It's the Demography, Stupid

January 10, 2006 9:49 AM

It's the demography, stupid: "The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birth rate to sustain it. ... Which the smarter Islamists have figured out. They know they can never win on the battlefield, but they figure there’s an excellent chance they can drag things out until western civilization collapses in on itself and Islam inherits by default."
posted by shivohum (72 comments total)

Liberalism is a parasitic social structure requiring a healthy conservative host to live off of.
posted by HTuttle at 9:56 AM on January 10, 2006

"The progressive agenda —lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism—is collectively the real suicide bomb."

What the world doesn't need now is a single-link to this fact-free bomb-tosser.
posted by ibmcginty at 9:58 AM on January 10, 2006

HTuttle writes 'Liberalism is a parasitic social structure requiring a healthy conservative host to live off of.'

I lol'd. So why are the red states generally getting more out of the federal government than they pay in?
posted by mullingitover at 9:59 AM on January 10, 2006

Liberalism is a parasitic social structure requiring a healthy conservative host to live off of.

Note how evolution has made the host fat and stupid.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:59 AM on January 10, 2006

God, does this guy realize that he sounds like a third-rate Hobbes? And when you argue that AIDS made possible victories of the "gay agenda" you've lost me.

Where's his argument on demography, stupid? I made it, I admit, only about a third of the way through the page. Does his screed ever get traction, does he ever throw sand underneath the wheels?

If you read this and can't spot the completely fallacious assertions within two paragraphs, then you're a fucking moron.
posted by klangklangston at 10:00 AM on January 10, 2006

HTuttle: Really? Liberalism? You mean, the doctrine of individual rights, as promoted by Locke? And by Conservatism, you mean Burke, right? Oh, no, wait, you were just gleefully sucking yourself off, growing fat on your own ideological come.

(Didn't we used to delete single-link op-eds?)
posted by klangklangston at 10:03 AM on January 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

Honestly, now. By the time Western society's population is so small that the land-crazed over-populated Islamists can attack, our robot armies will be sufficiently advanced to wipe them out if they even think about trying to do it. QED.

You know what's really funny about the paragraph above? It reads like snark. But it's also probably true.
posted by jscalzi at 10:03 AM on January 10, 2006

Mark Steyn is Peggy Noonan with a really tiny penis.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:05 AM on January 10, 2006

For some reason, I actually read this whole thing. (Ah, procrastination.)

It's more than a little incoherent. Most people make a point, then back it up. He seems to flit from topic-to-topic. He managed to turn what could have been a coherent, if distasteful, argument into a bigoted rant.

Kudos, that takes some effort.
posted by generichuman at 10:10 AM on January 10, 2006

Now, getting to the meat: His prime example of population collapse is Russia. But if you look at the demography (stupid), you'll see that all of those things that are "secondary concerns" (health care, jobs, etc.) are the causes of the population decline, or at least preceeded it. Further, one of the other problems in modern Russia isn't this "multi-culturalism" straw man that the frother's trying to put the fear into us over, but rather endemic ethnic nationalism and racism. Refusing to extend full protections to ethnic minorities, like Ukranians, and instead trying to focus governmental fertility research monies on "pure" Russian stock has further undercut the ability of the population to be sustained. Add that to instability, poverty, high infant mortality rates (one of those things that "religious birthrates" are tied into more than religion), and of course the Russian populaton is dwindling.
posted by klangklangston at 10:12 AM on January 10, 2006

"Demography" is the new racism.
posted by delmoi at 10:15 AM on January 10, 2006

Which means the title of this post basicaly means the same thing as "It's the sand niggers, stupid"
posted by delmoi at 10:16 AM on January 10, 2006

So what is this guy's solution, anyway? Genocide? Forced religious re-education? I didn't read the whole thing.
posted by delmoi at 10:18 AM on January 10, 2006

Honestly, now. By the time Western society's population is so small that the land-crazed over-populated Islamists can attack, our robot armies will be sufficiently advanced to wipe them out if they even think about trying to do it. QED.

