29 May 2008

Future of Europe

Some observers are talking about the twenty-first century being the European century, the same as the twentieth century was the American century. We take a more skeptical view: there is as good a chance that the twenty-first century will be the century of European decline. We hope to be proved wrong. Source (PDF)
What will it take for Europe to avoid the decline referred to by the scholars below? Serious reforms in economic policy, immigration policy, and her stance toward responsibility for her own security, among other changes. But if she believes that no changes are needed, which is more likely? The decline.
About one-third of Harvard’s economics department is Europeans who have fled their countries’ troubled universities. Western Europe, instead of trying to attract the most talented youths from India, China, and Eastern Europe, restricts migration. The immigrants allowed are not the smart people who in the United States have created the many innovative start-ups. The best educated Central and Eastern Europeans are flying over Western Europe and going to the United States. “Wait ten years to open your borders to my fellow citizens,” recently said the then Romanian foreign minister, “and every smart Romanian engineer will have migrated to the United States: what you’ll get will be our uneducated peasants.” Europeans are growing older. Fertility rates are exceptionally low. Europe won’t thrive if only a few people work to support an increasing number of retirees. The closed borders and irrational immigration policies promise to make the European aging populations amid low birth rates harder to sustain. These two demographic trends will seriously strain European budgets.

Economic decline and political decline go hand in hand. Because of its large social spending and the low growth rate, Europe cannot support a powerful military. Sooner rather than later Europe will lose its powerful role in international organizations. Already today people around the world, especially in Asia, are wondering why France and Britain should have permanent seats in the UN Security Council. Countries like China and India with population sizes orders of magnitudes larger than France, Britain, and Germany combined will soon demand and obtain more power in world politics, and rightly so. At the moment these countries are determined to work hard and become rich. Pretty soon they will succeed and call for more recognition at the political tables of world organizations. European countries will have to move over. __FutureofEuropeIntro(PDF)
Google Books "Future of Europe"
Thank to the enlargement to Turkey, the Muslim community will represent 53% of the European population in 2100. Europe will be islamic by the end of the century. :


Years---------------- 2005---- 2030----2050---2080---2100

Native European --------504----452----378----350----328

Muslims [now]in Europe-21------31-----43---69-------95
Turkey------------------------94-----101-----95----- 90
(according UN projections)

Total Muslim----------21----- 149----197----284---370 __Source

In reality, Muslims tend to live in large cities--often capital cities--and exert influence far out of proportion to their actual numbers. London will become a Muslim city before 2050. Brussels, probably before 2060. Amsterdam by 2030. But truly, these cities will be effectively controlled by Muslims long before those dates.

For those Europeans who object to this viewpoint, I say only, "you are quite right to object. Go back to sleep, liebchens." To the rest, I recommend working within your laws to turn back the tide, stop the bleeding. Do not look at emigration to the Anglosphere or Switzerland as a first resort, but as a last resort when it is clear that the European experiment has failed. Do your best to make sure Europe survives.


Bookmark and Share


Blogger Snake Oil Baron said...

Not to say there is no reason for concern but I have a few issues with the projection:

*No significant level of apostasy from Islam assumed over a one hundred year period of urbanization, technological advancement and generations of non Arabic speaking youths.

*Fertility rates for Natives staying low and immigrants staying high for a century is not certain by any means.

*Immigration policies and the major sources of immigrants not changing and non Muslim immigrants not included.

Also, Turkey's population is only about 72 million (I put more faith in the CIA Factbook than the UN's population statistics). Their total fertility rate is 1.87 children/woman. The country's average age for women is already 29.2 years. Even without a massive movement of people out of Turkey and into Europe, it will be experiencing the same labour shortages as Europe is. Since it is not an Arabic speaking nation it is not as competitive for Middle Eastern immigrants as other ME nations with falling birthrates are.

Between secularism and Christian evangelism there are already a lot more people being counted as Muslims than should be and projecting future birth rates is fraught with risk.

In short, a century is a long time to assume that trends will remain consistent.

Thursday, 29 May, 2008  
Blogger Barba Rija said...

I fully agree with baron here. Al fin, I like the tone you put in your last paragraph, except the condescending bit of it, but I doubt the stats you so blindingly accept, much more than you don't accept the IPCC report, hehe. I don't see the 21st century belonging to europe, but neither to the USA if it continues the path it has chosen the last 8 years... I see it belonging to the BRIC. Europe will just continue to be what it is today: a nice mesh of different cultures and countries.

Friday, 30 May, 2008  
Blogger al fin said...

Islam is currently in a phase of conquest, much as Christianity was in a phase of conquest from the middle ages until roughly 150 years ago.

Muslims do not need to be a majority before they influence--even control--the political climate of their new countries. Controlling the large cities of a country is one way to start--and that is exactly the trend that is observed. Urban control first.

Yes, Baron, extrapolations can be extremely tricky. You must remember, however, that birthrates of new immigrants from the third world to the developed world go up. In other words, Mexican immigrant birthrates to the US are higher than birthrates in Mexico for first generation immigrants. The same is true for first generation immigrants from the middle east or North Africa to Europe.

But that is a minor quibble, after all. Look at the transition of Lebanon, of Kosovo. The ethnic cleansing of Turkey itself.

Demographic conquest is an established and ongoing fact. The womb may be the world's deadliest weapon.

Friday, 30 May, 2008  
Blogger Snake Oil Baron said...

I have heard an alternate theory that the birthrates of immigrants actually falls but at a slower rate than that of the home country from which the immigrants are somewhat isolated as they are from the host population. As a result, current immigrants have higher birth rates than the home country even while they are falling in an absolute sense. I can't verify that though. I agree that immigrants, especially Islamic ones tend to exert far more political influence than their numbers would warrant and since the squeaky wheels get the grease and the squeaky wheels are often the more crooked, the more zealous and ideological tend to get the guilt ridden majority to cave to unreasonable demands like sex segregation and religion based special treatment but these gains are often transitory or down right illusionary. Pendulums swing both ways.

I certainly can see why you feel that "demographic conquest is an established fact" but I am far less convinces of its sustainability, even in the relatively near-term. Time will tell whether you are write. If life extension makes progress I may even be around to admit that you were right or to gloat about being right myself in a hundred years. And if artificial wombs and mass boarding schools become the norm it might end up being academic after all. ;-)

Friday, 30 May, 2008  
Blogger Snake Oil Baron said...

Time will tell whether you are right (not write). Red wine is the worst spell checker.

Friday, 30 May, 2008  
Blogger al fin said...

Perhaps, but titanium dioxide wool can clean spilled red wine without tears. So given the choice of red wine spell checker or white wine spell checker, always go red.

If you spill it on your nanocrystalline TiO2 sweater, you can watch the stain disappear.

Friday, 30 May, 2008  
Blogger Snake Oil Baron said...

Hey, if it can destroy organic compounds and if one includes some ventilation and other options, I might not have to change my clothes for weeks! I could live like a complete slob, wine stains and all without anyone noticing. BO and dead skin would vanish without showering and a titanium dioxide comb might mean no showers. I could fall down drunk on Friday and get up smelling like a rose on Saturday. The future is a wino's paradise.

Friday, 30 May, 2008  

Post a Comment

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts