http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...isis/8915/

Short-answer: the whole continent -- or at least, that part of it whose familes have lived there for 2+ generations -- is about to fall off of a very steep demographic cliff. Hard to generate economic growth when that's happening. Hence, the perennial debt-crisis is probably not going to be "solved" anytime soon (i.e., not in the lifetime of anyone reading this message board).

1. There are some grim warnings here for those who uphold a secular, welfare-based society as some kind of ideal arrangement that all of us should be striving towards. But I am almost positive those warnings will pass by unheeded in the US.

2. The article doesn't go into it, but the % of Europe's people who are Muslim is going to explode (pardon the pun) in the next 40-50 years. Those who have looked to Europe, or certain countries within Europe, as some sort of social model to be emulated in the US are in for a very rude awakening, as the values of the Qur'an become more deeply embedded in European law and custom. For those who claim that's not going to happen, the shock will just be all the worse.

3. It's interesting to see such an article in a liberal-approved outlet such as The Atlantic magazine. Not so long ago, publishing something like this would get the author and the magazine labeled as an "alarmist", and probably as a "right-wing alarmist" at that. But, over time, demographic reality has a way of puncturing even the most zealously-guarded ideological barriers.

Related: http://www.nationalreview.com/david-pryc...lloway-way

Torch links to a brief essay about George Galloway, the anti-US, anti-Israeli, and (in fact) anti-UK member of the British Parliament. He used to be a Labour MP with a London-based district, but eventually lost his seat. Now he has just won a new seat and will take office as an Independent (Labour kicked him out). Galloway is, to be sure, a special case, and thankfully a rare one. Even so, his transition from boorish pro-Soviet agitator to boorish pro-Al-Qaeda agitator shows the path that some on the Left will follow as Europe's new demographic trends become more and more pronounced.

I had heard that Galloway was campaigning for Parliament, but I just figured he was running in a leftish London-based seat like he did before. But no, it turns out he got elected in a Yorkshire-area district way up North. Even there -- 200 miles from London -- mass-immigration from Pakistan (among other nations) has transformed the region, to the extent that Galloway had Urdu-language campaign posters and criticized his main opponent, Imran Hussain (the Labour Party candidate), for violating Qur'anic teaching on such matters as alcohol consumption, etc.
Galloway won with 56%, Hussain came in second with 25%.

A quick snapshot of merry old England, 2012.

(04-02-2012 08:19 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I had heard that Galloway was campaigning for Parliament, but I just figured he was running in a leftish London-based seat like he did before. But no, it turns out he got elected in a Yorkshire-area district way up North. Even there -- 200 miles from London -- mass-immigration from Pakistan (among other nations) has transformed the region, to the extent that Galloway had Urdu-language campaign posters and criticized his main opponent, Imran Hussain (the Labour Party candidate), for violating Qur'anic teaching on such matters as alcohol consumption, etc.
Galloway won with 56%, Hussain came in second with 25%.

A quick snapshot of merry old England, 2012.

Yeah, offers more evidence that hardline leftists are more about obtaining power than advocating for any principles.

What they're not even mentioning is the population stagnation in Spain and Greece. A smaller group is going to have to deal with the debts of a larger group. I'd be jumping ship ASAP if I were a young person in those countries.

Germany and Italy have declining populations (along with all of eastern Europe) despite getting monthly payments from the govt. for having children. It doesn't even look to be working.

Why it so hard to acknowledge that rapid, transformative, mass Muslim-Islamist immigration might not be the most obvious aid to social tranquility in Europe?

(04-02-2012 10:31 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Why it so hard to acknowledge that rapid, transformative, mass Muslim-Islamist immigration might not be the most obvious aid to social tranquility in Europe?

Dat's raciss

(04-02-2012 10:38 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-02-2012 10:31 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Why it so hard to acknowledge that rapid, transformative, mass Muslim-Islamist immigration might not be the most obvious aid to social tranquility in Europe?

Dat's raciss

Unlike some of our more emotional posters, I couch my language very carefully by using weasel words!

• Muslim-Islamic.
• Might not.
• Most obvious.

But it's not all gloom and doom in the Old Country. Unemployment in the "Eurozone" now at 10.8%, the highest in merely 15 years:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/0...CQ20120402

You talk about people looking towards a secular society as being wrong, but then go on and talk about how Muslims are taking are over. I'd consider a society based on Islam to be bad too. No one that is for a secular society is disagreeing with you there. If they let Muslim's take over that's no good either, just like a Christian society isn't the goal. Being pro-secular does not mean Pro-Muslim. I'm all for anyone believing in whatever they want, but I don't want any religion in politics, be it Hinduism, Christianity or Islam.

(04-02-2012 09:19 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  You talk about people looking towards a secular society as being wrong, but then go on and talk about how Muslims are taking are over. I'd consider a society based on Islam to be bad too. No one that is for a secular society is disagreeing with you there. If they let Muslim's take over that's no good either, just like a Christian society isn't the goal. Being pro-secular does not mean Pro-Muslim.

HuskieFan, my point isn't that people who desire a secular society are "wrong". It's that a "secular society" (if we may describe contemporary, post-1970 Europe that way) is proving to be demographically incapable of sustaining itself for more than 1 or 2 generations. And not only that, it is being demographically displaced -- in its own "home", right before our eyes -- by a wave of immigrants from decidedly non-secular, non-liberal societies. That is the bottom-line, core reality of this generation. Coming to grips with why it's happening, and figuring out what (if anything) secular-type people should do in response, are two basic questions that all of us will have to address, one way or the other.

It's pretty simple in my mind.. keep religion out of public policy. Any religion. Should be a constant goal to strive for at all times.

(04-02-2012 10:46 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  It's pretty simple in my mind.. keep religion out of public policy. Any religion. Should be a constant goal to strive for at all times.

Well, that is basically what Europe's governing class has done for the last 60 years. I guess the question is, do you see any connection between that history, and the demographic, fiscal, and economic traumas Europe is undergoing now?

(04-02-2012 09:19 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  You talk about people looking towards a secular society as being wrong, but then go on and talk about how Muslims are taking are over. I'd consider a society based on Islam to be bad too. No one that is for a secular society is disagreeing with you there.

On the contrary. Lots of secularists have sided w/ Islam when it's convenient.

Quote: If they let Muslim's take over that's no good either, just like a Christian society isn't the goal. Being pro-secular does not mean Pro-Muslim. I'm all for anyone believing in whatever they want, but I don't want any religion in politics, be it Hinduism, Christianity or Islam.

That last sentence is self-contradictory.

(04-02-2012 10:46 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  It's pretty simple in my mind.. keep religion out of public policy. Any religion.

Including secular humanism?