• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Demographic Politics And Population Growth - 2
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Oct 28 2006, 11:55 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Oct 28 2006, 11:55 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->G.Sub I see that some morons who are too dhimmi to understand the implications of Muslim growth rate have been trying to sidetrack the issue about the demographic threat and try to make it out as if it's based on socio-economics, they will be exposed if you simply quote the literacy statistics in Kerala for Hindus, Muslims and xtians and the birth rates of the 3 communities along with that, as we all know both Hindus and Muslims have almost the same literacy rate there but Muslims have a birth rate that's double the state's avg.

I think it is deliberate unwillingness to face the truth as well as the un-PC cure - counter breeding
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->MARK STEYN
Sept. 11, 2001, was not “the day everything changed,” but the day that revealed how much had already changed. On Sept.10, how many journalists had the Council of American-IslamicRelations or the Canadian Islamic Congress or the MuslimCouncil of Britain in their Rolodexes? If you’d said thatwhether something does or does not cause offence to Muslimswould be the early 21st century’s principal politicaldynamic in Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Franceand the United Kingdom, most folks would have thought youwere crazy. Yet on that Tuesday morning the top of theiceberg bobbed up and toppled the Twin Towers.

This is about the seven-eighths below the surface — thelarger forces at play in the developed world that have leftEurope too enfeebled to resist its remorselesstransformation into Eurabia and that call into question thefuture of much of the rest of the world. The key factorsare: demographic decline; the unsustainability of the socialdemocratic state; and civilizational exhaustion.
Let’s start with demography, because everything does:
If your school has 200 guys and you’re playing a school with2,000 pupils, it doesn’t mean your baseball team isdefinitely going to lose but it certainly gives the otherfellows a big starting advantage. Likewise, if you want tolaunch a revolution, it’s not very likely if you’ve only gotseven revolutionaries. And they’re all over 80. But, ifyou’ve got two million and seven revolutionaries and they’reall under 30 you’re in business.

For example, I wonder how many pontificators on the “MiddleEast peace process” ever run this number:

The median age in the Gaza Strip is 15.8 years.

Once you know that, all the rest is details. If you were a”moderate Palestinian” leader, would you want to try to persuade a nation — or pseudo-nation — of unemployed poorly educated teenage boys raised in a UN-supervised European-funded death cult to see sense? Any analysis of the”Palestinian problem” that doesn’t take into account themost important determinant on the ground is a waste of time.

Likewise, the salient feature of Europe, Canada, Japan andRussia is that they’re running out of babies. What’shappening in the developed world is one of the fastestdemographic evolutions in history: most of us have seen agazillion heartwarming ethnic comedies — My Big Fat GreekWedding and its ilk — in which some uptight WASPy typestarts dating a gal from a vast loving fecund Mediterraneanfamily, so abundantly endowed with sisters and cousins anduncles that you can barely get in the room. It is, in fact,the inversion of the truth. Greece has a fertility ratehovering just below 1.3 births per couple, which is whatdemographers call the point of “lowest-low” fertility fromwhich no human society has ever recovered. And Greece’sfertility is the healthiest in Mediterranean Europe: Italyhas a fertility rate of 1.2, Spain 1.1. Insofar as anycitizens of the developed world have “big” families thesedays, it’s the anglo democracies: America’s fertility rateis 2.1, New Zealand a little below. Hollywood should bemaking My Big Fat Uptight Protestant Wedding in which somesad Greek only child marries into a big heartwarming NewZealand family where the spouse actually has a sibling.

As I say, this isn’t a projection: it’s happening now.There’s no need to extrapolate, and if you do it gets alittle freaky, but, just for fun, here goes: by 2050, 60 percent of Italians will have no brothers, no sisters, nocousins, no aunts, no uncles. The big Italian family, withpapa pouring the vino and mama spooning out the pasta downan endless table of grandparents and nieces and nephews,will be gone, no more, dead as the dinosaurs. As Noel Cowardonce remarked in another context, “Funiculi, funicula, funicyourself.” By mid-century, Italians will have no choice inthe matter.

Experts talk about root causes. But demography is the mostbasic root of all. A people that won’t multiply can’t goforth or go anywhere. Those who do will shape the age we live in.

Demographic decline and the unsustainability of the socialdemocratic state are closely related. In America,politicians upset about the federal deficit like to complainthat we’re piling up debts our children and grandchildrenwill have to pay off. But in Europe the unaffordable entitlements are in even worse shape: there are no kids orgrandkids to stick it to.

You might formulate it like this:

Age + Welfare = Disaster for you;

Youth + Will = Disaster for whoever gets in your way.

By “will,” I mean the metaphorical spine of a culture.Africa, to take another example, also has plenty of youngpeople, but it’s riddled with AIDS and, for the most part,Africans don’t think of themselves as Africans: as we saw inRwanda, their primary identity is tribal, and most tribeshave no global ambitions. Islam, however, has serious globalambitions, and it forms the primal, core identity of most ofits adherents — in the Middle East, South Asia and elsewhere.

Islam has youth and will, Europe has age and welfare.

We are witnessing the end of the late 20th- centuryprogressive welfare democracy. Its fiscal bankruptcy ismerely a symptom of a more fundamental bankruptcy: itsinsufficiency as an animating principle for society. Thechildren and grandchildren of those fascists and republicanswho waged a bitter civil war for the future of Spain nowshrug when a bunch of foreigners blow up their capital. Toosedated even to sue for terms, they capitulate instantly.Over on the other side of the equation, the modernmulticultural state is too watery a concept to bind hugenumbers of immigrants to the land of their nominal citizenship. So they look elsewhere and find the jihad. TheWestern Muslim’s pan-Islamic identity is merely the firstgreat cause in a world where globalized pathologies aretaking the place of old-school nationalism.

For states in demographic decline with ever more lavishsocial programs, the question is a simple one: can they getreal? Can they grow up before they grow old? If not, thenthey’ll end their days in societies dominated by people witha very different world view.

Which brings us to the third factor — the enervated stateof the Western world, the sense of civilizational ennui, ofnations too mired in cultural relativism to understandwhat’s at stake. As it happens, that third point is closelyrelated to the first two. To Americans, it doesn’t alwaysseem obvious that there’s any connection between the “war onterror” and the so-called “pocketbook issues” of domesticpolitics. But there is a correlation between the structuralweaknesses of the social democratic state and the rise of aglobalized Islam. The state has gradually annexed all theresponsibilities of adulthood — health care, child care,care of the elderly — to the point where it’s effectivelysevered its citizens from humanity’s primal instincts, notleast the survival instinct. In the American context, thefederal “deficit” isn’t the problem; it’s the governmentprograms that cause the deficit. These programs would stillbe wrong even if Bill Gates wrote a cheque to cover themeach month. They corrode the citizen’s sense ofself-reliance to a potentially fatal degree. Big governmentis a national security threat: it increases yourvulnerability to threats like Islamism, and makes it lesslikely you’ll be able to summon the will to rebuff it. Weshould have learned that lesson on Sept. 11, 2001, when biggovernment flopped big-time and the only good news of theday came from the ad hoc citizen militia of Flight 93.

There were two forces at play in the late 20th century: inthe Eastern bloc, the collapse of Communism; in the West, the collapse of confidence. One of the most obvious refutations of Francis Fukuyama’s famous thesis The End Of History — written at the victory of liberal pluralistdemocracy over Soviet Communism — is that the victors didn’t see it as such. Americans — or at least non-Democrat-voting Americans — may talk about “winning”the Cold War but the French and the Belgians and Germans and Canadians don’t. Very few British do. These are all formal NATO allies — they were, technically, on the winning side against a horrible tyranny few would wish to live under themselves. In Europe, there was an initial moment ofeuphoria: it was hard not be moved by the crowds sweeping through the Berlin Wall, especially as so many of them werehot-looking Red babes eager to enjoy a Carlsberg or Stella Artois with even the nerdiest running dog of imperialism.But, when the moment faded, pace Fukuyama, there was nosense on the Continent that our Big Idea had beaten theirBig Idea. With the best will in the world, it’s hard tocredit the citizens of France or Italy as having made anyserious contribution to the defeat of Communism. Aucontraire, millions of them voted for it, year in, year out.And, with the end of the Soviet existential threat, theenervation of the West only accelerated.

In Thomas P. M. Barnett’s book Blueprint For Action, RobertD. Kaplan, a very shrewd observer of global affairs, isquoted referring to the lawless fringes of the map as”Indian territory.” It’s a droll joke but a misleading one.The difference between the old Indian territory and the newis this: no one had to worry about the Sioux riding downFifth Avenue. Today, with a few hundred bucks on his ATMcard, the fellow from the badlands can be in the heart ofthe metropolis within hours.

Here’s another difference: in the old days, the white mansettled the Indian territory. Now the followers of thebadland’s radical imams settle the metropolis.

And another difference: technology. In the old days, theInjuns had bows and arrows and the cavalry had rifles. Intoday’s Indian territory, countries that can’t feed theirown people have nuclear weapons.

But beyond that the very phrase “Indian territory” presumesthat inevitably these badlands will be brought within thebounds of the ordered world. In fact, a lot of today’s”Indian territory” was relatively ordered a generation ortwo back — West Africa, Pakistan, Bosnia. Though EasternEurope and Latin America and parts of Asia are freer nowthan they were in the seventies, other swaths of the maphave spiralled backwards. Which is more likely? That theparts of the world under pressure will turn intopost-Communist Poland or post-Communist Yugoslavia? InEurope, the demographic pressures favour the latter.

The enemies we face in the future will look a lot likeal-Qaeda: transnational, globalized, locally franchised,extensively outsourced — but tied together through apowerful identity that leaps frontiers and continents. Theywon’t be nation-states and they’ll have no interest inbecoming nation-states, though they might use the husksthereof, as they did in Afghanistan and then Somalia. Thejihad may be the first, but other transnational deformitieswill embrace similar techniques. Sept. 10 institutions likethe UN and the EU will be unlikely to provide effective responses.

We can argue about what consequences these demographictrends will have, but to say blithely they have none isridiculous. The basic demography explains, for example, thecritical difference between the “war on terror” forAmericans and Europeans: in the U.S., the war is somethingto be fought in the treacherous sands of the Sunni Triangleand the caves of the Hindu Kush; you go to faraway placesand kill foreigners. But, in Europe, it’s a civil war.Neville Chamberlain dismissed Czechoslovakia as “a farawaycountry of which we know little.” This time round, for muchof western Europe it turned out the faraway country of whichthey knew little was their own.

Four years into the “war on terror,” the Bush administrationbegan promoting a new formulation: “the long war.” Not agood sign. In a short war, put your money on tanks andbombs. In a long war, the better bet is will and manpower.The longer the long war gets, the harder it will be, becauseit’s a race against time, against lengthening demographic,economic and geopolitical odds. By “demographic,” I mean theMuslim world’s high birth rate, which by mid-century willgive tiny Yemen a higher population than vast empty Russia.By “economic,” I mean the perfect storm the Europeans willface within this decade, because their lavish welfare statesare unsustainable on their post-Christian birth rates. By”geopolitical,” I mean that, if you think the United Nationsand other international organizations are antipathetic toAmerica now, wait a few years and see what kind of supportyou get from a semi-Islamified Europe.

Almost every geopolitical challenge in the years ahead has its roots in demography, but not every demographic crisiswill play out the same way. That’s what makes doing anythingabout it even more problematic — because differentcountries’ reactions to their own particular domesticcircumstances are likely to play out in destabilizing wayson the international scene. In Japan, the demographic crisisexists virtually in laboratory conditions — no complicatingfactors; in Russia, it will be determined by the country’srelationship with a cramped neighbour — China; and in Europe, the new owners are already in place — like a tenantwith a right-to-buy agreement.

Let’s start in the most geriatric jurisdiction on the planet. In Japan, the rising sun has already passed into the next phase of its long sunset: net population loss. 2005 was the first year since records began in which the country had more deaths than births. Japan offers the chance to observethe demographic death spiral in its purest form. It’s acountry with no immigration, no significant minorities andno desire for any: just the Japanese, aging and dwindling.

At first it doesn’t sound too bad: compared with the United States, most advanced societies are very crowded. If you’rein a cramped apartment in a noisy congested city, losing acouple hundred thousand seems a fine trade-off. Thedifficulty, in a modern social democratic state, is managing which people to lose: already, according to the Japan Times, depopulation is “presenting the government with pressing challenges on the social and economic front, includingensuring provision of social security services and securingthe labour force.” For one thing, the shortage of children has led to a shortage of obstetricians. Why would anytalented ambitious med school student want to go into afield in such precipitous decline? As a result, if you livein certain parts of Japan, childbirth is all in the timing. On Oki Island, try to time the contractions for Mondaymorning. That’s when the maternity ward is open — first dayof the week, 10 a.m., when an obstetrician flies in toattend to any pregnant mothers who happen to be around. Andat 5.30 p.m. she flies out. So, if you’ve been carelessenough to time your childbirth for Tuesday through Sunday,you’ll have to climb into a helicopter and zip off to givebirth alone in a strange hospital unsurrounded by tiresomeloved ones. Do Lamaze classes on Oki now teach you to timeyour breathing to the whirring of the chopper blades?

The last local obstetrician left the island in 2006 and the health service isn’t expecting any more. Doubtless most ofus can recall reading similar stories over the years fromremote rural districts in America, Canada, Australia. Afterall, why would a village of a few hundred people have agreat medical system? But Oki has a population of 17,000,and there are still no obstetricians: birthing is a dying business.

So what will happen? There are a couple of scenarios:whatever Japanese feelings on immigration, a country withgreat infrastructure won’t empty out for long, any more thana state-of-the-art factory that goes belly up stays emptyfor long. At some point, someone else will move in toJapan’s plant.

And the alternative? In The Children Of Men, P. D. James’dystopian fantasy about a barren world, there are specialdolls for women whose maternal instinct has goneunfulfilled: pretend mothers take their artificial childrenfor walks on the street or to the swings in the park. InJapan, that’s no longer the stuff of dystopian fantasy. Atthe beginning of the century, the country’s toy makersnoticed they had a problem: toys are for children and Japandoesn’t have many. What to do? In 2005, Tomy began marketinga new doll called Yumel — a baby boy with a range of 1,200phrases designed to serve as companions for the elderly. Hesays not just the usual things — “I wuv you” — but alsoasks the questions your grandchildren would ask if you hadany: “Why do elephants have long noses?” Yumel joins hisfriend, the Snuggling If bot, a toy designed to have the conversation of a five-year old child which its makers, with the usual Japanese efficiency, have determined is just enough chit-chat to prevent the old folks going senile. It seems an appropriate final comment on the social democraticstate: in a childish infantilized self-absorbed societywhere adults have been stripped of all responsibility, youneed never stop playing with toys. We are the children wenever had.

And why leave it at that? Is it likely an ever smallernumber of young people will want to spend their active yearslooking after an ever greater number of old people? Or willit be simpler to put all that cutting-edge Japanesetechnology to good use and take a flier on Mister Roboto andthe post-human future? After all, what’s easier for thegoverning class? Weaning a pampered population off the goodlife and re-teaching them the lost biological impulse orgiving the Sony Corporation a licence to become the Cloney Corporation? If you need to justify it to yourself, you’dgrab the graphs and say, well, demographic decline isuniversal. It’s like industrialization a couple of centuriesback; everyone will get to it eventually, but the first todo so will have huge advantages: the relevant comparison isnot with England’s early 19th century population surge butwith England’s Industrial Revolution. In the industrial age,manpower was critical. In the new technological age,manpower will be optional — and indeed, if most of theavailable manpower’s Muslim, it’s actually a disadvantage.As the most advanced society with the most advanceddemographic crisis, Japan seems likely to be the firstjurisdiction to embrace robots and cloning and embark on theslippery slope to transhumanism.

Demographic origin need not be the final word. In 1775,Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter to Joseph Priestlysuggesting a mutual English friend might like to apply hismind to the conundrum the Crown faced:

Britain, at the expense of three millions, has killed 150Yankees this campaign, which is £20000 a head… During thesame time, 60000 children have been born in America. Fromthese data his mathematical head will easily calculate thetime and the expense necessary to kill us all.

Obviously, Franklin was oversimplifying. Not every American colonist identified himself as a rebel. After therevolution, there were massive population displacements: asUnited Empire Loyalists well know, large numbers of NewYorkers left the colony to resettle in what’s now Ontario.Some American Negroes were so anxious to remain subjects ofKing George III they resettled as far as Sierra Leone. Forthese people, their primary identity was not as Americancolonists but as British subjects. For others, their newidentity as Americans had supplanted their formal allegianceto the Crown. The question for today’s Europe is whether theprimary identity of their fastest-growing demographic is Muslim or Belgian, Muslim or Dutch, Muslim or French.

That’s where civilizational confidence comes in: if “Dutchness” or “Frenchness” seems a weak attenuated thing,then the stronger identity will prevail. One notes other similarities between revolutionary America and contemporaryEurope: the United Empire Loyalists were older and wealthier; the rebels were younger and poorer. In the end,the former simply lacked the latter’s strength of will.

Europe, like Japan, has catastrophic birth rates and a swollen pampered elderly class determined to live in defiance of economic reality. But the difference is that onthe Continent the successor population is already in placeand the only question is how bloody the transfer of realestate will be.

If America’s “allies” failed to grasp the significance of9/11, it’s because Europe’s home-grown terrorism problemshad all taken place among notably static populations, suchas Ulster and the Basque country. One could make generallysafe extrapolations about the likelihood of holding NorthernIreland to what cynical strategists in Her Majesty’sGovernment used to call an “acceptable level of violence.”But in the same three decades as Ulster’s “Troubles,” thehitherto moderate Muslim populations of south Asia wereradicalized by a politicized form of Islam; previouslyformally un-Islamic societies such as Nigeria becamesemi-Islamist; and large Muslim populations settled in partsof Europe that had little or no experience of mass immigration.

On the Continent and elsewhere in the West, native populations are aging and fading and being supplantedremorselessly by a young Muslim demographic. Time for theobligatory “of courses”: of course, not all Muslims areterrorists — though enough are hot for jihad to provide animpressive support network of mosques from Vienna toStockholm to Toronto to Seattle. Of course, not all Muslimssupport terrorists — though enough of them share theirbasic objectives (the wish to live under Islamic law in Europe and North America) to function wittingly or otherwiseas the “good cop” end of an Islamic good cop/bad coproutine. But, at the very minimum, this fast-movingdemographic transformation provides a huge comfort zone forthe jihad to move around in. And in a more profound way itrationalizes what would otherwise be the nuttiness of theterrorists’ demands. An IRA man blows up a pub in defianceof democratic reality — because he knows that at the ballot box the Ulster Loyalists win the elections and the Irish Republicans lose. When a European jihadist blows somethingup, that’s not in defiance of democratic reality but merelya portent of democratic reality to come. He’s jumping the gun, but in every respect things are moving his way.

