If I were to tell you that within twenty years Europe could find itself engaged in a civil war so bloody it made WWII look like a bun fight, you might logically consider me a candidate for the men in white coats. You would be wrong, however. Based on the demographic evidence collated for this article, such a scenario looks not merely possible, but inevitable. In 2005 European males aged 20-40 outnumbered Muslim males of a similar age by 18:1. By 2025 this ratio could drop to a mere 2:1.
There is a common misconception that a significant erosion of our present 95% non-Muslim European majority could not possibly occur for many decades to come. People such as historian Bernard Lewis, a man whose views on Islam are held in high esteem, exacerbate this. When he made his prediction in 2004 that Europe would be Islamic by the end of the century, he did so on the basis of an overall Muslim majority.
Although such a dire prediction is shocking, it does not force us into a position where urgent steps need to be taken to alleviate such a future. We will not be here at such a distant point and can therefore presently reject as overly extreme the actions necessary to prevent it. Suppose though, that contrary to Professor Lewis’s benign view of a “democratically Islamic Europe”, Europe’s Muslims felt unwilling to wait another 80 years to expand their caliphate via the voting booth, and decided instead to take Europe through force.
In this scenario our majority is rapidly eroded due to a number of factors. In 2005, European males aged 0-19 (those capable of fighting in twenty years time) accounted for only 10% of their total population. Muslim males in the same age bracket accounted for 23% of theirs. These figures can be seen in this table and are extracted from the population pyramids compiled by the US Census Bureau 2005. (These figures represent all the countries in continental Europe, rather than EU member states alone).
In addition, the Muslim population, with its birth rate of 3.5 children per women effectively doubles its next generation, whilst the European birth rate of 1.5 children per woman ensures the next generation is 25% smaller than that of its parents.
This loss of almost one third of tomorrow’s generation necessitates massive immigration in order to prop up our welfare states, the majority of which is set to come from Muslim countries. According to the Daily Telegraph, the UN predicts Europe will need to take in 2.2 million immigrants per year, through to 2050.
Once the Muslim population climbs over 3% of the population in Western countries, native Europeans start to emigrate. The Dutch, French, Germans and British are leaving in unprecedented numbers, as noted in a Daniel Pipes article entitled “Europeans Fleeing Eurabia” which should be read in conjunction with this article.
If it is really true that up to 40% of Muslims wish to see Europe operating under Sharia Law, then the ingredients for a Europe V Islamic civil war are already in place, save for the Muslim weight of numbers; an issue being rapidly resolved. By 2025 the combination of factors mentioned above will lead to such a massive transformation in Europe’s demographic makeup that Islam may well have sufficient numbers to confront us.
– – – – – – – – – –
I first read Pat Buchanan’s book Death of The West three years ago, which opened my eyes to the demographic imbalance between the birth rates of native Europeans and Muslim immigrants. Although full of doom and gloom, Buchanan never ventured a particular opinion on the likelihood of a full-blown war, perhaps due to the likely backlash from Muslims in America.
This omission was partly rectified by Mark Steyn in America Alone where he does mention war as a possible scenario, but neglects to predict any particular decade. Indeed, he seems to be of the opinion that Europe will acquiesce without any resistance at all. Much as I respect Mr Steyn, I believe he is utterly wrong about this. Europeans have a history of warfare; it is unlikely we will roll over without a fight.
If a Europe V Islam civil war is a possibility, then it is clearly prudent to look at the demographics of the particular section of our population who will actually fight it: Males aged between 18-40. The ratio of these potential combatants in 2005 was 18:1 in our favour.
Now, 18:1 appears to be a number that we can cope with, albeit with a certain amount of low-level violence, but what happens when that ratio becomes 10:1 or 5:1? What would be the likely result, for example, if twenty-five European chartered accountants were confronted by five machete wielding Jihadists? The answer is fairly predictable; they would run away, to file tax returns another day.
Suppose, though, that inside each accountant’s briefcase, lurking alongside their blackberries and slide rules was a machete twice the size of the Jihadists preferred tools of trade? Same answer, they will still seek to escape. Knife fighting to the death is not on the curriculum at the East Midlands College of Accountancy and Equality, nor is it in the temperament of average European males, be they football hooligans with a penchant for fisticuffs, let alone accountants.
Conversely, when a solitary but fully armed US Marine finds himself confronted by five machete wielding Jihadists, it’s fairly safe to say he will recount the ensuing events to his comrades the following morning. The Jihadists, on the other hand, are more likely to have had an up close and personal chat with Allah, prior to salaciously indulging themselves amongst their newly acquired harem of celestial virgins.
Which brings me to the point of this article. 5:1 is no guarantee that the majority will win and 5:1 is where we will find ourselves long before 2025. When I started looking at these figures, I anticipated that the numbers necessary for a civil war — based on today’s 18:1 — would not be in place until well into the second half of this century, but I was wrong. By 2025 Europe could find itself with a potential combatant ratio of 2:1 as shown in the following extrapolated figures, with the ratio figure rounded up or down:
|Total Population:||519 million|
|Non-Muslim European population:||494 Million.|
|Muslim population:||26 Million.|
Year 2005 – Males Aged 20-40
|Non-Muslim European population:||70.3 Million.|
|Muslim population:||3.9 Million 1|
Year 2025 – Males Aged 20-40
|Non-Muslim European Population:||53.4Million|
|Muslim Population:||5.9 Million|
This ratio of 9:1 is not hypothetical; the people it represents are already here in our maternity wards and schools. It does not however, represent the true picture of 2025. Europe’s welfare states need a constant ratio of workers to dependents, a situation that requires immigration due to feminism’s legacy of career before children. The aforementioned UN report suggests that Europe will require 2.2 million immigrants per year, with the majority coming from Muslim countries. When these extra 28 million immigrants are taken into account the figures look as follows.
|Non-Muslim European Population:||53.4 Million|
|Muslim Population:||10.1 Million 2|
As these numbers slowly change the character of Europe, many Europeans will simply pack up and leave, a situation occurring already in unprecedented numbers in countries such as Holland which has a 6% Muslim population, one of the highest in Western Europe. According to the Telegraaf an estimated 121,000 native Dutch emigrated in 2006 compared to only 30,000 in 1999. The demographic profile of these emigrants was well educated, 35-44 with good incomes. Their exodus represents a massive 4.5% of their entire age group. In one year.
In Britain, with a lower Muslim percentage but a higher incidence of terrorist activity, more than one in two wish to emigrate. So, to take an overly conservative figure of emigration amongst 20-40 year olds running at a mere 1% per annum, the figures would look as follows.
|Non-Muslim European Population:||44.6 Million|
|Muslim Population:||10.1 Million|
In the event of civil war erupting, does anyone seriously think that Turkey would remain on the sidelines? By 2025 there will be some 12 millionTurkish males of fighting age. They will probably be part of the European Union well before then, but, if not, it is unlikely that the necessity of a visa will stop them from crossing the border in aid of their fellow Muslims. Should this transpire, the figures are as follows:
|Non-Muslim Population:||44.6 million|
|Muslim population:||22.1 million|
Third world immigration into Europe is quite possibly an issue that politically correct Europeans will grudgingly accept; the Islamification of Europe is another matter entirely and I have seen nothing in the rhetoric or physical actions of European Muslims to suggest this is not their aim. Europeans will not allow this to happen, the politicians in suits will find themselves usurped by the men in the streets. This is why these numbers are so important.
And these numbers are probably worse than I suggest here. As events unfold, the 1% trickle of European emigration I cite could well turn into a flood. Daniel Pipes considers an exodus of the bourgeoisie to be a distinct possibility. Also, I am not a demographer3, so I have no idea how to factor in the children of the millions of immigrants predicted to arrive year on year through to 2050. In addition, the majority of immigration is likely to be made up 20-40 year olds, so the 15% figure of their total between now and 2025 could be only half of the true number.
Finally, what statistical advantage do fanatics prepared to die for their cause have over post-Christian Europeans? Unless things change, Europe will find itself with a mere 2:1 advantage within 18 years, and a 5:1 advantage within the next ten. I wouldn’t like odds of 5:1 let alone 2:1, and the argument that moderate Muslims will not become involved is specious; once a few tit for tat atrocities are committed, everybody will be forced to take sides.
