THE POPULATION JIHAD
Whilst the threat of Islamist terrorism takes up much of the Western world's attention, dialogue, security preparedness and fears the true threat of Islam comes from a mass of people whose polygamous life style is conducive to massive overpopulation. While our Western leaders ponder what newer bigger and better safety measures can be installed - placing CC cameras in every possible location to document our mundane daily activities and pull bottles of "threatening" hand creme from our airport luggage - these same leaders stand with our borders wide open and encourage the full scale muslim colonization of our countries.
Indeed, the greatest threat, as the below article states, is the consistent drum beat of muslim immigration into the Western countries aided and abeted by our politicians and leaders lefty policies of multiculturalism and of extended family reunification. At no other time in history has it been easier and more comforatable for muslims to enter the UK (and other Western countries) and immediately partake of the taxpayer paid social benefits. In fact, multiculturalism has actually place muslims in a position of receiving preferential treatment over and above the indigenous population.(a few examples here , here , here )The British, and other Western countries, are expected to bow down and worship at the altar of multiculturalism all whilst sacrificing British/Western culture and traditions at this same altar. Hand in hand with multiculturalism came the perpetually overused club of racism - thus anyone who speaks out against muslim over-immigration is immediately silenced and pilloried with accusations of being "racist". It's become un-politically correct to speak about the muslim colonisation happening right under our "stiff upper lips".
Finally an author has the courage to speak and write what is actually occurring - along with warnings that such overpopulation by the muslims will most definitely lead to the Isalmisation of Europe/West. Too many Westerners bought into the "zero population growth" particularly popular back in the 1970s. Westerners were made to feel it was our duty to lessen the death march of overpopulation - to do our part for the world. Yes - the majority of us did -- and now the consequences are that other regions, particularly the Middle East, continued to overpopulate whilst the Western world population stagnated or dwindled. Now the same lefty leaders and university elites, that guilted us into having smaller families, tell us that we "need" rampant immigration to survive. Unfortunately, it is clear that our traditions and cultures will NOT survive.
The looming question is whether or not it is the obligation of the West to absorb the world's poor - can we afford to do so both culturally and economically?
The even more ominous stark reality is it appears we no longer are given a choice.
entire article - emphasis mine
The population explosion on Europe’s doorstep
Most of us who remember Ehrlich’s book have long since dismissed it for stirring hysteria. Yet in some respects he was almost right: he predicted that world population would double in 35 years, and in 40 years it has indeed almost doubled – from 3.5 billion to 6.7 billion in 2007. So why does Prince Philip’s invocation of “overpopulation” seem so anachronistic, so unfashionable?
Because the term no longer applies to the West. In the 1960s the threat of “overpopulation” applied to virtually every country in the world, all of whose populations were expanding – if at different rates. From 1971, however, western fertility plummeted. Europe has been underreproducing for decades: its total fertility rate (TFR) – the average number of children a woman bears in her lifetime – is 1.5, well below the 2.1 required to replace the people already here.
Meanwhile, with a current TFR of 2.9 , the population of poorer nations keeps rising. Virtually all of the 2.5 billion extra people on our guest list will arrive in the Third World (aka “undeveloped”, “underdeveloped” or “developing” nations, or recently “the south” – when people keep shifting their terminology, be sure that there’s something politically scary in the vicinity).
Now viewed as a judgmental word that applies exclusively to nonwestern countries, “overpopulation” has become racially, religiously and ethnically sticky, and thus totally uncool. For decades no one in the population field has touched the word “overpopulation” with a bargepole.
It’s time to come clean: I am a demography junkie. My perverse obsession began when I was 16, when I spent a full semester of high school researching population growth. I revisited the fascination in my fourth novel, Game Control. In what I hope is a wicked satire, a demographic zealot plans to nip runaway population growth in the bud by murdering two billion people overnight. The premise may sound outlandish but the nonfiction underpinnings of the text were carefully researched. Furthermore, the graph of human population through the ages – meandering virtually horizontal at the bottom of the page for hundreds of thousands of years and then spiking almost vertically over the past century like a polygraph needle when the subject tells a whopper – illustrates that, in population biology, fact itself is more outlandish than anything I might make up.
Why have I been entranced by population, of all things? I have my theories. I grew up in a religious, left-leaning American household that tyrannised my childhood with guilt. Before we ate, we had to pray for hungry Chinese peasants, and then we had to clean our plates for the starving Armenians (long dead, but no one told me). Everything nice that we had we were supposed to feel bad about; and I was required to give 10 cents of my 25c weekly allowance (that’s about 12p) to charity. So I think I resented all these poor people for whom I was supposed to feel sorry. They were a burden. Then I discovered that there were going to be more and more of them. Just because they had large families, I was going to have to feel even worse and give away more of my allowance.
In adulthood I’ve come to appreciate how many other problems are fuelled by population growth, from environmental degradation to disease. All roads lead to demography. Besides, there’s nothing boring about statistics if you have an imagination and some sense of what they mean.
My interest was reignited in 2003 by an article in Population and Development Review. The journal’s editor, Paul Demeny, compared the population projections for Yemen – a Muslim country about the size of France – and Russia, which is 30 times bigger. In 1950 Russia had 103m people, Yemen 4.3m – meaning there were 24 Russians for every Yemeni. By 2000 Russia had 145m people, and Yemen 17.5m – that’s about eight Russians for every Yemeni. Proportionally, a few more Yemenis; no big deal.
Alas, Russian men drink too much. Their life expectancy is 60. Worse, Russian women are not having many babies: by 2000 Russia’s total fertility rate was a miserable 1.2. Demeny revealed that even though UN figures assumed Russian fertility would rise by 50% – awfully optimistic – the country’s population in 2050 was still expected to contract back to 1950 levels of about 104m. Meanwhile, although UN figures also assumed that fertility in Yemen would fall by half, Yemen’s population in 2050 was expected to rise to 102m.
That’s right: in a little more than 40 years, the population of Russia could be met and overtaken by that of Yemen. Which has only 3% arable land and is mostly desert.
If Russia versus Yemen is an extreme case, the broader picture is equally sobering. Demeny went on to compare the populations of 25 European nations to the 25 nations in what he called Europe’s “southern hinterland”: the Asian and north African countries surrounding this continent. Check out the UN population projections in 2000 (see panel).
Honey, I shrunk the continent: Europe is contracting. On the other hand, over the course of only 100 years north Africa, western Asia and the Middle East are set to multiply eightfold. Throw into the mix the fact that all those countries are Muslim, and politically you have one sizzling hot potato.
Why should any of this matter to us? Well, let’s count the ways:
Immigration Legal or illegal, we haven’t seen anything yet. If we add in all of Africa – from which significant numbers emigrate to Europe – we can expect by 2050 to have 2.7 billion relatively poor, heavily unemployed and perhaps increasingly desperate people on Europe’s doorstep.
Since most of them cannot afford a ticket on American Airlines, they will migrate to wealthy countries nearby to which they can swim, walk or ride by stowing away on a lorry. And never mind protecting European borders or tightening the laws. Desperate people are resourceful people; just because you’re poor doesn’t mean you’re not smart.
Food and fuel pricesThe recent spikes in both have admittedly been fed by a variety of factors, but one of them is demand. That demand will keep rising with increased population, and so will prices.
Climate change The addition of three billion people, many of whom may aspire to a middle-class western lifestyle, will turn feeble carbon-reduction efforts – recycling yoghurt pots, biking to work – into a joke. If you care about green issues, ipso facto you should care about population.
Political instability and reduced social cohesion Inexorably high immigration rates from neighbouring Muslim countries are likely to transform the ethnic and religious composition of this continent. Happily, it may soon be possible to get an excellent falafel on any street corner in Europe. But if younger generations in countries such as Egypt continue to become more fundamentalist and more politically radicalised than their parents, terrorism could rise.
WaterThere isn’t enough of it. In his level-headed book How Many People Can the Earth Support?, Professor Joel Cohen identifies water as the ultimate limiting factor on human population. Even if it were evenly distributed throughout the world – which it is not – the human race would be expected to run out of fresh water when the global population reached about nine billion – a figure we are now set substantially to exceed.
Power Europe initially rose to political and military dominance in tandem with a rising population. With a dropping population, its influence will probably wane.
Is this little more than racist, xenophobic claptrap? I don’t think so. Current population levels are facts. Population projections are mathematical extrapolations from facts. Certainly, you can fiddle with the assumptions underlying the projections and come up with wildly different numbers, and historically the accuracy of demographic prediction has been pretty dismal. (Case in point: only four years after Demeny published his comparison of Yemen and Russia, the UN nearly halved its projected 2050 population for Yemen from 102m to 58m. Yet, Demeny tells me, “there are many more Yemens”: the population of Egypt will exceed Russia’s well before 2050.)
Numbers do not have prejudices. Europe is dwindling. Its immediate Muslim neighbours are still having large families, and their populations are continuing to grow. Make of that what you will. It is not BNP propaganda; it’s just the way things are.
The Duke of Edinburgh may not have employed the trendiest vocabulary but he’s not suffering from undiagnosed dementia. Whatever you call it, the threat of overpopulation is back and here to stay – because it never really went away. This could be a good time to start learning Arabic.
The PostBirthday World by Lionel Shriver is published by HarperCollins
