Google

Bartlett's Bizarre Bazaar

Comment, Comics and the Contrary. Contact: aj_bartlett1977*at*yahoo*dot*co*dot*uk
Enter your email address below to subscribe to Bartlett's Bizarre Bazaar!


powered by Bloglet

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

 

The demographic threat

I promised, in the comments of the previous post, to provide an argument that the majority of modern anti-Muslim sentiment is, in fact, racist. Not simply in the minds of critics who might be ‘liberals’ or of the ‘left’. But in the imaginations of those who are anti-Muslim themselves. This is a simple argument, demonstrated whenever an anti-Muslim commentator uses arguments that include the idea of there being a ‘demographic threat’.

Once a ‘critic’ of Islam introduces ‘demography’ to the argument, he or she is not simply attacking the ideas, the ideology, as one might deal with say, fascism, to borrow a piece of their nasty rhetoric. The very idea that a threat is ‘demographic’ places that threat in the people themselves, a defined subgroup of the population that passes its character from generation to generation. People who have an intergenerational continuum, quite unlike the incidental, uneven and irregular intergenerationality of say, fascism. The rhetoric of ‘demographic threat’ is never taken seriously when discussing responses to political ideologies. The deployment of such rhetoric is racist, a fact that the proponents of such ideas tacitly admit, necessarily so in order for their rhetoric to make any sense.

This is true whether it is voiced by the well dressed and ultra-modern neo-Nazi, whether it is voiced by an Israeli Jewish-ethnocentric, or simply a fat racist Welsh dwarf.

Image hosting by Photobucket
Prince Charles meets the demographic threat

And this is where those who speak of a ‘demographic threat’ must bite the bullet. They must admit that the sight of little brown children frightens them, that, at the very least that they wish that they would go away. If this is not their response, then to declare that we face a ‘demographic threat’ is simply, disgustingly, dishonest. And if it is their response, what is that other than pure, simple, racism?

Comments:
If the Muslim population of Britian rose about 50%, do you think life in Britian would be the same? Do you think that Islamic law could be introduced?

A demographic threat means that if a certain demography would gain in power and influence it would radically alter the country.

Now we all enjoy free speech. We even sit on opposite sides of the fence, but can debate topics politely. As was easily seen when London was rioting over some political cartoons, this sort of freedom is not shared by all.

Therefore you have a large block of immigrants who do not want to adopt the British way of life. As this number grows, so do potential problems. That is was a demographic threat is.

Has any reasonable person called Hindu immigrants from India, a demographic threat? No. Then it is not about the fact that the people are brown. It is the ideology that they bring.

You better wake up and smell the jihad before your sister is in a burkha.
 
Your comment about Hindus is nonsense. I can be a racist with my hate and disgust directed towards one group of people without it being directed at all 'other' groups. If I held that sub-Saharan Africans were racially inferior, but did not extend this to, say, the Masai, would this mean that I was not a racist. Of course it would not.

This idea that racists can have a pass so long as they do not hate every 'other' group is, frankly, stupid.

"London was rioting"? Bollocks. Simply bollocks. It was not. There was a protest. Though, you do draw your info from the detestable Muslim-hating apologist for authoritarianism Michelle Malkin, so I am not surprised you write such foolish things.

If the Muslim population of Britain rose to 50% then yes, life in Briatin would be different. But here is why talk of the 'demographic threat' is racist. Those who argue that they are merely criticising Islam as an ideology, not demonising a people, are caught out when they talk of a demographic threat, as this places the ideology as being within people, passed down though generations. As soon as, in the minds of these 'critics' the ideology is something that is either a threat by way of, or can be challenged through, particular groups of people breeding, then these critics have embraced a racial definition of Muslim.

Can we conclude then, TC, that when you see a little Muslim kid you feel fear and disgust?
 
"Has any reasonable person called Hindu immigrants from India, a demographic threat?"

Yes. The eminently reasonable Pat Robertson said so - apparently they're going to enforce their demonic religion on America and drag the place down into griding poverty and suffering, just like they have in India.

Now, where else have we see that kind of argument recently?

I can only conclude that Mr Robertson are The Christopher are related, what with these kinds of beliefs being carried in the blood and all.
 
You better wake up and smell the jihad before your sister is in a burkha.