Yeah, people keep forgetting our imminent robot armies.

On the other hand, [insert joke about arab robot camel jokeys]
posted by delmoi at 10:21 AM on January 10, 2006

So what is this guy's solution, anyway? Genocide? Forced religious re-education? I didn't read the whole thing.

As far as I can tell, it's:
1, screw like rabbits (in some conservative way.)
2, take away abortion rights so that we have more babies.
posted by generichuman at 10:22 AM on January 10, 2006

From the article:
“Post-Christian hyper-rationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism.’
*spit take*
Wha?

Another gem:
“If this were like World War I with those fellows in one trench and us in ours facing them over some boggy piece of terrain, it would be over very quickly.”

Er...well, no, see WWI they had the guns but not the mobility and even a small force...aw forget it.

Also:
“I took issue with that line Gerald Ford always uses to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” Actually, you run into trouble long before that point: A government big enough to give you everything you want still isn’t big enough to get you to give anything back.”

That’s the most brilliant piece of specious reasoning and careful misunderstanding of what Ford meant that I’ve ever seen.

Steyn is right. He’s a conservative based only on the fact that he thinks Britney Spears dresses like a slut.

This is pure modern duckspeak. Just right enough in some particulars to sound correct. Well veiled racism. Really, it’s brilliant. It does take a lot of work to be that thick.

He blows it by attempting to duel Cameron Diaz in a battle of wits... but to be fair, I too like to debate such things as the merits of neuroradiological processes like transfemoral angiography versus craniotomy in treating subarachnoid hemorrhages and avoiding complications such as vasospasms with caffenated 3rd graders.

“Liberalism is a parasitic social structure requiring a healthy conservative host to live off of.” - HTuttle

If I didn’t also despise bloody paper work I’d’ve had to pull out my can of shinola to explain a few things. Not HVAC engineering obviously.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:28 AM on January 10, 2006

this post basicaly means the same thing as "It's the sand niggers, stupid"

I don't know about that, delmoi, what stands out more to me is Steyn's incompetence. There's an interesting discussion to be had about liberal societies in Western Europe hosting rapidly growing populations of people who don't share those values-- think Theo van Gogh and that politician whose name I'll misspell as Pim Fortuyne as flashpoints. But Steyn is so blinkered by his hatred of his caricature of Democrats that he has to see the whole Earth through that perspective, as generichuman's comment indicates.

klangklangston makes a good point on Russia, and there are many others to be made. The main problem is Steyn's incoherence, I think, rather than racism.
posted by ibmcginty at 10:31 AM on January 10, 2006

Development is the best form of birth control.
posted by euphorb at 10:38 AM on January 10, 2006

In the past people like him were writing about how the godless commies were going to run us over. Wingers always need enemies.
posted by Justin Case at 10:42 AM on January 10, 2006

As I understand it, the New Criterion was established to serve as a conservative alternative to the New York Review of Books. You've got a long way to go, baby.

Setting aside Mark Steyn's flip style, what are his serious points? Western birthrates have declined to the point where they're a serious problem--Europe will need Muslim immigration to avoid economic collapse, and will become majority Muslim by 2040 or so--and liberal governments aren't capable of recognizing and dealing with the problem.

And a couple tangential points: Liberal multiculturalism is a symptom of loss of cultural confidence. Ditto liberal environmentalism.

For a less inflammatory version of the argument that Western societies' ability to absorb and assimilate immigrants is not boundless, here's Owen Harries:

Insofar as Americans rejected the belief in a nationalism of blood and soil—the sense in which nationalism was mainly understood in its European heyday, and still is in places like Croatia and Serbia—and instead put ideas centre stage, it made the country very receptive to immigrants. The Economist magazine once put it this way:

America is an immigrant’s land, open to anyone of any race or culture who accepts the ideas of the European Enlightenment on which it was founded. Provided the ideas remained intact, an America populated with Martians would still be America.

There has been, in other words, a minimal and accessible qualification to becoming an American: adopt the creed and you are in. This has made it possible for the United States not only to absorb huge numbers of people, but also to alter the composition of its population radically, without major disruption.

... it is worth considering a critique of this multicultural conclusion that has been made in the United States. It has been well stated by Michael Lind: "By making political idealism—and only political idealism—the thing that connects diverse Americans, cultural pluralists and democratic universalists put a burden on the American political tradition it cannot bear. A constitution is not a country; an idea is not a nation."

Now if it is true that the American political tradition—an extraordinarily rich one, with very powerful symbolic underpinnings, and given substance and resonance by such eloquent utterances as the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address—cannot bear the burden of sustaining national identity, the question arises: can the much thinner and more modest Australian political creed possibly do so?

I think Steyn is correct that Europe is facing a major demographic challenge. I disagree with his contention that liberal governments will be unable to face the problem and deal with it, and that increased Muslim immigration and eventual majority status in Europe are inevitable; France has introduced significant incentives for parents to have more than two children, for example.
posted by russilwvong at 10:46 AM on January 10, 2006

klangklangston wins, foul'ly.

Summary of this (nasty, spittle-flecked) article: high birth-rate cultures will come to dominate low birth-rate cultures.

This is only necessarily true in an absolute democracy, but I hope we all agree that this is neither what we have nor should desire to have. Democracy is the system whereby 51% of the population can legally enslave the other 49%. This is bad and wrong, and quite frankly only a tiny tiny percentage of decisions should be made democratically.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 10:49 AM on January 10, 2006

This is only necessarily true in an absolute democracy--

The issue isn't democracy. It's whether the society is liberal or not (in the classic sense). In a liberal society, minorities have rights which cannot be taken away by the majority. In an non-liberal society (democratic or not), that is not the case.

If a liberal society is unable to assimilate immigrants from a non-liberal society--that is, the immigrant population continues to hold non-liberal political beliefs--and that immigrant population eventually becomes a majority, I wouldn't expect the society to stay liberal for long.
posted by russilwvong at 10:57 AM on January 10, 2006

I dunno...appeals to national identity and raising the spectre of out-of-control immigrant births seems so...1930's Germany. It's so been done already.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:01 AM on January 10, 2006

Mark Steyn? That Mark Steyn? That barking dog who thinks he's a new Hitchens? Thanks, but no, I'd need the blood of three Scandinavian babies before I even begin reading anything by Mark Steyn ever again, and I don't want to contribute to the decrease in population that would bring about the collapse of the West.

He should at least credit his sources for such bright, innovative arguments about demography. Le Pen should sue.
posted by funambulist at 11:10 AM on January 10, 2006

A good response to Steyn's article here. And a thorough review of his career can be found here and
posted by longdaysjourney at 11:11 AM on January 10, 2006

Umm, no! Ever notice how U.S. immigration policies unfairly favor Mexicans over Chinese? Immigration policies are determined by industries willing to buy off (conservative) politicians, thus reducing labor costs.

Here would be a fair immigration policy: Use per country quotas which are proportional to the logarithm of the expected population in 10 years minus the current population. So you can to move here no questions asked, if your country has effective population control (i.e. China & Europe). If your country doesn't have effective population control (i.e. Mexico & India), chances are the buisnesses want you to move here anyway, so they'll keep that constant of proportionality high enough that you have a shot. The logarithm keeps people from extremely high birthrate countries from being totally screwed.
posted by jeffburdges at 11:13 AM on January 10, 2006

It must be great to be Mark Steyn. No accountability, no thought - just make up some shit, write it down and go on to the next project. In my next life I'm coming back as a neocon.
posted by palinode at 11:15 AM on January 10, 2006

I think Steyn is correct that Europe is facing a major demographic challenge. I disagree with his contention that liberal governments will be unable to face the problem and deal with it, and that increased Muslim immigration and eventual majority status in Europe are inevitable

I agree. Too many prognostications are made without acknowledging changing conditions.

Can these trends continue for another thirty years without having consequences?

No. But will these trends continue in a vacuum? Can you imagine how scared people must have been of a majority Irish population by 1905 during the potato famine? Never really happened did it? Just because the rate of increase of the muslim percentage of the population is high now, doesn't mean it always will be. Just because (in his opinion) governments are stupid and complacent doesn't mean they always will be. Assuming the issues he describes are problematic for "the West", countries and cultures will react far before any theoretical point of no return. Whether that's a good thing or not.

Actually, I don't really know what his point is. Mark Steyn is kind of an idiot.

It must be great to be Mark Steyn. No accountability, no thought - just make up some shit, write it down and go on to the next project. In my next life I'm coming back as a neocon.

Oh if only you were describing only neocons.
posted by loquax at 11:16 AM on January 10, 2006

The problem with a liberal society is that it's too expensive to have kids and since we all have pension plans, we don't need them for our old age. Also, our wimmin are too educated---they have more options than being stay-at-home moms and naturally they exercise them.

Rather than instituting a western purdah as Mr. Steyn would like, we need to find other ways of making having kids more attractive. Parental leaves for both mother and father, educational tax breaks, flexible working arrangements (mostly part-time work for moms who don't want to go insane at home), subsidized daycare all help, but clearly we need to do more.

But really, we don't want or need to bring the birthrates up too much. India, China, western Africa, really aren't as pleasant places to live as North America or Europe. Over-expansion is just another way to kill yourself. Go ask the Aztecs or the Anasazi.
posted by bonehead at 11:18 AM on January 10, 2006

One of the solutions to this potential problem - one which is not adequately put, in this extreme right wing article - would be the reform of constitutions in the UK and the rest of Europe.

I would welcome a society where my rights are not dependent on simple majority Acts of Parliament. In this country now, we have civil partnerships, equal age of consents and employment protection for women, gays and racial minorities. But these reforms are not embedded in the UK constitution, because we do not have a codified constitution.

I do hope that the Western trend to have smaller families, working partners and toleration for others takes root amongst our newer Europeans. I am not at this point all that confident we will get there in the end.
However, in the end, we're all dead!
posted by dash_slot- at 11:21 AM on January 10, 2006

Well, frankly, I think mullingitover pretty much ended the "conservative" argument right there.

Sorry guys, try another tack...
posted by Freen at 11:24 AM on January 10, 2006

Scientist: Well, Homer, I guess you're the winner by default.
Homer: Default? Woo hoo! The two sweetest words in the English language: de-fault! De-fault! De-fault!
posted by chunking express at 11:29 AM on January 10, 2006

Liberalism is a parasitic social structure requiring a healthy conservative host to live off of.
posted by HTuttle at 9:56 AM PST on January 10 [!]

If one accepts that "you are what you eat" and you accept the HTuttle statement, that would explain why liberal democrats are ineffective.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:34 AM on January 10, 2006

The demographic decline of the west is a real phenomena that could use more attention. But Steyn's take on is is full of racist essentialism: white people = western civilization.

Not if we assimilate them, it isn't. Sure, in a hundred years a walk along the Champs Elysees will take you through a sea of brown faces. But if they are speaking French, eating baguettes, and looking down their long noses at American tourists--well, isn't that still France?

Western Civilization: It's not just for white people anymore.
posted by LarryC at 11:35 AM on January 10, 2006

Just ask Spengler... I love him, I hate him.
posted by trinarian at 11:37 AM on January 10, 2006

Liberalism Socialism is a parasitic social structure requiring a healthy conservative Liberal host to live off of.
posted by loquax at 11:38 AM on January 10, 2006

Fear the Commie. Or the Muslim. Fear the fact that Muslims want to live in Muslim states (nevermind that Christians want to live in Christian states). Fear, and 9/11. Thank you.
posted by iamck at 11:45 AM on January 10, 2006

This reminds me of a guy I knew in Texas, who every day decried the impending doom of "white culture" (which is?) while working as a waiter at a Mexican restaurant.

The fact is, we stole the entire Southwest from the Mexicans anyway, and not very long ago. It's still fresh in their minds. Naturally they're repopulating it.

Yeah, people keep forgetting our imminent robot armies.

I haven't.
posted by bukharin at 11:48 AM on January 10, 2006

Where are the health warnings? I wasted a click on this article just because someone didn't say "It's by Mark Steyn", the living embodiment of Orwell's "extreme, barely-sane" nationalist - "simply an enormous mouth bellowing the same lie over and over again.

I wouldn't trust him to tell me the time.
posted by athenian at 11:51 AM on January 10, 2006

Ahh, been trollin' along all this time and here I thought all we had to watch out for are all them commie Chinese.

It's so hard to 'member who it's politically correct to hate these end of days.

Guess that was so last century.

Now, what are we supposed to do again - start rapin' women so we have more babies because that's what the Mohammetans do?

No thanks - I'll take my liberal elitist minority friends and my tattered copy of Camus any day.
posted by tzelig at 11:51 AM on January 10, 2006

Islam has yet to demopnstrate that it can unite itself into one huge conglomerate--ruled by.......since the days long gone. Muslims in Europe etc are not going to be happy about reverting back to a Saudi-like existence.

Amd China is not going to sit idly by watching.
posted by Postroad at 11:58 AM on January 10, 2006

Steyn does have a point. Then again, he completely misunderstands the point, and he's an asshole. So I'm not giving him any points. Here's the deal. America has had big influxes of immigrants for a long time. People used to have these same fears about Irish immigrants. In fact, at one point during a presidential election (can't remember which one) some people were actually afraid that if the Catholic candidate won, he would dig a secret tunnel to the Vatican so that he could conspire with the pope. A tunnel. From the White House to Italy. No, I'm not making that up. Some people actually believed that. Point is, there are always worries, both rational and otherwise, about a cultural shift when you get a large group of immigrants. The reason why the America didn't become culturally Irish, and won't become culturally Mexican, is that immigrants tend to assimilate into their new home. The question is this: will Muslims in Europe assimilate before they reach the point where they can alter Europe to the point where it becomes an Islamic state? The answer is probably yes. On the one hand, Europe has less experience with mass immigration. And a lot of European nations like England have no constitution, just legal precendant, so a majority could have a more drastic influence on national law. However, people don't stay foreigners in their new country, unless you force them to. The fact is, as the immigrants are exposed to Western culture, it will naturally rub off on them. MTV is your friend, Europe. The only thing, IMHO, that can prevent this from happening is rascism. Rascism forces immigrants to stay in ghettos and insular institutions, which minimizes opportunities for Westernization. As long as European society is open enough to allow fair opportunity, immigrants will be naturally assimilated by their new culture, as they attend Western schools and watch Western television.
posted by unreason at 12:09 PM on January 10, 2006

"Lady Kennedy was arguing that our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people’s intolerance, which is intolerable."

I thought that was pretty good.
posted by Tubes at 12:13 PM on January 10, 2006

every one of these completely unsubstantiated sentences (fact-free, from above, was a great descriptor) was a pointy jab in my eyeball.
posted by shmegegge at 12:17 PM on January 10, 2006

I was worried until I realised that Muslims kill each other too. Phew, that was close. I thought we were practically living in Dune.
posted by Sparx at 12:19 PM on January 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

TFA: "AIDS pandemic greatly facilitated societal surrender to the gay agenda"

The gay agenda! The gay agenda! I knew it all along, AIDS was a gay conspiracy to make us all contract gay marriages! Or was it the Islamic agenda to make us embrace the gay agenda and lower even more our bith rate? It could still be the Jewish agenda to do all of the above so we would start fearing the Islamic overpopulated countries and give more money to Israel. I don't know, I stopped reading, could someone please tell me if it has genocide in the end?
posted by nkyad at 12:22 PM on January 10, 2006

This has already been nicely fisked over at Pandagon.
posted by emjaybee at 12:29 PM on January 10, 2006

Nkyad: Have you noticed that since the Holocaust, we can't even keep Jews in ghettos here anymore? God, those people are crafty.
posted by klangklangston at 12:31 PM on January 10, 2006

(I think I enjoyed this more when it was Father Coughlin).
posted by klangklangston at 12:32 PM on January 10, 2006

Link the amount of tax you pay to the number of children and grandchildren you have. Watch the affluent start breeding like rabbits. No need for sharia law ever.

Problem solved.
posted by DirtyCreature at 12:53 PM on January 10, 2006

And when you argue that AIDS made possible victories of the "gay agenda" you've lost me.
I will second that TFA
what a crock
posted by halekon at 12:57 PM on January 10, 2006

What we need is more pre-marital sex and reproduction.

But as long as our robot armies don't fall into the hands of the religious wankers, we should be fine.
posted by delmoi at 1:09 PM on January 10, 2006

"Demography" is the new racism.

delmoi, that's hitting the nail on the head. sharon's recent stroke has brought that into the mainstream media. we're hearing more and more open talk about how those palestinians breed like rabbits and theocracy might be in danger if we don't import more russians to israel, place more limits on who can vote, and gerrymander more territory into a jackson pollack map of bantustans. heaven forbid secular democracy.
posted by 3.2.3 at 1:42 PM on January 10, 2006

The secret life of Eurabia
posted by mr.marx at 1:48 PM on January 10, 2006

Why was this a FPP?
posted by eustacescrubb at 1:53 PM on January 10, 2006

How come this isn't listed in Batshitinsanefilter?

And way to go dhoyt HTuttle. You certainly got your little trolly comment's worth. I bet all your admiring coworkers are slapping you on the back.
posted by Devils Slide at 1:53 PM on January 10, 2006

The article is offensive. It is discrimatory against Islam. If you substitute 'black people' for Muslims and 'the black ideology' for 'Muslim faith' in the following paragraph you get something that the Klan would be proud of:

We know it’s not really a “war on terror.” Nor is it, at heart, a war against Islam, or even “radical Islam.” The Muslim faith, whatever its merits for the believers, is a problematic business for the rest of us. There are many trouble spots around the world, but as a general rule, it’s easy to make an educated guess at one of the participants: Muslims vs. Jews in “Palestine,” Muslims vs. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Christians in Africa, Muslims vs. Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs. Russians in the Caucasus, Muslims vs. backpacking tourists in Bali. Like the environmentalists, these guys think globally but act locally.

posted by sien at 1:54 PM on January 10, 2006

And when you argue that AIDS made possible victories of the "gay agenda" you've lost me.

Well, I certainly wouldn't echo his pejorative tone, but if you replace "gay agenda" with tolerance and respect for the "gay lifestyle" on the part of the majority of people, coupled with increased attention and protection of "gay rights", I think the point stands. The terrible toll AIDS took on the gay community certainly seemed to sober up and temper the heterosexual majority compared to the general attitudes of the decades preceding the 80's and 90's (at least from what I can see). I suppose it's sort of the equivalent of saying that Hiroshima and Nagasaki made possible Japan's later ascendance in the 20th century. Or something like that. Not that I'm really too keen on defending the point when it's made that way.
posted by loquax at 2:00 PM on January 10, 2006

Unreason wrote:"some people were actually afraid that if the Catholic candidate won, he would dig a secret tunnel to the Vatican so that he could conspire with the pope. A tunnel. From the White House to Italy."

That was the 1928 candidate Al Smith, and the tunnel pictured was the Holland Tunnel. Some of the same attitude circulated when John Kennedy ran in 1960.
posted by Cranberry at 2:42 PM on January 10, 2006

it's sort of the equivalent of saying that Hiroshima and Nagasaki made possible Japan's later ascendance in the 20th century.

Or that the Holocaust made Israel possible.
posted by iamck at 3:01 PM on January 10, 2006

> Umm, no! Ever notice how U.S. immigration policies unfairly favor Mexicans over Chinese?
> Immigration policies are determined by industries willing to buy off (conservative) politicians,
> thus reducing labor costs.