You may vaguely remember seeing some flaming cars on the evening news toward the end of 2005. Something going on inFrance, apparently. Something to do with — what’s the word?– “youths.” When I pointed out the media’s strangereluctance to use the M-word vis-à-vis the rioting “youths,”I received a ton of emails arguing there’s no Islamistcomponent, they’re not the madrasa crowd, they may be Muslimbut they’re secular and Westernized and into drugs and rapand meaningless sex with no emotional commitment, andrioting and looting and torching and trashing, just like anynormal healthy Western teenagers. These guys have economicconcerns, it’s the lack of jobs, it’s conditions peculiar toFrance, etc. As one correspondent wrote, “You right-wingshit-for-brains think everything’s about jihad.”

Actually, I don’t think everything’s about jihad. But I dothink, as I said, that a good 90 per cent of everything’sabout demography. Take that media characterization of thoseFrench rioters: “youths.” What’s the salient point aboutyouths? They’re youthful. Very few octogenarians want to gotorching Renaults every night. It’s not easy lobbing aMolotov cocktail into a police station and then hobblingback with your walker across the street before the searingheat of the explosion melts your hip replacement. Civildisobedience is a young man’s game.

In June 2006, a 54-year-old Flemish train conductor called Guido Demoor got on the Number 23 bus in Antwerp to go towork. Six — what’s that word again? — “youths” boarded the bus and commenced intimidating the other riders. There weresome 40 passengers aboard. But the “youths” were youthfuland the other passengers less so. Nonetheless, Mr. Demoorasked the lads to cut it out and so they turned on him,thumping and kicking him. Of those 40 other passengers, none intervened to help the man under attack. Instead, at thenext stop, 30 of the 40 scrammed, leaving Mr. Demoor to be beaten to death. Three “youths” were arrested, and proved tobe — quelle surprise! — of Moroccan origin. The ringleaderescaped and, despite police assurances of completeconfidentiality, of those 40 passengers only four cameforward to speak to investigators. “You see what happens ifyou intervene,” a fellow rail worker told the Belgiannewspaper De Morgen. “If Guido had not opened his mouth hewould still be alive.

“No, he wouldn’t. He would be as dead as those 40 passengersare, as the Belgian state is, keeping his head down, tryingnot to make eye contact, cowering behind his newspaper inthe corner seat and hoping just to be left alone. Whatfuture in “their” country do Mr. Demoor’s two children have?My mother and grandparents came from Sint-Niklaas, a town Iremember well from many childhood visits. When we stayedwith great-aunts and other relatives, the upstairs floors ofthe row houses had no bathrooms, just chamber pots. Mysister and I were left to mooch around cobbled streets withour little cousin for hours on end, wandering aimlessly pastsmoke-wreathed bars and cafes, occasionally buying friteswith mayonnaise. With hindsight it seemed as parochiallyFlemish as could be imagined. Not anymore. The week beforeMr. Demoor was murdered in plain sight, bus drivers inSint-Niklaas walked off the job to protest the thuggery ofthe — here it comes again — “youths.” In little more thana generation, a town has been transformed.

Of the ethnic Belgian population, some 17 per cent are under 18 years old. Of the country’s Turkish and Moroccanpopulation, 35 per cent are under 18 years old. The “youths”get ever more numerous, the non-youths get older. To avoidthe ruthless arithmetic posited by Benjamin Franklin, it isnecessary for those “youths” to feel more Belgian. Is thatlikely? Colonel Gadhafi doesn’t think so:

There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory inEurope — without swords, without guns, without conquests.The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into aMuslim continent within a few decades.

On Sept. 11, 2001, the American mainland was attacked forthe first time since the War of 1812. The perpetrators wereforeign — Saudis and Egyptians. Since 9/11, Europe has seenthe London Tube bombings, the French riots, Dutch murders ofnationalist politicians. The perpetrators are their owncitizens — British subjects, citoyens de la Républiquefrançaise. In Linz, Austria, Muslims are demanding that allfemale teachers, believers or infidels, wear head scarves inclass. The Muslim Council of Britain wants Holocaust Dayabolished because it focuses “only” on the Nazis’ (alleged)Holocaust of the Jews and not the Israelis’ ongoingHolocaust of the Palestinians.

How does the state react? In Seville, King Ferdinand III isno longer patron saint of the annual fiesta because hissplendid record in fighting for Spanish independence fromthe Moors was felt to be insensitive to Muslims. In London,a judge agreed to the removal of Jews and Hindus from atrial jury because the Muslim defendant’s counsel argued hecouldn’t get a fair verdict from them. The Church of Englandis considering removing St. George as the country’s patronsaint on the grounds that, according to various Anglicanclergy, he’s too “militaristic” and “offensive to Muslims.”They wish to replace him with St. Alban, and replace St.George’s cross on the revamped Union Flag, which wouldinstead show St. Alban’s cross as a thin yellow streak.

In a few years, as millions of Muslim teenagers are enteringtheir voting booths, some European countries will not beliving formally under sharia, but — as much as parts ofNigeria, they will have reached an accommodation with theirradicalized Islamic compatriots, who like many intoleranttypes are expert at exploiting the “tolerance” of pluralistsocieties. In other Continental countries, things are likelyto play out in more traditional fashion, though without asignificantly different ending. Wherever one’s sympathieslie on Islam’s multiple battle fronts the fact is the jihadhas held out a long time against very tough enemies. If you’re not shy about taking on the Israelis and Russians,why wouldn’t you fancy your chances against the Belgians and Spaniards?

“We’re the ones who will change you,” the Norwegian imam Mullah Krekar told the Oslo newspaper Dagbladet in 2006.”Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries isproducing 3.5 children.” As he summed it up: “Our way ofthinking will prove more powerful than yours.

“Reprinted by permission of Regnery Publishing from AmericaAlone © 2006 by Mark Steyn

Book review on esamskriti

Truncated India by RK Ohri


Moderator Alert
I have a bunch of excel files on muslim demographics
Can I email them to someone willing to put them on your site

Please email to
mods [AT] india-forum [DOT] com
Sachar says:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->'The growth rate for Muslims, as for the total population, is bound to fall further and eventually reach a zero growth stage. There are strong indications that this could occur well before the end of the century', the report says.

By the end of the 21st century, India's Muslim population is projected to reach 320-340 million in a total of 1.7 to 1.8 billion people and the share is likely to be 18-19 percent.  The 2001 census has put India's Muslim population at 138 million-plus.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->20 million Muslim couples currently use modern contraceptives.


