10 percent that are actually "hot for jihad", what is the likely hood that their activities will be punished or even curtailed if they are standing trial in a Sharia Court in Oxford, Britain?

So, does the current crop of Europeans have the will to resist? Their fathers and grandfathers were good at fighting for their freedom - the sons only seem to be good at enjoying it, to a fault. A MAJOR shift in the global order is coming if this trend continues. We could show up at a G8 meeting and find not a single European in the French, British and German contingencies. They've already gotten rid of all the Christians themselves, what's say we get rid of these pesky democrats (small "d") too. This is where it starts my friends - incrementalism. French municipal swimming baths have introduced gender-segregated swimming sessions at the request of local Muslim officials. Australian hospitals have removed pork from their menus. I am in NO WAY comparing moderate Islam with Nazism, but this is hauntingly familiar territory. What's next? Nuremberg Laws? No mingling with Jews in public? How far off can that be? Think about this - if a Scot marries a Dane there probably won't be any church affiliation reorganization (probably because there is no church affiliation at all). However, that same Scot marries a Yemeni, what are the odds he or she will need to first convert to Islam? It's reverse assimilation of the host country.

This one really concerned me: dovetailing with the idea that there's nothing modern about modern Islam, i.e. no intellectual or otherwise reformation (again, for lack of a better word), the UN released a study in a 2002 report. Ready? "More books are translated into Spanish each year then have been translated into Arabic in the last thousand." And what are some of the books that actually get translated for sale in Muslim book stores, in Manchester say? Mein Kampf, displayed prominently in the front. Oh ya, the old stalwart - The Protocols of The Elders of Zion. Forget about the fact that Mein Kampf is a best seller in the Kingdom of Saudi, what impact will these "literary selections" have on the minds of young Muslim Brits?

So what do you get when the principle supply of your young new workers come from literally dozens of nations around the world whom are united by a single ideology that suppresses everything from science and hygene to personal liberties, controls information, and has views on unfavorable races and genders reminiscent of the worst of European fascism? They'll get their reformation alright. Europe that is, not Islam. But this time it won't be some plucky little monk with a hammer and nail, posting grievances on a door. From London to Transylvania, from the Baltic to the Pyrenees ... the call to prayer will go out .... 3 times a day like clockwork ... a clock with German style precision that is ...

"Civilizations die from suicide, not murder."
-Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History.

One last thing. In 2007 the Mayor of the city of Brussels - the capital of the EU - was Socialist Party member Freddy Thielemans, who presided over the ruling Socialist Party Caucuas of the city with 17 other members. Here are their names:

1. Fatima Abid
2. Mustafa Amrani
3. Samira Attalbi
4. Mohammed Boukantar
5. Philippe Close
6. Jean Baptise de Cree
7. Ahmed el Ktibi
8. Julie Fiszman
9. Faouzia Hariche
10. Karine Lalieux
11.Marie-Paule Mathias
12. Yvan Mayeur
13. Mounia Mejbar
14. Mohamed Ouria Ghili
15. Mahfoudh Romdhani
16. Sevet Temiz
17. Christian Van Der Linden

Nice huh?