Tuesday, 23 April 2013

For years, Ed West has been the best blogger within the mainstream media landscape. More than anyone else, you sense that West "gets it" in relation to Islam and immigration. I would imagine he reads Counterjihad blogs like JihadWatch, GoV, perhaps even this one (although I doubt he'd ever admit it). Of course, in his blog and in this book, he ducks and dives, pays his occasional obeisance to establishment norms, tries hard to find nice things to say about Islam ("the Ahmadiyyas aren't that bad"). This can be maddening, but given the nature of the totalitarian system we live under, perhaps he has to do this in order to survive and keep his place at the table.

Much of what he writes will be familiar to regular readers of this blog, or those with a critical interest in Islam or immigration: the Andrew Neather revelations, the Marxoid/Frankfurt School critique of "racism" and the nation, the war against free speech, Robert Putnam's study on the catastrophic effects of "diversity". Still, for the uninitiated, it's useful to have this all brought together in one place, footnoted, and presented with the imprimatur of an establishment voice rather than through the shrill screechings of we "far-right" bloggers. Incidentally, he has this to say about us:
Blogs have certainly shifted the debate. Where journalists have been afraid to criticise the policies of multiculturalism and diversity, amateur bloggers, almost always anonymous, are able to ignore the taboos. Many are clearly mad or unpleasant, but many are not, and people reading them realise that there are perfectly pleasant, decent, educated people out there who are in no sense hateful or Fascist but dislike the radical demographic change being forced on them.
Good to know that at least some of us aren't mad or unpleasant.

He is fairly shallow in tracing the ideological roots of what is happening to us, zeroing in on Marxism and the Second World war. He fails to grasp the importance of Europe's thousand year moral odyssey breaking down kinship structures or the significance of the French and American revolutions, with their exaltation of the idea of citizenship. Although he critiques the foolishness of trying to define a nation through a series of abstract values, he fails to relate this to the idea of human rights or, above all, the American example. One of the reasons the mainstream British and European right has failed to offer an adequate challenge to mass immigration is that they are enraptured by America, entranced by the splendid lie of a "nation of immigrants", a contradiction in terms. West is too pro-American himself to see the pernicious influence the idea of America has had on European elites.

Although he offers sympathy for indigenes alarmed at the prospect of becoming a minority in their own ancestral homelands, he does so only diffidently, lacking any ideological framework to buttress it. I hope to remedy some of these deficiencies in the book I am writing, although I may now leave out some things I was planning to put in since he has already covered them.

His prescriptions for what to do about the predicament we're in are the weakest part of the book and verge on the laughable: restrain immigration; reject the idea that diversity is an inherent good; abandon the Marxist critique of race; stop external funding of mosques and schools; and use the education system to contruct a unifying national narrative.

This is a perfect example of someone who can see the coming catastrophe but, unable to shake himself free from establishment ethical constraints, is unable to endorse the decisive action that would prevent it coming about. The core ideas underlying the genocide being inflicted on the European peoples are Jus Soli (birthplace belonging) and the equation of citizenship and peoplehood. Only when these dogmas are rejected can we find a way out. A prisoner of the system he works within, Ed West can't do it. We "mad and unpleasant" bloggers can. But whatever its failings, this is as good a mainstream critique of the Europe's immigrationist lunacy as we're likely to get and I highly recommend it.

I'll close with an extract in which he comments on the Eurabia idea.
Eurabia is somewhat hard to take seriously because the projections deal with such distant periods, and because it attracts wild exaggeration or conspiracy theories. Early in 2009 a video warning of an Islamic takeover of Europe became a huge YouTube hit, watched by 10 million people in a short few weeks, and even leading to a BBC debunking. It was based on glaring factual errors that suggested sloppiness or dishonesty, claiming that French Muslims had a fertility rate of 8.1 per woman (it is well below 3), and that 30 per cent of French children are Muslims, when the actual figure is probably between 10 and 15 per cent. Doubtless Muslim fertility is declining – Pakistani and Bangladeshi total fertility was 9.3 in 1971, and 4.9 in 1996 – and fertility is of course influenced by wealth and female education, so that Iranian immigrant fertility, for example, is at or below that of natives in all European countries. But immigrant TFRs are often higher in Europe than in their home countries, and in Europe religious Muslims are 40 per cent more likely to have three or more children than non-religious Muslims,130 so that the overall decline in Muslim growth rates will be down to the more secular having fewer children.
According to the latest Office for National Statistics, Pakistan-born women in Britain have an average of 4.7 children, those born in Bangladesh 3.9 and India 2.3, while mothers born in the UK bore, on average, 1.6 children. That gap is narrowing, but will still remain large for a considerable time, and it’s very unlikely that the name Mohammed will ever cease to be the most popular boy’s name, a position it reached in 2010. (Although Muslim immigrants have a smaller pool of given names, and Western naming patterns have moved towards greater diversity in recent years, this does illustrate a demographic truth.131) And even as Muslim birth rates decline, the advantage stays the same, perhaps even increases, because native birth rates are in free fall. In Austria the total fertility rate in 1981 was 3.09 for Muslims and 1.67 for native Austrians; in 1991 the figures were 2.77 and 1.51; and in 2001 2.34 and 1.32 – meaning that the ratio has grown.
And none of this really makes much difference because natural increase is still bolstered by high levels of immigration, mostly from countries with high fertility rates. While birth rates across much of the second world are falling, and Iran, Algeria, Lebanon, Tunisia and several central Asian and Caucasian countries have below-replacement rate fertility, Afghanistan, Somalia and Nigeria remain at over 5.5, while Pakistan’s average is 4. By 2050 Nigeria will have 258 million, Bangladesh 243 million, Ethiopia 189 million and Uganda 127 million, meaning that the external population pressures on Britain will stay strong for the foreseeable future.
By 2030 Britain will have a Muslim population of 5.5 million, roughly 8.2 per cent of the total population. That’s hardly Eurabia, some might argue, but that figure will not be spread evenly across the country. By that year Oldham, Bradford, Blackburn and possibly even Birmingham could be Muslim-majority towns. Leicester will already become Britain’s first-ever majority non-white city some time in the 2010s. Any tension that ensues will of course be blamed on Islamophobia, and yet no society in history has watched a minority grow from 0 to 8 per cent in two generations without serious problems. And project those opinion poll figures about views on terrorism, sharia law and apostasy onto a population of 5.5 million and Islamophobia does not seem entirely irrational. It has already been speculated that had France wished to join the invasion of Iraq in 2003 it would have been hampered by the threat of urban violence. In a dozen years time would Britain be able to join the US in intervening in a Muslim country, even if its leaders thought it the right thing to do, without risking riots? Would Geert Wilders be able to deliver his address? It seems unlikely.
If that happens it is not because Muslims have outrageous fertility levels, as is often claimed, but because natives have unsustainably low ones. In Austria the Muslim fertility rate of 2.34 is close to the optimum, but on current trends Austria will be the first western European country to be over 20 per cent Muslim before mid-century. As Arnold Toynbee pointed out: ‘Civilisations die from suicide, not murder.’
And even in 2030 the fertility gap between British Muslim and non-Muslim will still be 0.8 per woman, which translates as a 40 per cent increase per generation. And that’s assuming that the government stops immigration from countries such as Pakistan, with its 256 million people – something no MP for Blackburn or Bradford will vote for. People who scorn the Eurabia thesis miss the point. If Western Europe is 16 to 20 per cent Islamic it might not be Eurabia – sharia law and beheadings in the street or any of the wilder imaginings – but it will not be Europe as Europeans have known it for a thousand years.
Source: The Diversity Illusion: What We Got Wrong About Immigration & How to Set It Right