Expert opinions?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Expert opinions? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The 18% scenario is without anymore infiltration but that is impossible going by the current scenario, also there is the tacit assumption that at some point in time Muslim and Hindu birth rates will stabilise at the same rate of 2.1 but what if they don't, what if the Hindu birth rate goes down to 1.4 or 1.5 as in Kerala while the Muslim birth rate stays at 2.1 or 2.4?

We are heading for another partition whether people here like it or not and the blame falls on Hindus, Samar Abbas has already openly demanded Mughalistan to be carved out of Northern Bihar and Northern UP in an article in the Economic and Political Weekly, that definition will be expanded to include Asom, WB, Kerala.

Here is the article:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Discussion December 2-8, 2000

Kashmir: Autonomy Demand
Samar Abbas

The recent article 'Autonomy Demand: Kashmir at Crossroads' by Rekha
Chowdhary (July 22-28, 2000) rightly emphasises the real possibility of an
upcoming trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir. However, the author unfortunately
takes a negative view of such developments, terming them as 'alarming' and
'reactionary'. In fact, the peaceful partition of a region beset by ethnic-based
conflicts can actually prevent much unnecessary blood-shed, and provide a
lasting solution to age-old historical disputes. The trifurcation of the state
is thus a development which, given the total communal polarisation at the ground
level, may be the only alternative to civil war.

Territorial partition on ethnic lines involving population transfers has
been the solution applied by international mediators to resolve complex ethnic
conflicts in several parts of the world. The effective partition of multi-ethnic
Yugoslavia into Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia was the prime reason for the end to
the bloody civil war there. In addition, where the political leadership
possessed foresight and agreed to the partition of multi-ethnic states prior to
the outbreak of hostilities, conflicts have been prevented altogether. Thus,
Czechoslovakia was amicably partitioned into the Czech and Slovak republics,
averting a possible civil war. The peaceful break-up of the Soviet Union may
also be similarly explained. In Kashmir, while it is true that what may be
termed as 'reactionary forces' are supporting the concept of a trifurcation, yet
at the same time an international think-tank, the Kashmir Study Group, has also
supported the idea. East Timor and Eritrea are some other examples where larger
states have been broken up to settle religious and ethnic conflicts.

Indeed, ethnic partition has been proposed as a solution to America's
long-standing race problem. An organisation called 'Americans for
Self-Determination' (ASD) seeks to partition America into three main
ethnic-based states: a Hispanic-dominated 'Aztlan' in the south-west, a
Negro-dominated 'New Afrika' in the south and south-east, and an Anglo-Saxon
dominated state comprising the rest of the present United States.
Representatives of all three conflicting groups are members of this
organisation, with each ethnic group realising that separation is the most
sensible long-term solution to America's race problem. It is feared that the
alternative would be a racial civil war.

Indeed, given the continuing escalating cycle of violence between Hindus
and Muslims in India, as well as the rapid rise of ethnic conflicts around the
world, it is imperative to find a permanent solution to the Hindu-Muslim
conflict as a whole and not just in Kashmir. The total paralysis of state
machinery in the aftermath of the Babri masjid demolition - an event
well-documented in this journal - shows that even a minor Hindu-Muslim
confrontation in the future has the potential of plunging the nation into a
civil war. Whereas the secularism of the Indian intellectual elite and upper
class is truly commendable, it must be remembered that the general populace - on
both sides - displays a considerably greater amount of chauvinism. Failure to
recognise the immense hold that reactionary forces have gained amongst the
general populace will only lead to more bloodshed. The Indian intellectual elite
must recognise that elites in most other parts of the world could not prevent
the outbreak of ethnic hostilities.

Indeed, within the Kashmir Study Group proposal for the communal
trifurcation of Kashmir lie the seeds for a final solution to the Hindu-Muslim
problem all across south Asia. Perhaps the Hindus may wish to set aside 12 per
cent of the territory of the Indian Union for the Muslims, who form 12 per cent
of the population and hence could claim to have a 'right' to 12 per cent of the
land. This land would sensibly comprise the already Muslim-dominated and
historically Islamicised regions of northern UP (Rohilkhand, North Oudh) and
northern Bihar (Seemanchal), where Hindus already live in fear of Muslims. The
Muslims all across the rest of India could then migrate to that region, whilst
Hindus would then comprise the sole ethnic group in the remaining 88 per cent of
India. This migration would be a peaceful process spread over several years,
with both communities slowly migrating to regions wherein they dominate,
avoiding blood-baths. At the ground level, I would like to point out that this
process is already at work in many parts of India.

There are numerous advantages for both sides this solution. For the
Muslims, these regions would then be free to join Bangladesh and Pakistan,
leading to a resurrection of the territorial limits of the Mughal Empire. It is
proposed that this region be named 'Mughalstan', and it is hoped that this new
nation would experience a cultural efflorescence as the glorious Mughal
civilisation is restored. For the Hindus, their faith and culture would be safe
in the remaining 88 per cent of the Indian union as the Muslims would have left
these regions for Mughalstan. This would be effectively a 'Hindu Rashtra' which
several Hindu organisations are working so hard for. Moreover, it would be a
Hindu Rashtra comprising almost 90 per cent of the territory of the modern
Indian union. Most importantly, the all-pervading blood-shed and constant loss
of lives would stop as no Muslims would be living in this Hindu Rashtra. There
would be no more Mumbai blasts, no more terrorist attacks, no more fear of the
'bearded mulla' with a grenade in one hand and a Quran in the other. This is of
greater importance for Hindus, since the total casualties amongst this community
are likely to much higher in case of a full-blown jihad. State law would protect
Hindu religion, and legislation could be enacted preventing conversions from
Hinduism so that the present fear of a 'Muslim takeover' by out-breeding and/or
conversion would be permanently set at rest. The advantages for Hindus thus
probably outweigh the territorial losses in this scenario.

Perhaps an organisation on the lines of the 'Americans for
Self-Determination' can be formed, comprising both Hindus and Muslims, which may
be called 'Indians for Self-Determination'. Its goals would be the formation of
a 'Hindu Rashtra' as well as a 'Mughalstan', with the recognition that neither
side can win all of India, and that their actions are essentially humanitarian,
preventing a possible future civil war.

One day the Hindus of India will find that it's too late.

