Interesting perspective.
The Rape of Europe Source:
http://www.brusselsjournalcom/node/1609

From the desk of Paul Belien on Wed, 2006-10-25 20:57

The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch newspaper De
Volkskrant (12 October) that young Europeans who love freedom, better
emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now.
Whilst sitting on a terrace in Berlin , Broder pointed to the other
customers and the passers-by and said melancholically: "We are watching
the world of yesterday."

Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going
to
emigrate himself. "I am too old," he said. However, he urged young
people to get out and "move to Australia or New Zealand . That is the
only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn
the old continent uninhabitable."

Many Germans and Dutch, apparently, did not wait for Broder's advice.
The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already
surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have to be
prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming
Islamic.
Just consider the demographics. The number of Muslims in contemporary
Europe is estimated to be 50 million. It is expected to double in twenty
years. By 2025, one third of all European children will be born to
Muslim families. Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for
new-born boys in Brussels , Amsterdam , Rotterdam , and other major
European cities.

Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose
islamization. "The dominant ethos," he told De Volkskrant, "is perfectly

voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated.
She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to
risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better
to avoid fighting than run the risk of death."

In a recent op-ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard (23
October) the Dutch (gay and self-declared "humanist") author Oscar Van
den Boogaard refers to Broder's interview. Van den Boogaard says that to
him coping with the islamization of Europe is like "a process of
mourning." He is overwhelmed by a "feeling of sadness." "I am not a
warrior," he says, "but who is? I have never learned to fight for my
freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."

As Tom Bethell wrote in this month's American Spectator: "Just at the
most basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not
working." But there is more to it than the fact that non-religious
people tend not to have as many children as religious people, because
many of them prefer to "enjoy" freedom rather than renounce it for the
sake of children. Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on
fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the
only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission
than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to
be raped than to resist.

"If faith collapses, civilization goes with it," says Bethell. That is
the
real cause of the closing of civilization in Europe. Islamization is
simply
the consequence. The very word Islam means "submission" and the
secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans have already become
Muslims, though they do not realize it or do not want to admit it.

Some of the people I meet in the U.S. are particularly worried about the

rise of anti-Semitism in Europe . They are correct when they fear that
anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The
latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary anti-Semitism in
Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to
anti-Americanism. People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to
submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight.
They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger
their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.

This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the
small band of European "islamophobes" who dare to talk about what they
see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between
submission (islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen
submission - just like in former days when they preferred to be red
rather than dead.
________________________________________________________

ARTICLE: The Bishop from Beijing: Rome must be wary of China’s meddlesome puppet priests, By Doug Bandow, The National Review, January 4, 2007
Good story on the struggle of the Catholic Church in China. As I wrote near the end of BFA, China is on the pathway to once again becoming a very religious society.

This naturally scares the Party, especially given China's long history of "cults" (as pretty much all religions are called officially) triggering political unrest (good example, the Boxers).

The Party fears religions for the same reasons it fears the Interent: uncontrollable horizontal connectivity that can theoretically be mobilized against the state.

This thing works itself out in the end, though. As China's consumeristic middle-class grows and demands more protection from an arbitrary state, freedom of religion enters that dialogue. It does so because, as Chinese move up Maslow's hierarchy of needs, they naturally want more spirituality in their lives.

China's religious scene is already too diverse for the Party to try and co-opt one "official faith" (the sad problem of the Middle East--including Israel), but the CCP may well try that path eventually.

But expect the CCP to continue to try and control church leadership selections (like it does with Catholics). Will this grant them control over the faithful? Didn't work for the dictatorial John Paul II with American Catholics (okay, most American Catholics), so why would we expect it to go any better with Beijing?

Religion is about group control only in hard economic times. Once you go from Gap to Core, then it becomes increasingly about individual fulfillment.

That's the Pope's problem with Americans.

That's Israel's problem with its secular, post-Zionist citizenry.

And that'll be Beijing's problem with Christianity eventually.

Thanks to Rod Montgomery for sending this.

Demographics is destiny - for Israel, too
I wrote this in response to an email from a supporter of Israel who believes I'm getting the story all wrong on Israel and Carter's book and who's trying to correct my perceived mistaken analysis by sending me critiques of Carter's book.

