Caliphate

dropping in the countries the Muslim immigrants come from even as we speak.'

This one's partially true, but mostly just tempting. There are a number of factors that go into female reproductive rates. Of those, the biggest single correlation with that rate isn't poverty, or religion, or culture, but the educational status of the female. Muslim girls in Europe are typically somewhat educationally deprived, on average. Moreover, while the reproductive rate in, say, Algeria, may be dropping, there is never any explanation given for why it must then drop in France. Could there be other factors at work in Algeria than in France? It seems likely, especially since the rate does not seem to be dropping in France. Perhaps this is because France provides free health care of a much higher quality than can be found in Algeria, along with all the other entitlements of the modern social democratic welfare state.

It does no good to say, for example, that 'the reproductive rate of Catholics in America dropped,' without at least looking at why this happened, and at the religious and cultural differences between, say, Irish or Italian or Polish Catholicism, Scottish or English Protestantism and, say, Algerian or Tunisian or Turkish Islamism. Hmmm . . . when did the Italian-Americans and Italian–Canadians let their women stop wearing burkas and veils? When did the Irish- Americans and Irish-Canadians cease their honor killings of girls who refused arranged marriages? Purdah was a Scottish institution, right? The English traditionally clitorectimize their females, yes?

2. 'Europe's had a population drop before and survived it.' This is very true and also very meaningless. It's worth noting that Europe did not at the time of, say, the Black Death, have another burgeoning population already on hand, within the borders, not subject to the Black Death, and, so, ready to take over. Nor was it then democratic, such that a change in demographics could be used to change law to both further change demographics and prevent assimilation. Nor was Europe then secular (since religion, too, seems to play some part in reproductive rates).

3. 'But they're assimilating to our values even as we speak.' In 1989, according to Le Figaro, 60% of Muslims in France observed fasting for Ramadan. This year it will be 70% . . . and from a considerably larger group. This year saw parts of the United Kingdom assimilating to Muslim values, as non-Muslims were cautioned not to eat in front of Muslims during Ramadan. This year saw western newspapers violate their own codes of free speech lest they offend radical Muslims. They're not assimilating to you; you're assimilating to them.

4. 'You're a racist bastard, Kratman.' A bastard I may well be, but since when is Islam a race?

5. 'There's no reason to believe that current levels of immigration will continue.' This one's true, actually. As Europe becomes ever more indistinguishable from the Moslem world, ever less economically, its attractions for immigrants will probably lessen to near nothing. The technical term for this is civilizational extinction.

Ralph Peters thinks the Europeans will revert to type and crush the Muslims long before they become a problem. To this I think there are two answers.

One obvious answer is that Islam is already a problem, in many places (my Ouija board says Theo van Gogh and Pym Fortuyn will vouch for that much), and there appears to be no crushing in the offing. The other answer, perhaps in its way more obvious, is that one must have a commitment to the future to fight for that future . . . or to commit genocide for it. Where is the broad-based European commitment to the future? They don't grant themselves insupportable largesse from the public fisc because they're committed to the future? They have short work weeks and long vacations because they're committed to the future? They meet their self-imposed Kyoto goals because they're committed to the future? (Look, I think Kyoto is absolute bullshit, complete and utter nonsense, but that's not important. What is important is that the Euros don't think it's nonsense. They signed onto the treaty, and they still won't do something they consider critical for the survival of the human race.) They have an average of at least 2.1 children per woman because they're committed to the future?

On the contrary, the average, typical and normal European is committed to hedonism and the sense of security in the present and could care less about the future. This is the stuff death squads and Einsatzgruppen are made of? Puhleeze! Where are the children who will form those death squads? The Euros couldn't be bothered having them.

It might actually be much worse, or quicker, anyway, than I've described. One of the constants of mass psychology is that, for example, when the Huns show up, the Goths move on looking for greener pastures without any Huns. In the United States we can see this, in proto form, in California, where the population of the culturally Anglo are leaving in greater numbers than are coming in.