Do people really think like this? The Muslim quotient of my next-door neighbours plus the downstairs flat is approximately 100%, and I've still never seen a burqa down my street, neither was there a MoToons "riot". I guess that's what comes from getting news from screed sites rather than opening your eyes and drinking as bit of reality from time to time.
 
Protesting is a better word, but you cannot deny the signs they were carrying. Do you think they are kidding? Where those threats the way they have a laugh?

Indians and Pakistanis are from the same race. So if some people have a problem with one group, but not the other, the "race" isn't the determining factor. A race is inherent common biological characteristics. If you converted to being a Muslim and declared jihad against the Crown, you have not changed your race.

This is not about all Muslims. Many want to escape the problems of the homeland: the violence, the subugation of women, etc, but some do not. Some wish to impose Sharia on Britian. However, you have to stand up to them, instead of giving them a free pass so as not to appear racist. People like "the Hook" were allowed to preach violence against Britian. As long as the violent minority of Muslims are allowed to flurish by self-loathing multiculturalists, the peaceful majority will be silenced.


Jarndyce,

I've seen women in burkhas on the streets of London. The full on style with only slits for their eyes. I haven't seen any here in the US.
 
Do people really think like this?

'fraid so. But the saddest thing is that they don't realise The Extremists are playing them like a fiddle.
 
As long as the violent minority of Muslims are allowed to flurish by self-loathing multiculturalists, the peaceful majority will be silenced.

No. It's when the peaceful majority of Muslims are demonised, hated, and persecuted by self-pitying conservatives that they become radicalized, and we'll all find ourselves in trouble.
 
I've seen women in burkhas on the streets of London

Well, your eyesight's obviously fine, though take it from someone who lives in the heart of "Londonistan" that it's not exactly a common sight round my way. No, it's the next step where you're going wrong: leaping from there to assuming that *they* are coming to enslave us, sacrifice our first-borns, urinate on our Bibles, and so on. It's a curious logic to assume that a small minority of a small-ish and utterly non-monolithic minority would ever have the power to do such a thing.
 
No, it's the next step where you're going wrong: leaping from there to assuming that *they* are coming to enslave us...

That won't happen as long as Muslim (or other) immigrants conform to their new homeland. I have friends with a wide variety of backgrounds and relgions, but they all share reasonably the same views on freedom of speech, religion, press and freedoms for women, gays, etc. This group includes some Muslims too. They don't want Wahhabism any more that I.

Heck, Algeria fought a civil war between the radicals and non-radicals. Buses were bombed because women wore bikinis at the beach. However, it's insanity to realize some immigrants are radicals, but are too scared of being called racist to kick them out.

If you look at the poll which 6% of (Muslim) respondants said that the 7/7 attacks were justified and correspond that over the entire population, and you have 100,000 Muslims ready for jihad. That's moderate sized army! All because radical imams were allowed to recruit and preach! It's suicide by multiculturalism.
 
n.i.b, do you have a link to that Pat Robinson quote?
 
JJ: There are transcripts of the show in question, try the first page of "pat robertson hindu" on google.
 
n.i.b,

When has Pat Robertson been considered reasonable? He's an idiot.

That is also from 1995. In 11 years since, no one else has complained at all about Hindu immigrants?!
 
"He's an idiot."

Yes, I agree, his assertion that a religion is a terrible threat to a country's society and wealth *is* pretty idiotic.

"That is also from 1995."

I know, taking potshots at the hindus is *so* last decade. Get with the program! Back in the 80s we hated the catholics and in the seventies it was the Russians and in the sixties it was them with the turbans on their heads - as my old Gran used to say "we'll all be coffee coloured soon!"

I wonder who'll be threatening our society in 2015? Buddists perhaps?
 
Hmmm tricky one this.

You know my office is like the United Nations, we have people from everywhere but most were born here. We had pretty much this debate yesterday and our conclusions were a consensus.

The problem is that Britain is too soft on Immigrants and allows them "too much freedom" to do as they will. In this country we have certain values and ways of life and as guests of our country they should respect and abide by these principles, if they which to live as they did in their country of origin then they must leave. There is friction at the moment because some of our newest immigrants are not only failing to integrate but they wish to force Britain to conform to their values; not only that some of them are in fact racist themselves. Have you ever listened to some of those Arab boys ranting about what "whores" English girls are because they drink and go out in short skirts? - its just racism. Its these attitudes that are our enemy, not Immigrants themselves.
 