<b>Japan births rise for 1st time in 6 years </b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Based on that data, the daily Yomiuri Shimbun calculated the birth rate for last year at 1.29 babies per women, up slightly from a record low of 1.26 in 2005. Despite the increase, the rate is still far below the 2.1 rate needed to keep the population steady.

The figures also showed that 732,000 couples were married last year, 18,000 more than in 2005, while divorces fell by 4,000 to 258,000.

Japan has been scrambling to implement measures to persuade couples to have more children<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not related to India, but it is a positive trend in Nippon.
FOX is showing the Quiverfull Movement, which believes God told everyone to have as many kids as possible. (Some Psalm says Blessed is the man who has aquiver full of children or something like that). Rachel Scott (shown on the screen), author of a book on QFM, says after 4 kids, her husband was thinking of a vasectomy. Then he had a dream in which a warrior with a flaming sword pointed to his (the husband's) genitals and said "use what God has given you" or something. Rachel now has 8 kids.

FOX panel analyzing this has a middle-eastern accented Christian woman, who said the Muslim nations are outstripping the West 7:1 in demographics, so we need to have more kids to save western civilization.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->FOX panel analyzing this has a middle-eastern accented Christian woman, who said the Muslim nations are outstripping the West 7:1 in demographics, so we need to have more kids to save western civilization. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Atleast the US is not yet too dhimmi which is why people can say what they want, imagine what would have happened if a Hindu leader said the same thing on TV in India, infact no TV channel would even broadcast and even if it did, the commies and assorted traitors would call for a ban on the program and demonise the leader but notice that none of them said anything when the archbishop of kerala and that muslim minister in UP asked their respective communities to have more kids but they went nuts when Sudharshan said the same thing.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Produce babies, get reward
Manjari Mishra
[ 23 Jan, 2007 0027hrs ISTTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]

LUCKNOW: Uttar Pradesh family planning minister Ahmad Hasan is pregnant with potent political ideas but his detractors want them aborted right away.

Hasan's latest promise of Rs 1,000 to new mothers, obliquely targeting women of predominantly Muslim areas, has turned out to be a political hot potato. While the minister zips around with his offer, the saffron lobby claims he is buying Muslim votes ahead of the assembly polls.

Last Sunday, the minister attended a public function at Humayun Nagar in Meerut where he and state minister for finance Shahid Manzoor, addressed a small gathering of Muslim women.

"Both ministers openly urged the audience to produce as many babies as they could and earn Rs 1,000 each time," alleges BJP MLA from the city Laxmi Kant Bajpayee. Hasan, he claimed,"Promised to double the allowance if SP is voted back to power whereas Manzoor urged the women to make all out effort to have more babies to ensure victory to Samajwadi Party in UP".

Reached for comments Hasan declared,"We certainly are not forcing family planning in UP." It is a voluntary programme, he said adding his statements were being misreported. "All I did was to carry out a few changes," Hasan explained.

Earlier the amount was limited to Rs 500 and with some pre-conditions like the beneficiary could avail of the money only after the birth of first or second child.

But the comments don't satisfy the BJP. Blaming Hasan for "deliberately messing up the population control programme by his pre-poll gimmickry to woo Muslims," Bajpayee is now all set to take up the issue on January 24 in the state assembly.

How did this retard become a family planning minister in the first place, but then again anything is possible in Mullah Mulayam's goonda raj.
The following article is available at: Let's have more teen pregnancy. Also published by National Review Online on Sep-20-2002.

<b>Needless to say, I am in complete agreement with it.</b>

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Let's Have More Teen Pregnancy
Posted Friday, September 20, 2002 in The Culture, Marriage and Family

[National Review Online, September 20, 2002]
Let’s Have More Teen Pregnancy

True Love Waits. Wait Training. Worth Waiting For. The slogans of teen abstinence programs reveal a basic fact of human nature: teens, sex, and waiting aren’t a natural combination.

Over the last fifty years the wait has gotten longer. In 1950, the average first-time bride was just over 20; in 1998 she was five years older, and her husband was pushing 27. If that June groom had launched into puberty at 12, he’d been waiting more than half his life.

If he *had* been waiting, that is. Sex is the sugar coating on the drive to reproduce, and that drive is nearly overwhelming. It’s supposed to be; it’s the survival engine of the human race. Fighting it means fighting a basic bodily instinct, akin to fighting thirst.

Yet despite the conflict between liberals and conservatives on nearly every topic available, this is one point on which they firmly agree: young people absolutely must not have children. Though they disagree on means-conservatives advocate abstinence, liberals favor contraception—they shake hands on that common goal. The younger generation must not produce a younger generation.

But teen pregnancy, in itself, is not such a bad thing. <b>By the age of 18, a young woman’s body is well prepared for childbearing. Young men are equally qualified to do their part. Both may have better success at the enterprise than they would in later years, as some health risks—Cesarean section and Down syndrome, for example— increase with passing years.</b> (The dangers we associate with teen pregnancy, on the other hand, are behavioral, not biological: drug use, STD’s, prior abortion, extreme youth, and lack of prenatal care.) <i>A woman’s fertility has already begun to decline at 25-one reason the population-control crowd promotes delayed childbearing. Early childbearing also rewards a woman’s health with added protection against breast cancer.</i>

Younger moms and dads are likely be more nimble at child-rearing as well, less apt to be exhausted by toddlers’ perpetual motion, less creaky-in-the-joints when it’s time to swing from the monkey bars. I suspect that younger parents will also be more patient with boys-will-be-boys rambunction, and less likely than weary 40-somethings to beg pediatricians for drugs to control supposed pathology. Humans are designed to reproduce in their teens, and they’re potentially very good at it. That’s why they want to so much.

Teen pregnancy is not the problem *Unwed* teen pregnancy is the problem. It’s childbearing outside marriage that causes all the trouble. Restore an environment that supports younger marriage, and you won’t have to fight biology for a decade or more.

Most of us blanch at the thought of our children marrying under the age of 25, much less under 20. The immediate reaction is: "They’re too immature." We expect teenagers to be self-centered and impulsive, incapable of shouldering the responsibilities of adulthood. But it wasn’t always that way; through much of history, teen marriage and childbearing was the norm. Most of us would find our family trees dotted with many teen marriages.

Of course, those were the days when grown teens were presumed to be truly "young adults." It’s hard for us to imagine such a thing today. It’s not that young people are inherently incapable of responsibility-history disproves that-but that we no longer expect it. Only a few decades ago a high school diploma was taken as proof of adulthood, or at least as a promise that the skinny kid holding it was ready to start acting like one. Many a boy went from graduation to a world of daily labor that he would not leave until he was gray; many a girl began turning a corner of a small apartment into a nursery. Expectations may have been humble, but they were achievable, and many good families were formed this way.

Hidden in that scenario is an unstated presumption, that a young adult can earn enough to support a family. Over the course of history, the age of marriage has generally been bounded by puberty on the one hand, and the ability to support a family on the other. In good times, folks marry young; when prospects are poor, couples struggle and save toward their wedding day. A culture where men don’t marry until 27 would normally feature elements like repeated crop failures or economic depression.

That’s not the case in America today. Instead we have an *artificial* situation which causes marriage to be delayed. The age that a man, or woman, can earn a reasonable income has been steadily increasing as education has been dumbed down. The condition of basic employability that used to be demonstrated by a high school diploma now requires a Bachelor’s degree, and professional careers that used to be accessible with a Bachelor’s now require a Master’s degree or more. Years keep passing while kids keep trying to attain the credentials that adult earning requires.

Financial ability isn’t our only concern, however; we’re convinced that young people are simply incapable of adult responsibility. We expect that they will have poor control of their impulses, be self-centered and emotional, and be incapable of visualizing consequences. (It’s odd that kids thought to be too irresponsible for marriage are expected instead to practice heroic abstinence or diligent contraception.) The assumption of teen irresponsibility has broader roots that just our estimation of the nature of adolescence; it involves our very idea of the purpose of childhood.

Until a century or so ago, it was presumed that children were in training to be adults. From early years children helped keep the house or tend the family business or farm, assuming more responsibility each day. By late teens, children were ready to graduate to full adulthood, a status they received as an honor. How early this transition might begin is indicated by the number of traditional religious and social coming-of-age ceremonies that are administered at ages as young as 12 or 13.

But we no longer think of children as adults-in-progress. Childhood is no longer a training ground but a playground, and because we love our children and feel nostalgia for our own childhoods, we want them to be able to linger there as long as possible. We cultivate the idea of idyllic, carefree childhood, and as the years for education have stretched so have the bounds of that playground, so that we expect even "kids" in their mid-to-late twenties to avoid settling down. Again, it’s not that people that age *couldn’t* be responsible; their ancestors were. It’s that anyone, offered a chance to kick back and play, will generally seize the opportunity. If our culture assumed that 50-year-olds would take a year-long break from responsibility, have all their expenses paid by someone else, spend their time having fun and making forgivable mistakes, our malls would be overrun by middle-aged delinquents.

But don’t young marriages tend to end in divorce? If we communicate to young people that we think they’re inherently incompetent that will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it was not always the case. In fact, in the days when people married younger, divorce was much rarer. During the last half of the 20th century, as brides’ age rose from 20 to 25, the divorce rate doubled. The trend toward older, and presumptively more mature, couples didn’t result in stronger marriages. Marital durability has more to do with the expectations and support of surrounding society than with the partners’ age.

A pattern of late marriage may actually *increase* the rate of divorce. During that initial decade of physical adulthood, young people may not be getting married, but they’re still falling in love. They fall in love, and break up, and undergo terrible pain, but find that with time they get over it. They may do this many times. Gradually, they get used to it; they learn that they can give their hearts away, and take them back again; they learn to shield their hearts from access in the first place. They learn to approach a relationship with the goal of getting what they want, and keep their bags packed by the door. By the time they marry they may have had many opportunities to learn how to walk away from a promise. They’ve been training for divorce.

As we know too well, a social pattern of delayed marriage doesn’t mean delayed sex. In 1950, there were 14 births per thousand unmarried women; in 1998, the rate had leapt to 44. Even that astounding increase doesn’t tell the whole story. In 1950 the numbers of births generally corresponded to the numbers of pregnancies, but by 1998 we must add in many more unwed pregnancies that didn’t come to birth, but ended in abortion, as roughly one in four of all pregnancies do. My home city of Baltimore wins the blue ribbon for out-of-wedlock childbearing: in 2001, 77% of all births were to unwed mothers.

There are a number of interlocking reasons for this rise in unwed childbearing, but one factor must surely be that when the requirements presumed necessary for marriage rise too high, some people simply parachute out. It’s one thing to ask fidgety kids to abstain until they finish high school at 18. When the expectation instead is to wait until 25 or 27, many will decline to wait at all. We’re saddened, but no longer surprised, at girls having babies at the age of 12 or 13. Between 1940 and 1998, the rate at which girls 10-14 had their first babies almost doubled. These young moms’ sexual experiences are usually classified as "non-voluntary" or "not wanted." Asking boys to wait until marriage is one way a healthy culture protects young girls.

The idea of returning to an era of young marriage still seems daunting, for good reason. It is not just a matter of tying the knot between dreamy-eyed 18-year-olds and tossing them out into world. <b>Our ancestors were able to marry young because they were surrounded by a network of support enabling that step.</b> Young people are not intrinsically incompetent, but they do still have lots of learning to do, just like newly-weds of any age. <b>In generations past a young couple would be surrounded by family and friends who could guide and support them, not just in navigating the shoals of new marriage, but also in the practical skills of making a family work, keeping a budget, repairing a leaky roof, changing a leaky diaper.</b>

It is not good for man to be alone; <b>it’s not good for a young couple to be isolated, either.</b> In this era of extended education, couples who marry young will likely do so before finishing college, and that will require some sacrifices. They can’t expect to "have it all." Of the three factors—living on their own, having babies, and both partners going to school full-time—something is going to have to give. <b>But young marriage can succeed, as it always has, with the support of family and friends.</b>

I got married a week after college graduation, and both my husband and I immediately went to graduate school. We made ends meet by working as janitors in the evenings, mopping floors and cleaning toilets. We were far from home, but our church was our home, and through the kindness of more-experienced families we had many kinds of support-in fact, all that we needed. When our first child was born we were so flooded with diapers, clothes, and gifts that our only expense was the hospital bill.

Our daughter and older son also married and started families young. Things don’t come easy for those who buck the norm, but with the help of family, church, and creative college-to-work programs, both young families are making their way. Early marriage can’t happen in a vacuum; it requires support from many directions, and it would be foolish to pretend the costs aren’t high.

The rewards are high as well. It is wonderful to see our son and daughter blooming in strong, joyful marriages, and an unexpected joy to count a new daughter and son in our family circle. <i>Our cup overflows with grandchildren as well: as of July we have four grandbabies, though the oldest is barely two. I’m 49.</i>

It’s interesting to think about the future. What if the oldest grandbaby also marries young, and has his first child at the age of 20? I would hold my great-grandchild at 67. There could even follow a great-great-grand at 87. I will go into old age far from lonely. My children and their children would be grown up then too, and available to surround the younger generations with many resourceful minds and loving hearts. Even more outrageous things are possible: I come from a long-lived family, some of whom went on past the age of 100. How large a family might I live to see?

Such speculation becomes dizzying-yet these daydreams are not impossible, and surely not unprecedented. Closely-looped, mutually supporting generations must have been a common sight, in older days when young marriage was affirmed, and young people were allowed to do what comes naturally.

Some sane advice finally, otherwise we will end up like the goreh in the West where they don't marry until they are in their late thirties (and half these marriages end up in divorce), in traditional Hindu families this would never happen and people are married off at the right age.

If we go with the current trend of marrying in late 20's then we will end up like the goras, they have a serious demographic problem on their hands which they don't know how to confront because they have gotten so used to the mantra of "pro choice" "freedom to choose" etc.

Does anyone know the current median age for marriage in India, the one's on shaadi type sites seem to be approaching their 30's but in rural areas I suspect it's much younger.

Something I found:


Don't know what it was in 2001.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Northeast India tribal group offers cash reward to women with more than 12 babies

The Associated PressPublished: February 11, 2007

GAUHATI, India: Tribal leaders in India's remote northeast are offering cash rewards to women who bear more than a dozen children in a bid to keep from being outnumbered by settlers from elsewhere, a leader said Sunday.

In the past two months, Khasi tribal chieftains in Meghalaya state have paid 16,000 rupees (US$348; €270) each to four such women including 45-year-old Amilia Sohtun, who has 17 children, said H.S. Shylla, a member of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council.

Sohtun runs a tea stand at Laitkor Peak, a tourist spot near Meghalaya's capital, Shillong.

Tribal elders defended the move, which has infuriated many women and health activists.

"Our community faces a genuine threat of being outnumbered by outsiders, and the only way we can prevent our race from becoming extinct is to ensure our population rises soon enough," Shylla told The Associated Press.

The council is an elected administrative body of tribal leaders in Meghalaya. It works with the state government on development issues, and makes decisions regarding customary community rules.

The Khasis, numbering less than a million, are the majority community in Christian-dominated Meghalaya, which has 2.5 million people.

The community is worried about an unabated influx of migrants from outside the state, Shylla said.

However, some in the state decried the incentive program.

"We oppose the idea because no one has the right to keep having babies unless she can provide them with a quality life," said Theilin Phanbuh, an activist in Shillong.

"It is for the authorities to check the influx or settlement of outsiders in traditional land belonging to our people. Increasing our community's population by having more children is not the answer," she said.

Meghalaya health activist Hasina Kharbhih also slammed the idea.

"A woman's body is not a machine that she can go on having babies. The government must intervene on the Khasi Council's decision because of the health issues involved," she said.

Shylla said the decision to pay mothers of more than 12 "has been generally welcomed."

The Council has received four more requests for cash incentives from women with more than a dozen children, Shylla said.

In Meghalaya's matrilineal society, a man moves into his bride's home and their children take the mother's maiden name.

Meghalaya is one of the seven states in India's remote northeast where fears of migration from other parts of India and neighboring Bangladesh have helped fuel separatist revolts.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Jews upset at academic's Muslim comments
Friday Feb 16 12:36 AEDT

The Jewish Board of Deputies has distanced itself from comments by an Israeli academic who says Australia should limit its number of Muslim immigrants.

Professor Raphael Israeli is quoted in the Australian Jewish News as saying that without such a migration cap Australia risks being swamped by Indonesians.

But Prof Israeli told Fairfax newspapers his comments had been misunderstood.

"When the Muslim population gets to a critical mass you have problems," he told Fairfax.

"That is the general rule - so if it applies everywhere, it applies in Australia."

But NSW Jewish Board of Deputies CEO Vic Alhadeff distanced his organisation from the comments.

"The Jewish community dissociates itself from the comments by Israeli academic Raphael Israeli that Australia should limit the number of Muslim immigrants," he said in a statement.

Mr Alhadeff said the Jewish community did not believe racial or ethnic quotas were helpful.

"We do not believe in racial or ethnic quotas or stereotyping," he said.

"These comments do not reflect the position of the Jewish community and are unhelpful in the extreme.

"The Jewish community has a strong and proud record in fighting racism, and condemns all expressions of bigotry."

Prof Israeli, an expert on Islamic history at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has been brought to Australia by the Shalom Institute of the University of NSW.

He said Muslim immigrants had a reputation for manipulating the values of western countries, taking advantage of their hospitality and tolerance.

"Greeks or Italians or Jews don't use violence," he told Fairfax.

"When there are large Muslim populations who are prepared to use violence, you are in trouble.

"If there is only one or two per cent they don't dare to do it - they don't have the backing of big communities.

"They know they are drowned in the environment of non-Muslims and are better behaved."

This is what GS is saying. In India they started creating problem as soon as they reached 13% post independence.
Don't ya know, it's not at all PC to point this out (as can be inferred from the article posted in #235; it shows how people who ought to know better have distanced themselves from the only voice of rationality).
It's only PC to <i>die</i> by islam's sword, but not to <i>observe</i> (out loud) that islam has its swords out and is aiming to take a blow to behead the kafirs.
I have a website with excel worksheets on islamic demographics

I urge the moderators to duplicate those sheets on this website for permanent storage and wider publicity


I have downloaded the spreadsheets. I have looked at it briefly - it requires editing to drive home the point that each spreadsheet is making. I will see if I can do this. If time permits, Inshallah we will put this on front end.

Ashok Singhal calls for counter breeding in Vishwa Hindu Sammelan

"Ashok Singhal highlighted the need to reject the family planning propaganda of the Government. In this context, he appealed to the four lakhs of Hindus present at the meeting to ponder over the hard reality of the multiplying Muslim society. Expressing worry over the imbalance in the growth of population in the country he said that Hindus are decreasing their own population by indulging in female foeticide and following the norm of two children, whereas Muslims' rate of growth of population has crossed all previous records. He said that Hindus must look after their numbers otherwise they may become a minority in their own land. "


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)