Oah yesss. It's so unfair that the US and Mexico share a long border and Mexicans can walk over, while Chinese can't. It was policy! Republican policy! which arranged that. /mild derail


> "Demography" is the new racism.

Everything is the new racism, which is why racism is no longer a topic of any importance. Used it to death and used it up, you did.
posted by jfuller at 3:04 PM on January 10, 2006

(raises hand) My bad. Said "racism" 250 times just the other day.
posted by hackly_fracture at 4:08 PM on January 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

And it was during a conversation about nutmeg.
posted by hackly_fracture at 4:10 PM on January 10, 2006

jfuller: I think we're talking about legal immegration. I've got a friend who works for an immigration law firm, and ALCOA can't for the life of them get people visa's and nationalized, with PHD's in materials engineering, who desperately want to work and live in the USA.

That wasn't happening just a few years ago, before the turn of the century.

That's called policy.
posted by Freen at 5:17 PM on January 10, 2006

Or that the Holocaust made Israel possible.

Well it's true for the most part isn't it? I don't think Steyn was celebrating the AIDS virus.
posted by loquax at 5:23 PM on January 10, 2006

I'm getting the sense that it's the stupid, stupid.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:54 PM on January 10, 2006

It's evolution baby. Survival of the fittest - the fittest being those who have the highest reproductive success. Enough said. I don't really see how it's of any concern, given that, at a recent approximation, 0.0001% of Mulsims are radical terrorists who are probably busy shooting kalishnikovs at tin cans in the desert instead of getting laid, we're really just breeding more and more moderates. Your demography may vary.
posted by Jimbob at 7:56 PM on January 10, 2006

Has anybody suggested a workable way to sterilize Muslims without their knowledge?
posted by davy at 8:30 PM on January 10, 2006

Yeah, but you have to feed them Jew meat, so it's been nixed.
posted by klangklangston at 9:18 PM on January 10, 2006

I read most of this article and kept thinking, isn't this a similar argument that nietzsche used in "geneology of morals" like 120 years ago? that western culture was sick in part becuase it had become ashamed of itself and allowed weaker cultures to shame it? not exactly an original idea. I know he's talking about a population/reproduction threat - but it seemed to do with shame and will to defend one's self too.

My other reaction was to think that the real threat to America is not that islamists will take it over - but rather that the Latinos will! On new years eve, I was at a comedy show in San Francisco and saw the commedian Al Madrigal perform (funny!). One of his routines had to do with the idea that the "mexicans are fcking their way north". Its only funny becuase there's some kernel of truth to it, right? Meaning: the threat, in as much as there is one, has to do more with fast-reproducing cultures than with islam per se. There are a lot of "fast reproducing cultures" besides islamic ones. Any country that is poor will be reproducing more quickly than a richer country.
posted by sirvesa at 10:38 PM on January 10, 2006

"Terror groups persist because of a lack of confidence on the part of their targets: the IRA, for example, calculated correctly that the British had the capability to smash them totally but not the will. . . If a population “at odds with the modern world” is the fastest-breeding group on the planet . . . how safe a bet is the survival of the “modern world”?"
- Mark Steyn, 2006

"Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This . . . contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself . . . has been banished from our midst."

- Adolph Hitler, 1920
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:43 AM on January 11, 2006

I came into this thread for the action, the excitement. Go anywhere, travel light, get in, get out, wherever there's trouble, a man alone. Now they got the whole blog sectioned off, you can't make a move without a form. Listen, this old thread of yours could be on fire and I couldn't even turn on the kitchen tap without filling out a 27b/6... Bloody paperwork.

Ah, subtlety. Truly wasted on some. Fun to watch tho. Thanks Harry. You, sir, are a true Matador.

Which I suppose would be a good term for trolling with an eye for provocative responses rather than derailing.

Wasted on this kind of dreck though. There is not much worth saying about the article and - as per arguing with Cameron Diaz - not much to lambaste it with either. Just too fat and easy a target.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:22 PM on January 11, 2006