The Collapse of Europe
Filed under: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Europe, Integration, Muslims — Michael van der Galien on June 13, 2007 @ 7:00 pm CEST
Aaron Hanscom wrote a very interesting, albeit negative, article for Pajamas Media about American Freedom Alliance’s June 10th conference titled “The Collapse of Europe?” (Some of) the speakers were Mark Steyn, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Leon de Winter, Philippe Karsenty, Gregory M. Davis and Daniel Pipes.
According to Steyn, it is a simple fact that Europe will become more Muslim because of massive immigration and the divergent demographic trends of Muslims and native Europeans. Malmo, Rotterdam, and cities in Britain already have proven that the future is determined by those you outsource your future to. How can Europeans hope to share their land with an implacable and intolerant minority? Steyn expressed frustration with State Department officials who complain that Iraq is an artificial state but who overlook the unsustainable situation in Europe. Honor killings and Sharia law are incompatible with pre-marital sex and gay marriage. As Steyn put it, if Kurdistan can’t be part of Iraq then “Pornostan” can’t be in the Netherlands.
Steyn was the moderator of the first panel session titled “What has been the role of Islam and the EU bureaucracy in fostering collapse?” Introducing Hirsi Ali, the former member of the Dutch parliament who now works for American Enterprise Institute, Steyn said, “Europe’s loss is America’s gain.” Hirsi Ali explained that for jihad to succeed, a sense of victimization is necessary. Muslims have mastered the art of creating enemies and conspiracy theories which results in group solidarity at the expense of assimilation. Meanwhile, EU bureaucrats make it all too easy for Islamists to fulfill their political projects. It surely made Islamists smile last year when former Dutch Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner said, “If two thirds of all Netherlanders tomorrow would want to introduce Sharia, then this possibility must exist.”
[…]
Philippe Karsenty, a French journalist and media critic, opened his remarks by apologizing for the leading role France has played in the collapse of Europe. He said that in Paris if you quote Bat’Yeor (the author of Eurabia) people will look at you crazy and ask if you also believe in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Their unwillingness to believe in that anti-Semitic forgery doesn’t mean the French are big fans of the Jews. In fact, Karsenty referred to his compatriots as “Paristinians.” While they’re quite willing to send money to the Palestinians in their struggle against Israel, most of them completely avoid the Arabs who actually live in France…
It is good to see a conference like this taking place in America, but it would have been better if it would have organized in Europe. After all, we’re talking about Europe here. It seems to me that European should be interested in… wait for it… the collapse of Europe.
Is that all there is? Only bad news? No, there are those who are more positive:
The conference was not devoid of disagreement. During the panel discussion “Eurabia: Is Muslim domination of Europe inevitable?” Dutch writer Leon de Winter said there is a sea change taking place in Europe: people are becoming fed up with radical Muslims. He described as ludicrous the idea that the Netherlands is in the process of being taken over by Muslims. While he acknowledged that there are no-go zones for Jews in his country, he said that the general public is as Calvinist as ever. He also took comfort in the fact that most Muslims in the Netherlands don’t worship in mosques.
Lastly, Mark Steyn reflected on multiculturalism (something I quite strongly oppose as well):
Mark Steyn reappeared at an afternoon panel on “Multiculturalism and its impact on democratic society.” He called multiculturalism an elusive enemy because one of its very tenets is that there is no point in ever having an argument. The quest to never be culturally insensitive has led to some pretty horrible things. In Britain, for example, many honor killings now go uninvestigated. He could have added that last year a German judge cited the Koran when he rejected a woman’s request for a quick divorce because her husband beat her. Steyn pointed out that multiculturalism is a unicultural phenomenon: only Western countries have signed up for the project. As he once explained to a caller on a radio show, there are very few free Muslims countries. Steyn got plenty of laughs when he said that after he presented the caller with objective statistics showing the lack of freedom in the Muslim world, the man responded, “Well, that’s just your opinion.”
That sums it up, doesn’t it? Facts are “a matter of opinion” in the extreme moral relavist’s world.
1 Alan
June 13, 2007 @ 7:26 pm CESTNow I remember why I left this blog for more liberal pastures…
Mark Steyn? Hardly a centrist, by any definition. And he’s a xenophobe.
And speaking of xenophobia, there’s a rather scholarly book on the declining birthrates in Europe called “Barren States”. It points out that concerns about declining birthrates are not new, and are often linked to concerns that the “wrong” groups are growing…racial and religious minorities, the poor, etc.,…but perhaps you want to read the book itself and not take the word of an “extreme moral relativist”.
2 mvdg
June 13, 2007 @ 7:31 pm CESTThat sounds very interesting Alan and since when are you an “extreme moral relativist?” The people I am speaking of are the ones who argue that there is nothing wrong with Hamas encouraging terrorism.
I greatly value having more progressive commenters than I am. You are one of the people who always leave respectful comments.
You got to agree - in the Muslim world people are generally less free than in, say, America and Europe. No? Is that an opinion or a fact?
Anyway - I do not consider Steyn to be a centrist. Who said that?
3 Alan
June 13, 2007 @ 8:02 pm CESTI was under the impression that this board featured commentators who were more towards the political center.
I’ve found that while it can be helpful to have a variety of viewpoints, sometime this results in the same arguments over and over again. The worldviews of the opposing sides are so different that they can’t get past the basics (e.g. “Was the Iraq War a good idea?”).
Whereas, when people share a common viewpoint, they can get past these basic issues and go further into depth. I find that I can do so more easily at the more liberal sites than the more moderate ones.
Besides, as Christine pointed out, unlike most people here I’m not really interested in political science or theory.
4 Interested
June 13, 2007 @ 8:49 pm CESTTo state the obvious question - why post here then?
5 Alan
June 13, 2007 @ 8:55 pm CESTI’ve asked myself the same thing.
While this is a good site in many ways—plenty of updates, clear format (unlike TMV), not too many responses (unlike Political Animal)—it’s really too conservative for my tastes, especially on issues like Iraq and immigration.
So perhaps it’s time I moved on.
6 Interested
June 13, 2007 @ 8:59 pm CESTI for one anyway wasn’t hoping to prod you - but it was a legit question.
Course then again - a solid part of Howard Sterns audience is from those that can’t stand him.
7 Alan
June 13, 2007 @ 9:21 pm CESTLOL! For a moment there I thought you were comparing Michael to Howard Stern!
There are people who like to be provoked…but I’m not one of them. Certain opposing opinions hit me like fingernails on a blackboard.
It’s why I stopped visiting Bull Moose–Wittmann’s Iraq war cheerleading got on my nerves. Kind of like the immigration issue does here.