"The Christopher" should probably learn some maths (that’s Math for the Americans amongst you). If the Muslim population rose by 50% that would still put the amount of Muslims in the UK at less than 5% of the population. If he meant to say that if Muslims became 50% of the population, then he is simply talking about a hypothetical situation that would take decades to occur - during which time world politics (and by extension Islamic politics) will change beyond recognition

Secondly he should cite some evidence about the alleged non conformity of the British Muslim community (just because they don't get drunk every weekend does not mean they aren't conforming).

Thirdly he should stop citing opinion polling which fails to substantiate his prejudices. This " 6% of (Muslim) respondents said that the 7/7 attacks were justified" can equally be used to support the view that Muslims in the UK overwhelmingly condemned the July bombings - 94% did not say they were justified. He should also probably take a course in social science about opinion polling, and how it is often the way questions are framed that determines an answer, particularly when said poll is commissioned by right wing newspaper after sensationalist story.

Fourthly he should probably realise that what he says about Muslims could equally be applied to Americans (how many Americans support operations that kill large numbers of civilians like Falluja, how many Christians in the US support abortion clinic bombings etc). I'd be prepared to bet you'd get a similar percentage, which would prove precisely nothing.

Finally he should realise that the term "Muslim" often encompasses a wide variety of beliefs and cultural practices. It even includes people who don't believe in god, but are judged to be "Muslim" because of the way they look or dress. Hence subjected to racism anyway, as racists tend not to ask politely if someone practices the religion or not
 
Nib, the fact that it was 1995 isn't the problem; read the last sentence. You have to go back 11 years to find someone who thinks Hindu immigrants are a threat.

Planeshift, I can do "maths" and I was talking hypothetically about if the Muslim population in Britian reached 50%. We are talking 50 years down the road and it would happen to France first.

6% of 1.6 million Muslims in Britian is still 100,000. I love how you invent statistics to try to refute my points. Even feverently anti-abortion people do not support clinic bombings.

As always, instead of rationally discussing the issue, cries of racism are thrown out in order to silence debate.
 
If you can do "maths" then you'll be able to see that if 6% of Muslims "supported" the July bombings (leaving aside my other point about opinion polling), then it logically follows that 94% did not support the bombings.

(Or 1.5 million Muslims did not support the bombings, whereas only 100 000 did say).

"Even feverently anti-abortion people do not support clinic bombings. "

I didn't say they did. I said that I’d be prepared to bet that an opinion poll, carefully worded, could probably produce 6% of anti-abortionist Christians supporting the bombings of abortion clinics. Conversely that would also mean 94% of anti-abortionists not supporting the bombings. Yet if I then used such a poll to try and prove the presence of Christians in the UK was a danger, and a “demographic threat”, I’d be laughed at and rightfully dismissed as a prejudiced fool. Particularly if I then finished by saying “wake up before your sister ends up wearing a nuns uniform”.
 
"We are talking 50 years down the road"

During which time international politics, economics, social attitudes etc can change vastly. Unless you assume that Muslims are incapable of changing attitudes etc, and that ideology will be passed down through generations, then you are talking about a situation so hypothetical, wild and unpredictable thats it is pointless basing any policy on it, and rather foolish even presenting such a hypothetical as even remotely concerning.
 
But 100,000 people is a small army. Again you assume that 6% of Christians in America support bombings. You can't use an assumption when trying to make a counter-argument. You are trying to say that violence in the name of religion is supported by the same percentage of Christians and Muslims.

A lot can happen in 50 years, that is true. However, current British fertility rates are not high enough to replenish the population. Muslim immigrants who have very high fertility rates continue to arrive. At current trends, Britian will eventually be majority Muslim. So then the British people have to decide whether this is something that they would like.

If not, something about the trend would have to change. So what would change? While it's a long way off, it is worth having an open discussion about it. It's foolish to stick your head in the sand and pretend that nothing is happening or just label everyone who does talk about it a racist.
 
"But 100,000 people is a small army. Again you assume that 6% of Christians in America support bombings. You can't use an assumption when trying to make a counter-argument. You are trying to say that violence in the name of religion is supported by the same percentage of Christians and Muslims."

Large assumption you made yourself. How many of the 100 000 actually finance or prepared to carry out criminal acts in their support. How many merely thought the London bombers were justified in carrying out an act they saw as retaliation for the Iraq war. How many just said to the pollsters they supported the bombings in order to shock or piss people off. Furthermore 100 000 people did not say they supported it. 6% of an opinion poll with a sample of a few hundred (about 20/30 people probably) did. Any decent statistician will tell you that with these numbers there is a big danger in making generalisations. Moreover any decent analyst would know support for a given act or issue fluctuates over time, and the timing of an opinion poll is crucial. This makes citing one opinion poll in support of an argument for a rising trend rather pointless. You have to look at things over time.

Violence in the name of religion is always supported by a small minority of that religion, the main issue is to what extent the level of support rises and falls – as this clearly determines how much of a problem it is. Those who really are concerned at the alleged 100 000 strong army of Jihadists are better off asking how they can reduce this level without increasing its support. Here is a hint; continually referring to 1.6 million people as a “demographic threat” probably doesn’t help.


“A lot can happen in 50 years, that is true. However, current British fertility rates are not high enough to replenish the population. Muslim immigrants who have very high fertility rates continue to arrive. At current trends, Britian will eventually be majority Muslim. So then the British people have to decide whether this is something that they would like.”

Differential fertility rates are not a function of biological differences, there are many factors involved. One long term trend however is that as sectors of society get richer they tend to have a lower birth rate, so if you really are concerned with Muslims having lots of sprogs one solution would be to improve its income…

Furthermore you assume (amongst many assumptions) that every Muslim entering the country/being born into a Muslim family sticks with the same beliefs and ideology all their lives. Indecently what precisely is wrong with somebody continuing to practice a religion provided they don’t force it violently upon others?

“If not, something about the trend would have to change. So what would change? While it's a long way off, it is worth having an open discussion about it. It's foolish to stick your head in the sand and pretend that nothing is happening or just label everyone who does talk about it a racist.”

I’d say it was foolish for anyone genuinely concerned about support for extremism to adopt a discourse that sees the vast majority of peaceful law abiding Muslims as a “demographic threat”. The biggest weapon we have against Islamic fundamentalism is intelligence and the attitudes of the Muslim world. If Muslims feel alienated, like they don’t belong, that their contributions are not valued etc then they are not likely to become informants on extremist activity, debate the extremists in the community, persuade young people that Britain is a place where they can have a prosperous career feeling valued etc….

I’d also say it was foolish not to expose and fight prejudice when it occurs, which in the case of someone who thinks an opinion polling showing 6% support for the London bombings is enough to condemn an entire community as a threat, is clearly an open and shut case.
 
Differential fertility rates are not a function of biological differences

I never said they were. While it may appear that richer countries have lower birth rates, I believe it is how important relgion is in society. Russia is generally poor and has very low birth rates, whilst the US remains at a substainable level. Despite the big population difference, more Muslims go to mosque that British go to Church.

You also want to twist my words to condemn an entire population. Reread my second post. No...actually go reread it. The government has to "get tough" with the extremists, in actions, not just in rhetoric. How many extremists have been actually expelled from Britian? Deeds not words, folks.
 
"more Muslims go to mosque that British go to Church"

And there you have your big problem, numpty. If you are saying anything interesting at all there - as I presume you don't mean that more Muslims of all nationalities, everywhere, go to mosque than British people go to church, as such a statement would be both patently true and argumentatively worthless - you are contrasting Muslims in Britain with the 'British', who you presume are Christians, as if these were two distinct, different groups.

This is nonsense springing from a racist mind. The Muslims you are writing of are overwhelmingly British. Some of the people attending church in Britain might not be British. I am British, and as an atheist, have no reason to attend church.

Expel extremists? Well, if they are British, where to? And if you are to do this, why only use it against Muslim extremism? Why not deport Richard Littlejohn and Gary Bushell (white, right-wing, racist, homophobic newspaper columnists), Frank Ellis (a believer in white male superiority) and Nick Griffin (leader of the far-right BNP)? Because they are British? Well, so are the extremists in the 'demographic threat' that you are so frightened of you seem to have invented a future where Muslims have managed to transcend current biological knowledge and have reproduced at such astonishing rates that there is a Muslim majority in Britain in fifty years.

That is patent bullshit. And if I call you a racist, it is not to shut down debate. Don't like the label? Don't speak the language of 'demographic threat'. Happy with that rhetoric? Accept that, as you locate the 'problem' within the 'breeding' of a generationally continuous community that racist is exactly what you are.
 
Just to throw in my .02: There are countries who's native population are experiencing birth rates of little over 1. If that trend were to continue, the native populations would halve with each generation.

I don't know the differences btwn Britain's and the continent social program, but my general awareness is that Continental countries' programs are more lavish. Again, not really sure.

But if a country were to have a social-democratic government where many services were provided for by the state, and the native population was shrinking, they are going to have to support the social programs from somewhere. My guess is that these countries are going to have to make up the difference with immigration.

Over time, without change to these trends, the national makeup of that country is going to change. For good or ill, it will change.
 
"If that trend were to continue, the native populations would halve with each generation."

Eh? Is everyone suddenly going to start dying during childbirth or something? Including the fathers?
 
No, Anon. If two parents have 1 child, only one parent is replaced. That's why the '2.1 kids' is the figure used for population maintenance. 2 is to replace each parent and the .1 is for children who die before reaching the age of majority.

Now the population rate is, of course, the average of children had by people. So if a country has a population rate of 1.4, that means that many, many people aren't having children.
 
No, John, I think Anon was commenting on your use of "a generation". Assuming life expectancy is 60 years+, it will take a lot more than "a generation" (which is about 20 years) for a population to half in size if the birth rate is 1.

Otherwise, the absurdity of The Christopher's comments are astounding. 100000 strong Muslim army in the UK? Please...
 
Thanks Doormat, that's exactly what I meant.

Still, since United States has a higher Total Fertility Rate than us, I think we should be viewing any Americans in Britain with great suspicion. Let's face it. they have a history of seditious behaviour - and they're proud of it!
 
Anon, you are quite right on the Americans' history of sedition ;), but in many respects I think we learned it from you guys (if you go a bit further back).

Doormat, you are correct in pointing out that a population will not halve in only 20 yrs. However, if the birthrate is 1, it will halve at some point.

WRT TC's comments about a 100,000 strong muslim Army, I saw some statistics that in an insurgency or guerrilla type campaign that about 10% of a population will actively sympathize with the guerrillas and 1% actually participate. If those stats were accurate, that means only 10,000 would likely be extremist terror bombers.

BUT, and this is a big but, I do not think those stats are accurate based on the level of attacks in the United States since 9/11. If one percent of Muslims were gung ho to join Al Qaeda, that means there would be at least 2,000 potential terrorists in the New York / New Jersey metro area.

But, knock on wood and thank God, with the exception of a handful of random nut jobs who haven't accomplished much of anything, we haven't seen any terrorist attacks in the states since 9/11.

My guess is that Muslims who put time, effort, and money, into immigrating to the west have less in common with extremists back home.
 
Yes, i see your point. If the various anti-muslim commentators are opposed to islamism as an _ideology_ rather than _to ethic groups that tend to be muslim_ they wouldn't talk of a 'demographic threat'.

After all, no one talks of a demographic threat from communists, fascists, liberals or any other _ideological group_.

At least israeli commentators are honest about this - as they tend to talk about "Arabs" rather than 'muslims'. It is high time that some of the extremely-right-wing muslim-haters elsewhere in the blogosphere started to be as honest.
 
My comments are mostly directed to the pure-blooded individual terrified of a 100,000 strong Muslim army and that great weapon of mass destruction the Muslims in Britain have – the womb!

If 50% of British population was Muslim (Gasp! How to survive!) there won’t be any great reconsideration of Muslim immigration. Because then at least 50% of British population wouldn’t have irrational fears of Muslims. Because you see, unfortunately, even the citizens of impure blood have equal say in immigration issues (Crazy! I know!). Perhaps even most of of the non-Muslim half won’t be racist ****tards having panic attacks about having to live near Muslims.

So, to offset this upsetting scenario of the existence of Muslims and sand-n******-loving race traitors, I mean “self-hating multiculturalists”, I propose you chain all women of pure blood to the stove and force them to pop out an Aryan child every 10 months or so. Let’s keep the breeding strictly within the family. Less chance of this “mixing/polluting” business and being exposed to those dangerous “multiculturalist” ideologies.

Let’s start this program as soon as possible. Because you and I both know, every time someone’s grandmother says “we’re going to turn coffee-coloured soon!” to her race traitor grandson, some evel bearded mozzie is freaking his burka’d wife to produce a terrorist…
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Archives

August 2004   September 2004   October 2004   November 2004   December 2004   January 2005   February 2005   March 2005   April 2005   May 2005   June 2005   July 2005   August 2005   September 2005   October 2005   November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   March 2007  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

«#?» Listed on Blogwise