Be it noted, here, that outside of perhaps those of New England, California is our most 'European' state. Note further that the phenomenon can be seen in multicultural Belgium where Rhode- Saint-Genese Mayor Myriam Delacroix-Rolin observed recently that the increase of Flemish speakers was driving out the French speaking Walloons from her village. Lastly, note that Bethlehem, with one of the oldest Christian communities (and majorities) in the world, is now majority Muslim. And no, it wasn't all birthrate differential. The Christians have, by and large, packed up and left.

In Europe, I would suggest that there will be two factors at work to drive young, productive and fertile people out. The first of these is that, as with the Goths and the Californians and the Walloons, when your homeland ceases to be your homeland, ceases to be comfortable and homelike, there will be a temptation to leave. When your homeland becomes oppressive or dangerous, that temptation will grow strong. (America was settled, after all, by people, many of whom had this in their hearts and minds.) When tax rates reach a certain point (and the French government already takes over half, with the German not all that far behind), and one can make more, and keep more of what is made, somewhere else, forget temptation—buy an airplane ticket. 'Go west, young man.' More significantly, go elsewhere, young woman.

(By the way, Fascism, being at least as strange and uncomfortable as Islam, would cause approximately as many to flee. No help there.)

I began with talking about the odds. That's the way I think the odds lie. No, it's not a certainty but that's the way to bet it: Europe probably will fail to assimilate its Muslims. It will lack the will (and the children) to eliminate them. Muslim birthrates will remain fairly high, whatever may happen in the Islamic world, because they'll be able to feed, for a while, at the European social democratic teat, even while Europe will not be able muster the will to protect, modernize and educate Muslim women. Thus, at some point in time Europe is very likely to become majority Muslim.

I hope I'm wrong; but I think it's going to happen sooner even than Mark Steyn believes, precisely because, as Europe becomes both strange and even more overly taxed, young Europeans will begin to leave. The more leave; the fewer will be born; the stranger it will become to those who remain and the faster it will become strange. The more leave; the heavier the burden of taxation . . . the more will leave.

So is there anything Europe can do, anything besides the not-very- likely and even less savory return to Fascism predicted by Ralph Peters? Nothing seems very probable but, just for the sake of completeness, I'll offer a few suggestions.

1.   Shit rises to the top. By this I mean there is a tendency for peoples to gravitate toward extremists. It's not clear Europe can do much about the tendency, but it could at least deport or imprison the extremists. Yes, I mean pretty much forever. They won't get better with age.

2.   Go back and reread the fourth paragraph of this afterword. Then go read more of your history. STOP reading anti- European, racist, leftist cant. Oh, and stuff the anti-American nonsense. Then go look in the mirror and realize that, world view of the left notwithstanding, you are not a cancer. You have a history and a culture worth defending. You won't defend it unless you know it's worth it.

3.   Besma (and Lale) need your help. Defend women, and especially Muslim women. If you want to assimilate them, reach out for the mothers and the girls who will be mothers. They need you and you are abandoning them to tyranny.

4.   Intermarry. Don't convert when you do.

5.   Stop the process of professionalizing your armed forces. Reinstitute conscription. The armed forces, left to their own devices, are all you have left, institution-wise, with the will and the means to assimilate non-Europeans. Let them do so. Use them to do so. And don't let your non-Muslim men weasel out of it.

1.   Do not give up an inch in kowtowing to Islam. It only makes you seem contemptibly weak while making the more lunatic imams look correspondingly strong.

2.   Do give Muslims in your countries a fair break for education and jobs. Perhaps you can (read: I think you should) tie this to honorable completion of military service.

3.   Fix your economies. Cut regulation. Cut taxes. Cut the welfare state for those who neither sow nor reap. If you have to transfer income, transfer it to those whom you need to bear children. As a matter of fact, do whatever you must to get culturally European women to bear children in at least replacement numbers.

4.   Stop or reduce immigration for a while. You can't assimilate Muslims as well when there's a continuing stream of new ones, full of old ideas.

5.   Stop disgracing yourselves by tolerating intolerance.

Not that I think you'll listen.

So what's all this mean to the United States and our non-European allies? Three