My reply indicates that I'm taking a rather orthogonal approach to the usual Israeli-Arab conflict description, by focusing on Israel's problem of trying to maintain the racial identity of its state in a globalizing world. My reply:

The point I make in supporting Carter's argument (versus the book in whole) is that defining a nation by race and preserving that character through systematic discrimination is not viable in a globalizing world.

Won't work for anybody (and plenty of other nationalities feeling the same fear as Jews on this subject--all over the planet). The only reason why it matters more with Israel is the overlapping claims to the territory, which makes the argument for a race-majority state harder to sell.

Plus, the endemic conflict with the squatters (Palestinians) who simply won't give up, especially after winning partial control over Gaza and the West Bank. Otherwise, this story is no more unique or fantastic than the plights of Latvians, or countless indigenous nationalities getting squeezed the world over.

It all boils down to this question: can anybody become a full citizen of your state? Or are they restricted by reasons of race and/or religion?

If any state's answer rationalizes the second choice, then there is a fundamental falsehood associated with the state's definition of liberty.

This isn't an argument won by rehashing the original rationale for the creation of Israel. That story also isn't particularly unique in its long tale of immense suffering--just the concentrated scale of murdering associated with it (and the amazing documentation of it). Look the world over, and you will find similarly sad tales of targeted ethnic cleansing leading to lengthy and often successful efforts at national self-determination (for example, does any nationality deserve its own nation right now more than the Kurds?).

My argument is about what Israel can or cannot survive as--state-wise--in a future, increasingly globalized world. France can't survive or thrive in that future as just white French, unless it discriminates consistently to maintain that end. If it does that, the Paris riots are only the beginning and soon enough France will stop resembling a democracy as we define it. Israel's problem is not different from that, nor is Japan's, with it's rapidly aging demographics, nor Ireland's, which for the first time in its modern history is grappling with non-European immigrants.

Eventually France will have a north African-descent leader. Eventually Ireland will have a non-Irish one. Eventually Japan will have a non-Japanese one (after all, they gave Peru one). Soon enough America will have a Hispanic one.

And eventually Israel must have an Arab one, or it must chose to systematically prevent that pathway from emerging.

In all of these countries and in every country, many will argue that losing that original racial-religious core dominancy will "ruin" the country, because, in all such cases, the country began precisely to protect that identity.

Israel argues a special status for its case. I think that argument holds up well in the 20th century, but will get lost in the shuffle of the plethora of similar claims arising--the world over--in the 21st.

So, again, comparing to the US or any state with a dominant race doesn't work. What matters is how that state seeks to preserve that dominance and why. European-descent whites will be in the collective minority is the US within my lifetime--unless we make laws to prevent it. But I don't want to live in a US that is forced down the path of such discrimination, so I accept that America will be increasingly Latinized, no matter how much the Anglo-Protestants don't like that.

Israel faces a similar demographic squeeze with non-Jews, which will inevitably outnumber Jews in Israel within our lifetimes, unless Israel takes extraordinary steps to prevent that. I think Israel is taking and will continue to take those steps (much as many Israelis yearn for a post-Zionist identity to emerge, believing peace is impossible without it--something I agree with), and in that path lose much of its democracy and thus support from the United States.

That's my call, or my analysis. Offering it doesn't mark me one way or the other regarding Jews or Israel. It means that's simply the way I see it. Carter's book, with its many flaws, does force that conversation and those realizations more out into the open, and that's a good thing for everyone--including Israel.

Demgraphics is destiny. Pretending otherwise in inadvisable.

Thanks for the note.

How to Make '07 Ahmadinejad's Last Year in Power

By Michael Rubin
Posted: Wednesday, January 3, 2007

ARTICLES
New York Daily News
Publication Date: January 3, 2007

In Iran, demonstrations are an art form. First, the government buses in state workers. Next, officials distribute banners with revolutionary slogans. Finally, state television reports a spontaneous rally in support of the Islamic Republic.


Resident Scholar
Michael Rubin

Stage-managed demonstrations, though, mask weakness. On Dec. 11, a group of students interrupted a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with chants of "Death to the Dictator." On Jan. 2, a demonstrator in Ahvaz waved a placard condemning inflation, unemployment and crime. Recent elections rebuked hardliners.

And unfortunately, rather than find a way to capitalize on such weakness, up to now, a desire for diplomacy has blinded the West. Between 2000 and 2005, European diplomats preaching engagement tripled trade with Iran. Tehran pumped 70% of the resulting hard currency windfall into its nuclear and military programs. After Secretary of State Rice offered dialogue with Iran, the regime announced it would redouble its nuclear efforts. Ahmadinejad said yesterday he would "humiliate" the United States.

European diplomats declare their strategy to be working, but privately say a nuclear Iran is inevitable. Last month's partial UN sanctions are only symbolic. Effectiveness requires comprehensive sanctions--which diplomats could lift in response to compliance.

But the UN is feckless. If President Bush is sincere when he says the U.S. "will not tolerate" a nuclear-armed Iran, Washington may have to act alone. This need not mean military action, but rather willingness to exploit Iranian weakness.

The Islamic Republic is under tremendous pressure. A recent Johns Hopkins University report predicts Iran's oil industry could collapse within a decade because of poor management and disintegrating infrastructure. Already, the Islamic Republic must import 40% of its fuel needs. The Iranian economy is unable to provide jobs for 700,000 young people entering the market annually. The World Bank estimates that Iran's GDP is 30% below its 1970s levels. Experts estimate 5 million Iranians are addicted to drugs. Prostitution has skyrocketed as poverty spreads.

The White House should exploit the growing cracks in Iranian society. Just as Ronald Reagan championed striking shipyard workers in Poland in 1981, so too should Bush support independent Iranian trade unions. Forcing the regime to be accountable to its people both betters the lives of ordinary Iranians and undercuts Ahmadinejad's Dr. Strangelove fantasies. In Iran, wildcat strikes helped launch the Islamic Revolution; so too might they end it.

It is wrongheaded to criticize Bush's Axis of Evil rhetoric. Not only does straight talk dampen European willingness to invest in Iranian industry, but the willingness of Iranian democrats to speak out has grown in proportion to all the White House talk about freedom. Peace activists should applaud such effective, nonmilitary action.

Finally, U.S. public diplomacy should prioritize information over pop music. The Iranian regime would be hard-pressed to dismiss as propaganda stories of unrest and corruption originating in local Iranian papers and amplified by the Voice of America into national news.

Military action against Iran would be a tragedy, but need only occur if U.S. policy remains a muddle. Here the White House and new Congress are fortunate. If they play their cards well, this year could be Ahmadinejad's last.

Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at AEI.

>
> One day, the father of a very wealthy family took his son on a trip to
> the country with the express purpose of showing him how poor people
> live.
>
> They spent a couple of days and nights on the farm of what would be
> considered a very poor family.
>
> On their return from their trip, the father asked his son, "How was the
> trip?"
>
> "It was great, Dad."
>
> "Did you see how poor people live?" the father asked.
>
> "Oh yeah," said the son.
>
> "So, tell me, what did you learn from the trip?" asked the father.
>
> The son answered:
>
> "I saw that we have one dog and they had four.
>
> We have a pool that reaches to the middle of our garden and they have
> a
> creek that has no end.
>
> We have imported lanterns in our garden and they have the stars at
> night.
>
> Our patio reaches to the front yard and they have the whole horizon.
>
> We have a small piece of land to live on and they have fields that go
> beyond our sight.
>
> We have servants who serve us, but they serve others.
>
> We buy our food, but they grow theirs.
>
> We have walls around our property to protect us, they have friends to
> protect them."
>
> The boy's father was speechless. ! < /FONT>
>
> Then his son added, "Thanks Dad for showing me how poor we are."
>
> Isn't perspective a wonderful thing? Makes you wonder what would happen
> if we all gave thanks for everything we have, instead of worrying about
> what we don't have.
>
> Appreciate every single thing you have, especially your friends!
>
> Pass this on to friends and acquaintances and help them refresh their
> perspective and appreciation.
>
> "Life is too short and friends are too few."