Anonymous said...

EURABIA is not a thesis or a conspiracy theory, it's the title of a book by Bat Ye'or which West clearly seems never to have read. Ye'or's book details, through extensive documentation, the quite deliberate facilitation of the islamisation of Europe by the EEC, then its successor, the EU, in extensive consultations, meetings, and the setting up of numerous departments within the EU, to enable millions of Moslems to enter Europe, and to change European countries' laws, alter their social mores, and undermine Christianity. I'd say the book is at least fifty percent a compilation of these EU directives. Typical of the Left to pretend it's all in our minds, not set out in cold, hard print. As for West, he's a DT writer and that paper has veered decisively Left. Where Islam is concerned, its writers, editors, bloggers are for the main part quite complicit in Eurabia (the newspaper supports Turkey's entry into the EU and is fanatically pro-Cameron).

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

The Eurabia thesis is generally taken to mean the claim that Europe will soon have a Muslim majority. In the form presented by Bat Ye'or it certainly is a conspiracy theory. Someone appropriately dubbed it Protocols of the Elders of Brussels.

I was deeply unimpressed by Ye'or's book. In fact, I thought it was one of the most rebarbative books I've ever read, full of sloppy thinking, claims not justified by the evidence cited as well as what seemed like a malignant contempt for Europeans. It's telling that she admitted in an interview that the book was intended for an American audience. I started to write a long critique of it once but never got round to finishing it. Maybe I'll go back to it some time. But then I'd have to force myself to read the book again.

All mainstream media outlets are complicit in the de-Europeanisation and islamisation of Europe. The Telegraph does at least offer space to some critical voices on the subject. The USA has been pushing for Turkey's entry to the EU, so the newspapers that tend to be pro-American, like the Telegraph, simply follow the party line. Dan Hannan (Friend of Turkey) also once worked for them as a leader writer. He may have had some influence in this line being adopted.

Anonymous said...

The Telegraph's support goes back further than the twentieth century; the DT has stated that the newspaper has 'proudly' stood with Turkey since the nineteenth century. The newspaper remained silent over the gang rapes of thousands of English girls (Christian, Hindu and Sikh) committed by thousands of Moslem men, and its dwindling readership takes it to task on that. Hannan's support of Turkey is simply part of a long-established pattern and on his present blog at the DT he continues in that vein. The paper lost 12% of its readership last year; the British public isn't very supportive of Islamophilia. I'd be quite interested to read your critique of Ye'or's book; the fact that she intended the book for an American audience though probably has to do with the censorship over Islam in Europe (try finding Mark Steyn's or Robert Spencer's books in a European bookshop, for example).

Anonymous said...

One other significant point: part of Boris Johnson's family ancestry is Turkish Moslem: his great-grandfather, Ali Kemal Bey, was a journalist and also served as Interior Minister in the government of Damat Ferid Pasha, Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire. Johnson of course was an Editor of the Daily Telegraph and Mayor of London; all part of the glories of multi-culti! As for the American influence re Turkey becoming officially part of the EU (it already is, de facto, since May 2012), because Turkey is in NATO, this has all been presented as a perfectly 'natural', logical extension of Turkish presence and influence. I assume readers of this blog already know about Obama's support for Islam and the OIC (headed by a Turk).

Anonymous said...

Ed West's book is a breath of fresh air. It's uplifting to hear what so many (most?) Briton's have believed for years, but were afraid to express openly. Written in funny but deadly serious fashion, I hope this long-awaited wake-up call can set our house in order before things get even worse. The ultimate irony for deceitful New Labour, is that it will cost them more votes than it gains. The arrogance of politicians who ignore the opinion of their electorate, before making policies that will forever adversely affect our lives, is staggering; but all too common. A pox on them....



Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews