Tuesday, May 26, 2009
If you forward me an email you should know that there’s a very good chance I’m going to delete it without ever opening it. The bits and bytes of your missive are going straight to the bottom of my virtual trash bin without ever seeing the light of my hi-res screen.
You know the type of email I’m talking about:
It’s the extreme political rant.
It’s the random urban legend.
It’s the request to send money to some desperate Nigerian despot.
I delete them because I know the information contained within is misleading at best or outright nonsense at worst. Either way, I don’t have time for it.
Every so often I receive the same email forwarded to me from a number of people.
I’ll delete it once.
I’ll delete it twice.
By the third time, impressed by its sheer determination to take up residence in my Inbox, I agree to pay heed. The email finally claims its prize: my precious time.
True grit may win the opportunity, but that’s about it. Rarely does the email hold my attention for more than a few seconds before I dispatch it to the digital dung heap. And again I’m forced to tweak the rigorous methodology by which I parse the trinkets from the trash.
Then, it happens.
I receive the email that hangs on to me all the way through. It grabs onto my collar and shakes me awake, compelling me to comment on the spurious claims it purports as genuine.
The inspiration behind this BLOG entry is such an email.
During the past several months, I’ve received emails with a link to a YOUTUBE video called “Muslim Demographics”. It’s a slick production seven and a half minutes long and tells the dramatic story of Muslim immigration to the West. It’s unmistakably foreboding tone closes with a no-nonsense warning: “It’s time to wake up.”
If you haven’t figured out that the video is a dire warning to the West that the “Islamics” are invading, then let me say it clearly here:
The video is a dire warning to the west that the Islamics are invading.
The video is pushing 4 million views as of this writing. Maybe you’ve seen it, maybe you haven’t. For your convenience, I’ve included a link to it here:
Muslim Demographics Video
I watched it.
I watched it again.
And then I watched it a third time.
At first pass, the video is pretty interesting. Some might say compelling. Cool music, even. It got me thinking. So I watched it again. I caught a few things I didn’t notice the first time through.
By the third pass, I realized that over 22 minutes was gone from my life, never to be seen again unless I extended it on the back end by eating nothing but granola bars and flax seed smoothies for the next month and half.
And I was pissed.
Not for the impending diet of granola and smoothies – I kind of like those things. I was angry because I felt duped. I had a sneaking suspicion those 22 minutes weren’t just wasted - they were stolen from me. So I went out and checked the facts.
It turns out I was right.
I’m not here to write a dissertation debunking the claims of the coming “Eurabian” continent. While there is clearly an underlying tone of doubt on such matters, no one should draw any conclusions – I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything.
I’m strictly here to thumb my nose to the video’s producers.
Because nothing burns me up more than being presented with information so thoroughly false, so completely stripped from its context, that it can be considered an outright lie. A lie presented for the sole purpose of manipulating the way I think, what I believe, or how I behave.
The video has an agenda. And it pushes that agenda by presenting specious information.
To say its disingenuous would be a vast understatement.
To say it’s revolting would be slightly off the mark.
To say that it’s overwhelmingly offensive would be most accurate.
Much of the video’s message is delivered by inference. Its dramatic tone and creative juxtaposition of “facts” lead you to assume certain (incorrect) conclusions. (More on this later.)
What is most disappointing is that there are those who will watch this video, digest the information and move on. They will nary give it a second thought. They will accept the “facts” without question. And they will move on with the rest of their lives.
In a way, no one can really be blamed. When deluged with so much information, how do you sort through it all? How do you separate the facts from the crap? Who has time to debunk every YOUTUBE video that makes to the Inbox? Every news report you read? Every magazine article?
The sad, sad truth though, is that those who accept information at face value without doing a modicum of fact-checking will move forward with the rest of their lives making decisions, drawing conclusions and, most dangerously, going into the voting booth with a load of crap crammed in their craniums.
Case in point: during my research, I read many on-line articles. Some of them are well-written opinion pieces. These articles actually referenced the information in the video to bolster whatever case they were making.
The whole thing is really sad.
Coming back full circle, it’s why I delete so many emails without ever even reading them. It’s enough just to sort through the crap I get by watching the evening news.
And I don’t have time for it.
So on with it.
The text from the video is fully transcribed below – word for word. Following the transcription is my response – a personal checking of the facts – all readily available on the Internet via a few, quick Google searches.
I ignored Snopes.com and other myth-busting websites. No, sir.
Those sites are for wimps and lazy-folk.
I used real government data wherever and whenever I could. I used news articles. I used websites that referenced their own factual sources. Interestingly, I found many others who have done the same with respect to debunking the video. (Apparently, I’m not the only one feeling duped.)
Some of what I’ve written is strictly my opinion (and mine alone.) Take it for whatever you feel it’s worth. But know that I reached my conclusions from the rational linking of data and facts and a whole lot of reading.
So here we go...
Imagine the below text narrated by a professional-sounding, middle-aged man. The tone is of muted disgust and sounds terrifyingly dire.
The world is changing….
The global culture our children inherit will be vastly different than what it is today…
You are about to witness a report on the world’s changing demographics...
According to research, in order for a culture to maintain itself for more than 25 years, there must be a fertility rate of 2.11 children per family. With anything less, the culture will decline.
Everything I’ve read reveals, in fact, that 2.11 children per family is the minimum replacement-level fertility rate among nations: One child each to replace the parents and .11 more to cover the children who die – tragically – prior to reaching the age of reproduction.
Let’s take a closer look at the statement, specifically the assertion that “With anything less, the culture will decline.”
OPINION: This is an interesting phrase and use of the word “culture”. The anthropological definition of “culture” refers to “the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.” In other words, the traditions, food choices, entertainment options, etc. we pass on to our children and so on.
The right word would be “population”, not “culture”. Populations decline, not cultures. Cultures evolve. Continually. Always and forever. It is unstoppable.
By stating that “the culture will decline” the video is setting us up. We’re meant to fear a drop in fertility rate or life as we know it will be something less than what it is now. Of course, the culture won’t be less, it will just be different.
Before you accuse me of playing a game of semantics, let me point out that throughout the video, the producers prey on your emotions by using certain words and phrases to set you up with fear. When someone is afraid, reason gets pushed aside and instinct and survival tactics take over. Rational, analytical thought takes a back seat. The video seeks to push your critical decision-making processes out of the way to make sure its message gets through.
This is manipulation.
You are being set up.
The fact that the video hasn’t yet lied to you is immaterial.
Historically, no culture has ever reversed a 1.9 fertility rate. A rate of 1.3; impossible to reverse. Because it would take 80 to 100 years to correct itself. And there is no economic model that can sustain a culture during that time.
To keep things in perspective, a fertility rate of 1.9 means that in 100 years the population of a given society would have decreased by a mere 15%. A drop for sure, but nothing precipitous. And it took five generations to get there.
But it is here where we encounter our first lie: France reversed a sub-1.9 fertility rate just a few years ago. Sweden had a 1.5 fertility rate in the 1970s. By 1990, it was up to 2.1. Six years later it reverted back to 1.5. These swings occurred for no discernable reason.
In fact, most advanced societies on earth achieved their lowest fertility rates (around 1.5) circa 1980, then recovered partially. (Source: Family Formation and Family Dilemmas in Contemporary Europe, Gosta-Esping Andersen, Pompeu Fabra University.)
The point is, swings in fertility typically and naturally occur in a society. There was no governmental or scientific intervention that caused the increase or decrease. No wars, no disease, no famine. It just happened. It goes without saying that declining fertility rates and population decline are not inevitable. There are myriad complex and interrelated variables that cause the swings.
In other words, if two sets of parents each have one child, there are half as many children as parents. If those children have one child, then there are ¼ as many grandchildren as grandparents.
For those of you who are lost, they’re taking the time to dumb it down for you.
If only a million babies are born in 2006, it’s hard to have 2 million adults enter the workforce in 2026. As the population shrinks, so does the culture.
I’m not sure the point of this unless it’s meant to be an extreme example to make sure you understand. By the way, if we needed 2 million adults to enter the workforce in 2026 and only 1 million show up, that means we sustained a fertility rate of only 1.0 – which does not currently exist in any society on the planet.
While the video does not go into it further, I have surmised that the producers are using the “workforce” example for reasons that will make themselves evident in the coming paragraphs.
The point is followed by the frightening reminder that “As the population shrinks, so does the culture.” Remember: Fear is their friend.
As of 2007, the fertility rate in France was 1.6.
Across the entire European union of 31 countries, the fertility is a mere 1.38. Historical research tells us these numbers are impossible to reverse. In a matter of years, Europe as we know it will cease to exist.
On-line research reveals the true fertility rates of these countries as of 2008:
CIA World Fact Book Fertility Rates
England (UK) 1.66
European Union (31 Countries) 1.50
Surprisingly (or perhaps unsurprisingly), France seems to be holding their own among the European heavyweights when it comes to procreation. (Got to love the French for something.)
Wikipedia maintains the fertility rates for all countries and territories in the world. The list was gleaned from the CIA World Fact Book. Click here to review them all:
Fertility Rates by Country & Territories
I know what you're thinking: Big deal, these rates aren't much higher than those in the video.
Fair enough. But their numbers are still wrong. And their "wrongness" gets worse.
Stick with me.
I do not want to understate the seriousness by which demographers and social scientists consider declining fertility rates a problem. A fertility rate of 1.3 means a population would be cut in ½ in only 45 years. In 100 years, it’s down by three quarters (75%).
Some may say this is a good thing. Less of a human imprint on the planet means less pollution, less consumption of natural resources, etc.
In reality, this is bad.
When one considers the aging population, specifically the increase in the human lifespan, it doesn’t take a mathematician to figure out that’s an awful lot of folks living on a social pension plan and a lot fewer folks paying into it.
And that’s just one problem – there are many, many others.
It’s so important, in fact, that many developed nations have devoted resources to tackle the issue. The RAND CORPORATION has studied the phenomenon. Their on-line report is mind-numbing so I’m not going to bore you with it. Bullet points as follows:
The study found that:
-- Immigration is not a feasible way of reversing population ageing or its consequences.
-- National policies can slow fertility declines under the right circumstances.
-- However, no single policy intervention necessarily works.
-- And, what works in one country may not work in another. Social, economic, and political contexts influence the effect of policies.
-- Policies designed to improve broader social and economic conditions may affect fertility, indirectly.
-- Population policies take a long time to pay dividends — increases in fertility taking a generation to translate into an increased number of workers — making such policies politically unattractive.
So no one, it seems, has the answer. But I’ve already referenced two examples of how fertility rates are not, as the video states, impossible to reverse. They happen spontaneously.
The reasons that Europeans are having fewer children than before vary depending on the specific location of the population being studied. Some of the theorized reasons for declining fertility rates include:
- Increased cost of living which decreases ability to afford large families.
- Increased use of birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
- Social problems that caused people to delay childbearing in some areas.
- Trends towards having children later in life which decreases the overall number of children a person will have.
- Changing role of women which allows for greater options for different roles and decreases interest by some women in having many children.
One of the more interesting finds in a New York Times article is that those countries with the lowest birth rates are also those where traditional family life and institutions are most valued (Ireland, Spain, Italy.) Additionally, it found that working women tended to have more children than stay-at-home moms - an interesting and unexpected discovery in the statistics.
There are so many articles, studies, reports and opinions on the Internet regarding fertility rates, that it’s impossible to go through them all unless I was interested in writing a book on the topic, which I am not. Suffice it to say, while everyone acknowledges there is a problem, many reports offer conflicting data and no one seems to know exactly how to correct it.
It is a fact that worldwide fertility rates have been dropping over the last 50 years.
According to the 2006 United Nations World Population Prospects, the number of births per woman (on a worldwide average) has dropped by about half in the last 50 years:
From 5.0 in 1955.
To 2.7 in 2005.
When you average out the industrialized world, the already low fertility rate of
2.8 in 1955 has decreased to
1.6 in 2005.
In the less developed countries, fertility has dropped by more than half:
From 6.2 in 1955
to 2.9 in 2005.
Here’s the vignette for those who are skimming along: Highly developed nations with complex and diversified economies have low fertility rates. Poor countries with developing economies have high fertility rates.
But both have dropped by 50% in the last half century - including those in the Muslim-majority countries.
Yet the population of Europe is not declining.
Up until this point, the video has done a good job of setting you up with statistics and research that leads you to believe the societies in Europe are lurching towards an inevitable, one-way trip to extinction.
Now that you’ve been weakened, the video stabs you in the heart, playing on your fears of Islamic fundamentalists and their hell-bent desires on world-domination. You can just picture them pouring into Europe by the millions, torches and maces in hand.
It is here where the middle-eastern music begins and the tone gets darker.
Of all population growth [in Europe] since 1990, 90% has been Islamic immigration.
85% to 90% of Europe’s population growth has been due to immigration in general. From all parts of the world, not just from Muslims living in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.
As described previously, Europe’s low birthrates means the new labor force needs to come from somewhere. Opportunities abound and the immigrants have heard the call. After all, someone needs to support the aging population.
Let’s take a closer look at the 90% number.
I looked into the immigration statistics for the big three European nations: France, UK and Germany.
Starting with the French, I found a very nice chart on the Internet that provides their detailed immigration statistics from 1994 to 2002. (I cannot figure out how to paste the chart into this Blog.)
I believe it be a safe assumption that any “Islamic” immigration is coming primarily from the poor, undeveloped nations of Asia and Africa and NOT from the Americas and other European nations. If you agree, then less than 50% of France's immigrants come from this part of the world. Most came from other European nations and the Americas.
Much of what I read, in fact, details that many of the Muslims immigrating into France come from former the former French colonies of northern and western Africa where the French culture and language persists to this day (Morocco, Tunisia, Mali, etc.) This is why the French get more than their share of Muslim immigrants.
In Morocco, for example, French is the preferred language for business and commerce. It is widely used in government and education. It is taught universally in schools and is the “unofficial” second language of the nation. In fact, 115 million total Africans speak French spread out over 31 African countries (all former French colonies.) It only stands to reason that if Muslims were going to emigrate anywhere, it would be to France.
Moving on to the United Kingdom…
Their 124 page governmental immigration report for 2007 is posted on the Internet. A quick snapshot of a pie chart therein shows that only 19% of immigrants for that year came from the Middle East and Asia (not including India.)
Last one I’ll bore you with: Germany, 2006:
The website database lists the total number of immigrants, by county, by year, since the 1990s. In 2006, 558,467 foreign-born immigrants came to Germany. I don’t have the time to go through every Muslim country in the world and add up the numbers so instead I’m going to give a wildly liberal estimate. I’m going to assume that every person who entered from the all countries in Africa and Asia are Muslim.
So, in 2006, 21,885 immigrants came from Africa and 102,445 came from Asia. That’s 124,330 total. Divide that by the total number of immigrants of 558,467 and that equals 22%. A quick glance at all other years going back to 1994 yielded very similar numbers, so I’m not doing the math for every year. Suffice it to say, at the top end, year over year, approximately 20% of German immigration is Muslim.
By the way, the overwhelming majority of Asian countries contributing to Germany’s growth came from Turkey. Turkey! A Muslim country, yes. But also a moderate democratic republic, member of NATO and flirting with entrance into the EU. (Just for fun, I’ll tell you their fertility rate in 2008 was a sky-high…..1.87. The point no return, according to the video.)
The final word – the 90% number is bogus. Plus, I’ve added context for you so that you better understand the statistics.
As I said, I am not writing a book and I have no desire to do the math all day long. For those who are interested, there is a great website called http://www.migrationinformation.org/. It contains extremely detailed immigration statistics for 17 countries from 1994 to 2006, many of them in Europe including Austria, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Demark, Greece and more.
France: 1.8 children per family.
Now they’re turning up the burners!
Not that anyone would notice, but just a minute ago in video-time, France’s birthrate was 1.6. Now it’s 1.8! (So much for quality control.)
A quick refresher: France’s actual birthrate is 1.98. Remember that with a birthrate of 1.9, it would take 100 years for a population to decrease by a whopping 15%. At a 1.98 birthrate, France’s population of 65 million would have dwindled to….57 million by the year 2110 (not accounting for immigration.)
I’m going to point out something very interesting here. It took me three views to pick this up. The video doesn’t actually state that the French-Muslims’ fertility rate is 8.1.
It just says….“8.1”.
The juxtaposition of this statistic next to the one prior leads you to believe that this is the rate for Muslims living in France. They are positioning the “data” to lead you to believe the French-Muslims are out-procreating the white, Christian, cafe-loving French population by a factor of 4 to 1.
OPINION: The 8.1 claim is false. Here’s why:
Although French Muslims of African or Turkish origin are typically younger than the rest of the French population, fertility rates among immigrant women tend to conform with the French norm after their arrival. The gap in fertility rates between immigrant women and French women is a mere 0.46.
So Muslim women living in France really have a fertility rate of only 2.44.
There is so much data on this on the Internet, it’s overwhelming. Suffice it to say, the most important information to bring to light here is as follows: Immigrants absorb the culture of the host country – not the other way around. Birthrates for immigrants – all immigrants – from all nations in the world – invariably drop and match those of the indigenous residents.
When in Rome, immigrants do as the Romans do.
Let’s look further into it, still.
In researching the fertility rates of all countries – not just Muslim - we find that NOT A SINGLE country in the world has a fertility rate 8.1. The highest is Mali, in Africa, with a fertility rate of 7.34.
Furthermore, the top 20 countries with high fertility rates are mostly in Africa and are among the poorest nations in the world. OPINION: Their high birth rates are related to the undeveloped, poor economy and lack of education. Higher birthrates bring more hands to help support the family. It also means the likelihood that a given family’s progeny will pass their genes into the future, as many of their children die of disease and starvation.
Adults in these countries don’t have an abundance of children for religious reasons or because they are trying to out-number their enemies - they’re doing it because they know most of them will die. (Not something a Muslim immigrant in France needs two worry about.)
Speaking of which, I ran a search of death-rates for these countries, as well. There is a high degree of correlation between countries with the highest fertility rates and highest death rates. Go figure. (All of this can be found on Wikipedia, which obtains their data from the CIA World Fact Book and the United Nations.)
All of this statistical data is present-day. Far more important is how the data is trending.
A handy chart on the Internet (which, again, I cannot figure out how to post) shows how the birthrates are trending for the 46 Muslim-Majority Countries of the world.
Let me break it down for you with two quick examples:
Between 1960 and 1965 all 46 of the Muslim-majority countries had fertility rates greater than 2. By 2008, only 25 had fertility rates greater than 2.
A drop of nearly 50%.
Sources: United Nations Population Division and Carl Haub, 2008 World Population Data Sheet (Washington, DC: PRB, 2008).
Fertility rates in the Muslim-majority countries have been dropping since 1955 – along with the rest of the world. And under-developed nations have been dropping at a greater rate than developed nations.
The producers of the video might be happy to hear that Iran's current birthrate stands at a culture-crashing 1.71.
In southern France, traditionally one of the most populated church regions in the world, there are now more mosques than churches.
There are more mosques being built in southern France than churches being built in southern France. Quite a different statistic. Why are more Mosques being built? Because France has been a Catholic country for centuries - the churches are already there!
So let’s look at some numbers:
There are a total of 1,535 mosques in France (with 30 more being built) versus 40,000 Catholic churches. There are 25 times more churches in France than mosques supporting a Catholic population 15 times larger than the Muslim population. Additionally, there are 1,700 Protestant churches serving roughly 500,000 non-Catholic Christians.
30% of children age 20 and younger are Islamic. In the larger cities, such as Nice, Marsellies and Paris, that number has grown to 45%.
It is impossible to know the true number children under the age of 20 who are Islamic, given that France does not record this demographic data. According to French law, it is illegal to ask about a person’s ethnicity or religion. (In fact, this is true of many European nations.) So the French government does not ask this question during their census. There is no governmental data that can verify birth statistics by religion. Any information gleaned is done strictly through third-party polling.
This polling has revealed a total Muslim population in France of 3%.
Likewise, it is impossible to know that data specifically for the cities.
What we do know is that the number of people living in France under the age of 20 is roughly 15 million, or 25% of the population. That number, however, is steadily shrinking. In less than 50 years, the number is expected to be only 20% of the population.
OPINION: These are fabricated statistics.
By 2027, one in five Frenchmen will be Muslim. In just 39 years, France will be an Islamic Republic.
Currently, the CIA World Fact Book estimates the Muslim population of France is 5% to 10% of the population. As just stated, countrywide polls show the total to be roughly 3%. (Curiously, this matches the percentages of the other European nations, though I suspect many people are lying and the number is, in fact, between 5% and 10%.)
So in 19 years, the Muslim population in France is expected to increase to 20%? Given the data provided in the previous sections, this is not likely.
Let’s take a look at some curious statistics I found on the Internet. Mind you, the percentages are estimates since there is no official source for the data. Plus, these numbers conflict with the polls.
1900 to 1970 – Muslim population in France grew from 0% to 2.7% of the population.
1970 to 1990 – the Muslim population grew to 6.8% of the population.
1990 to 2000 – the Muslim population grew to 7.0% of the population.
2001 to 2009 – the Muslim population grew to 7.1% of the population.
Does anyone notice a rapidly slowing trend?
At these rates established in the last half of the nineties it would take about two and a half centuries for the Muslim portion of the French population to double and about SEVEN CENTURIES for the French Muslims to become a majority.
In fact, the trends are similar for a number of European nations:
In Germany the Muslim portion of the population increased six fold from .6 percent to 3.6 percent between 1970 and 1990, but it only increased to 4.4 percent by 2000.
In Italy the Muslim portion of the population increased eleven fold from .1 percent to 1.1 percent between 1970 and 1990. It only grew a tenth of a percent to 1.2 percent by the year 2000.
In Britain the Muslim population went from 1.1 percent to 1.8 percent in the twenty years between 1970 and 1990. In the next ten years it rose from 1.8 to 2.0 percent.
In Spain the Muslim population went from zero to .4 percent between 1970 and 1990, but only increased to .5 percent in the decade of the 90's.
The Netherlands had a more than seven-fold increase in the Muslim portion of its population in the 70's and 80's, from .5 percent to 3.6 percent, but only a relatively slight increase to 3.8 in the 90s.
It's all about context. At such small percentages, it's very easy to "double" or "triple" your population. But these increases cannot be sustained and invariably level off.
OPINION: By 2050 France will be an Islamic Republic? This is beyond preposterous by any rational measure and the numbers and data do not support this ridiculous assertion.
In the last 30 years, the Muslim population of Great Britain rose from 82,000 to 2.5 million. A 30-fold increase. There are over 1,000 mosques, many of them former churches.
First, a point of clarification: I’m going to assume the producers mean “United Kingdom” and not “Great Britain”, which are two very different things. (I’m not giving you a geography lesson, so you’ll have to look into this yourself.)
In the 1981 census, the population of the United Kingdom was 56.4 million people. Muslims made up .14% of the population – statistically insignificant.
The number of Muslims in the UK is largely unknown, with estimates ranging from 1.6 million to 2.5 million. Without surprise, the video went right for the high estimate. By all accounts, though, the total Muslim population of the UK is a paltry 3%.
By the way, there are nearly 1,700 mosques in the United Kingdom – way more than the 1,000 the video states. That’s one mosque for every 1,470 Muslims. In comparison, there are 47,000 churches supporting a total population of 43 million Christians – one church for every 914 adherents.
50 years ago there were 55,000 churches – 8,000 more than there are today. Many were sold off to other religions, including to the Muslims, so it’s true that many of the mosques were former churches.
In the Netherlands, 50% of all newborns are Muslim. And in only 15 years, ½ of the population will be Muslim.
The population of the Netherlands is 16.6 million. There are roughly 1 million Muslims in the Netherlands – 6% of the population. So 6% of the population is responsible for 50% of all newborns?
The fertility rate in the Netherlands is 1.66. Mathematically speaking, in order for Muslims to be responsible for 50% of all births, Muslim women who are of the age of conception would need to have 26 children each.
Furthermore, immigration statistics available for the Netherlands from 1995 to 2002 shows a TOTAL immigration rate of 75,000 to 110,000 per year, half of them from Asia and Africa and half of that from Muslim-majority countries. This means that Muslim immigration is contributing 1 tenth of 1 percent to the total population.
In 15 years, half of the population will NOT be Muslim. The numbers don't get us there.
In Russia there are over 23 million Muslims, that’s one out of five Russians. 40% of the entire Russian army will be Islamic. In just a few, short years.
More math! There are 23 million Muslims in Russia (this is true!). There are 140,702,096 total Russians. Hmm…that’s only 16%.
I guess they rounded up.
(By the way, Roman Silantyev, a Russian Islamologist has estimated that there are only between 7 and 9 million people who practice Islam in Russia, and that the rest are only Muslims by ethnicity.)
Gotta love Wikipedia.
As for the comment about the Russian army, this is clear scare-mongering. The West endured a 45 year cold war with the Soviet Union – we grew up frightened of them. The Russians (the largest of the former Soviet states) have nukes. 40% of the army will be Muslim! That’s a lot of Muslims in control of the nukes! Clearly these are the mental connections we’re supposed to make.
Currently in Belgium, 25% of the population and 50% of all newborns are Muslim. The government of Belgium has stated that 1/3 of all European children will be born to Muslim families by 2025. Just 17 years away.
In Belgium, just 6% of the population is Muslim, not 25%. I did the math above for the Netherlands and I’m not doing it again.
More on the “government of Belgium” assertion in the next section.
The German government, the first to talk about this publically, recently released a statement saying, “The fall in the German population can no longer be stopped. The downward spiral is no longer reversible. It will be a Muslim state by the year 2050. – Germany Federal Statistics Office
The quote above is erroneously credited to the “German Government”. Actually, it is a bizarre twisting, bastardization and combination of a much larger news article.
This gets complicated, so stick with me here.
The quote in the video was pulled from an article written by Gudrun Schultz for http://www.lifesitenews.com/. (A Canadian Pro Life organization.) The article was published on November 9, 2006.
The LifeSiteNews article quotes a gentleman by the name of Walter Rademacher, the vice-president of the German statistics office, who said exactly this: “The fall in the population can no longer be stopped.” Yep. That’s it.
The interview from which the quote came was not granted to Schultz. Rather, Schultz lifted it from another news article circulated by Agence France-Presse (the largest news agency in France.)
The LifeSiteNews article goes on to quote Rademacher a number of times, in fact. Each of Rademacher’s quotes comes from a variety of sources, including a radio interview he granted to DW-Radio, a German news station.
The LifeSiteNews article quotes Redemacher as saying:
“The projections tell us the development of demographic trends will be even more dramatic in the eastern part of Germany,” Radermacher said . “This is because of the fertility rates in the eastern part of Germany, because of internal migration with the borders of Germany and many other demographic factors.”
While immigrants are increasingly relied upon to compensate for low birth rates in European countries, Radermacher said even factoring in a projected annual influx of 100,000-200,000 migrants won’t prevent the population plunge.
“Even those people who are immigrants adopt after a couple years the lifestyle and the number of children per family. So the assumption that immigrants will stick to their habits is simply not true.”
So Rademacher himself is completely downplaying the influence of immigrants as a contributor to Germany’s population growth in the future!
Let’s move on to the second half of the quote:
The downward spiral is no longer reversible. It will be a Muslim state by the year 2050.
Read the following excerpt, found later on in the same LifeSiteNews article:
Germany has one of the largest populations of Muslim immigrants in Western Europe, with a Muslim community of over 3 million. That trend is expected to continue, leading some demographic trend-watchers to warn that the country is well on the way to becoming a Muslim state by 2050, Deutsche Welle reported.
The second half of the quote attributed to “The German Government” was actually uttered by “some demographic trend-watchers.” (Whoever the FUCK they are.) They also said, “well on the way to becoming a Muslim state by 2050”, not “It will be a Muslim state by the year 2050. (As if I even needed to point that out.)
Here’s another excerpt from the same LifeSiteNews article:
The [Right Wing] Brussels Journal reported last month that one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families by 2025. There are an estimated 50 million Muslims living in Europe today–that number is expected to double over the next twenty years.
Do you notice anything here? Let me refresh your memory. Here is what the video said right before the incorrect quote from the “German Government”:
The government of Belgium has stated that 1/3 of all European children will be born to Muslim families by 2025. Just 17 years away.
Aha! So it wasn’t the Belgium government that reported this, after all. It was The Brussels Journal that reported it. (And I use the term “reported” loosely.)
Is your head spinning? Mine, too. The quote is utter nonsense is the point of all of this. My question is, why bother splicing this together? It seems like an awful lot of work – why not just make one up and be done with it?
Muhamar Al-Quadaffi of Libya said, “There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists, we don’t need homicide bombers. The 50+ million Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”
The quote, it appears, did come from Quadaffi. When and where and to whom I have no idea. Is this the first time you ever heard a Middle Eastern dictator foam at the mouth when considering the demise of the West?
He also said: "We are capable of destroying America and breaking its nose."
Do you still believe him?
There are currently 52 million Muslims in Europe. The German government said that number is expected to double in the next 20 years to 104 million.
According to the German Central Institute Islam Archive, there are approximately 53 million Muslims living in Europe today.
53 million is a lot of people, for sure. Let’s add some context to this number by engaging in a refresher course in geography.
Europe consists of a whopping 50 sovereign states, 7 non-sovereign regions and territories (the Isle of Jersey and Gibraltar, for example) and 4 partially-recognized republics, territories and regions (Kosovo, for example.) NOTE: It’s important to note here that Europe is a strange continent. Some websites list Europe as only consisting of 45 countries. I’m going to guess it’s because some countries are considered “Eurasian” nations (Russia and Turkey would be two examples.)
The point is, a number of these nations considered part of Europe are Muslim-majority countries already. That’s not including the eastern half of Russia, which is home to a significant percentage of the 52 million Muslims.
I think it’s important to note that the European Union (which is the Europe we all know and love) only has 16 million Muslims out of a population of 491 million. Drum roll please……that’s a mind-blowing 3% of the population.
I can’t wait to see the statistics drubbed into your head when Turkey joins the EU, with their 70+ million Muslims. “In one year, the population of European Union Muslims increased 5-fold! From 16 million to nearly 90 million!!!!”
OPINION: As far as the 52 million Muslims doubling in 20 years to 104 million? According to the overwhelming amount of evidence already presented, this isn’t going to happen.
Closer to home, the numbers tell a similar story. Right now, Canada’s fertility rate is 1.6. Nearly a full point below what is required to sustain a culture. And Islam is now the fastest-growing religion. Between 2001 and 2006, Canada’s population increased by 1.6 million. 1.2 of those was immigration.
Canada’s fertility rate in 2008 was 1.57. The five years prior it was 1.61. So the 1.6 statistic the video describes looks good to me. But it’s not nearly a full point below what is required to sustain a culture, it’s .51 below. Did they not expect you to do the math? They sure do like rounding up!
More context required: In 2006, Canada’s Muslim population was estimated to be 783,700 or about 2.5% of the population.
It’s very important here to point out that “fastest-growing” is by and large a meaningless statistic in this, and nearly any, context.
Statistics and percentages don’t mean anything unless you understand the greater context. Islam may very well be the fastest-growing religion in Canada. Does this matter? The statistic means nothing. 50% of Canada is Catholic and another 20% is Protestant – how can Christianity possibly be the fastest-growing religion?
Here’s an example; there are 110 people in a room – 100 Canadians and 10 Americans. An equal number of Canadians and Americans enter the room - say 10 each. The Canadian population increased by 10%. The American population increased by 100%. Which is the fastest growing demographic in the room?
See? It’s all nonsense.
Moving on to the 1.6 million population increase...
The video states that 1.2 million of the 1.6 million population increase was due to immigration. You’ll notice the video doesn’t specifically state that the 1.2 million immigrants are Muslim, but that’s clearly what they want you to believe. Misdirection by stating a fact with no context. Otherwise why would they mention it?
So let’s look at the true immigration statistics for Canada:
Canadian Immigration Statistics
The video states 1.2 million of the population increase between 2001 and 2006 was due to immigration. According to the Canadian government, the number was 1.1 million. I’m sure the video is rounding up again, but close enough.
Of the 1.1 million, 58.3% (641,300) were from Asian countries, including the Middle East. Of the 58.3%, 35.8% came from China, India, the Philippines and South Korea alone – non-Muslim countries. That’s a total of 229,585. So that leaves us with a possible 411,715 immigrants that MIGHT be Muslim. Additional research shows that of the top 10 countries contributing immigrants to Canada included only two Muslim-majority countries: Pakistan and Iran. The total number of immigrants from those two countries? 7.7% If we round up to 10%, that means only 100,000 of the 1.6 million population increase is due to Muslim immigration – half a percent.
The point of all of this? Statistically, a very small number of Canadian immigrants are Muslim – and it appears this will be the case for a very long time.
Maybe Muslims don’t like the cold.
In the United States, the current fertility rate of American citizens is 1.6. With the influx of the Latino nations, the rate increases to 2.11. The bare minimum required to sustain a culture.
The United States seems to be faring well in the procreation department. (Sadly, there’s no room for error.)
OPINION: This is just a hunch, but I’ll bet those most elated by the 2.11 fertility rate are the same group who prefers stronger immigration laws.
That’s called irony.
In 1970 there were 100,000 Muslims in America. Today , there are over 9,000,000.
In 1970, the US population was just over 200 million – that’s less than .05%. Very tiny. Statistically insignificant. Today there are over 9 million out of a population total of just over 300 million.
THAT’S A MASSIVE 90-FOLD INCREASE!
The world is changing.
It’s time to wake up.
There’s no mistaking the contempt here, folks.
Three years ago, a meeting of 24 Islamic organizations was held in Chicago. The transcripts of that meeting showed in detail their plans to evangelize America. Through Journalism, politics, education, and more. They said, “We must prepare ourselves for the reality that in 30 years there will be 50 million Muslims living in America.”
I cannot find any information regarding this meeting whatsoever. It seems odd, though, that this didn’t make the news. Stranger still is that the meeting planners conveniently left their plans laying around for someone to pilfer.
The bad news: The Muslims have detailed plans to evangelize America.
The good news: We’ve stolen their playbook!
The world that we live in is not the world in which our children and grandchildren will live.
What does this mean? Of course the world our children and grandchildren will inhabit will be different!
OPINION: Is the world different now than it was for our own grandparents? Our parents even? My grandparents were born in the early 1900s. How different was the world back then?
Clearly the implication here is that our children and grandchildren will live in a world dominated by Muslims. They will live in a world where France is an Islamic nation.
At the risk of opening up a broader discussion, I’ll simply agree that the world will be very different for them. As for the Muslim majority? As for the coming Eurabia? According to the evidence, I just don’t see it.
The Catholic Church recently reported that Islam has just surpassed their membership numbers. Some studies show that at Islam’s current rate of growth, in 5 to 7 years it will be the dominant religion of the world. As believers, we call upon you to join the effort and share the gospel message with the changing world.
It is true that there are 1.3 billion Catholics in the world – 18% of the world’s total population. There are also 1.3 billion Muslims. When counting all Christian faiths, however, the number jumps to 2 billion – a substantial “lead”.
Mathematically, there is no way to increase that number to 2 billion in 5 to 7 years. Especially when Catholic missionaries enjoy a 6 million persons-per-year conversion rate and the declining birthrates among Muslim-majority nations.
This is a call to action.
The video clearly wants everyone to proselytize – this is the call to action of which they speak.
OPINION: Their method of persuasion is to infuse the masses with spurious information to induce fear of an “Islamic Invasion”. It is manipulative and disingenuous. It is a shame that the producers have chosen this path to promulgate their message. It suggests a hidden agenda or secret motives.
For this blogger, the end does not justify the means.