The ramifications of these figures will deeply affect Europe over the next ten years, which I will discuss in part two of this article.
© Paul Weston 2007
Note 1: The US Census population pyramids suggest countries with high birth rates — i.e. Muslim — are made up of 23% male 0-19 year olds, and 15% male 20-39 year olds. These are the percentages used for this article in the regrettable absence of census figures.
Note 2: I have taken the immigration rate as being 70% Islamic, and used 15% of this figure to arrive at the number of males aged 20-40.
Note 3: I am neither a demographer nor mathematician. Due to this, there are slight inconsistencies in the table accompanying this article, although they do not affect the overall figures. One example is my use of 20-40 year olds rather than 18-40 year olds, purely as an ease of projection. Should there be any professional demographers reading this, perhaps they could build a spreadsheet acceptable to scholars. These figures need to be in the public domain and discussed at the highest level.
Part one of this article was an explanation of why our ratio of combat age native Europeans versus European Muslims could decline from 18:1 today, to 2:1 by 2025. These figures are largely irrelevant if one believes that Islam can peacefully co-exist within the West, but if such a scenario is simply a multicultural fantasy then we will shortly face a situation unprecedented in the history of mankind.
Europeans have been conditioned from an early age to celebrate diversity and multiculturalism, resulting in our genuine ability to co-exist with peoples of significantly different cultures. But, rather than what we want, is this what Islam wants? Islam is as mono-cultural as mono-cultural gets. How can they possibly live in a liberal, multicultural society?
Islam expanded via the sword. Within decades of erupting out of the deserts of 7th Century Arabia it had conquered Palestine, Persia, Egypt, India, North Africa and Spain; its opponents were paralysed in the face of fanatical violence. It was only in 732 that Charles Martel stopped this frenetic Islamic expansion at the battle of Tours, in France.
In the 13th century Islam rose again. In 1452 they finally conquered Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, and within 100 years added Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, Romania and Hungary to their empire. Attempts to take Vienna failed twice, before Jan Sobieski finally routed the Ottoman’s Islamic army in 1683 at the Gates of Vienna. The Ottoman Empire gradually fell apart after this defeat, and most occupied European countries reclaimed their independence. Christian Europe had largely prevailed.
But now, in the 21st Century, Islam is back and wants what it has always wanted; a global caliphate. This time, unlike their previous military attempts to overthrow the West, instead they are already within Europe, well funded, radicalised and rapidly expanding. As their numbers grow, so grows the violence they perpetrate — as we have seen all over Europe within the last few years.
And not only within Europe; Islam is engaged in religious conflict all around the world, from America, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Kashmir, India, Russia, the Lebanon, Palestine, etc, etc. Wherever Islam comes into contact with non-Islam there is conflict.
In each and every country, one glaring reality stands out. It is always Islam as the aggressor, even when they are in a minority. In Thailand, where they represent five per cent of the populace, we have a country sliding inexorably toward civil war.
Such is the prevalence of Islamic violence that Samuel Huntingdon, author of The Clash Of Civilisations, coined the phrase “Islam’s bloody borders” the violence of which is represented by Gates Of Vienna’s animated Bloody Borders project which identifies Islamic terrorist activity just since 9/11.
Why do Islamists do this? Because they are commanded to, it is as simple as that. To be a Muslim means to obey the Koran, within which there are numerous commands to wage Jihad, or Holy War, against the infidel. Granted, there is no single explicit command, but it is possible to interpret many exhortations this way, which is exactly what radical Imams are doing all across the West. Unlike a modern day Christian’s tenuous relationship with the Bible, Muslims adhere to every edict of the Koran as slavishly as they did in the 7th Century. Unfortunately for us, the principal edict is to conquer or remove all non-believers.
To this end there are now some 2,000 Mosques in Western Europe, many of them funded directly by Saudi Arabia to the tune of 90 billion dollars. In these mosques are Imams — trained or imported from Saudi Arabia — preaching extreme Wahhabism. They call for the overthrow of the West, and promote suicide bombing and martyrdom. Channel Four recently sent an undercover reporter into various Mosques in the UK. The result was an exposure of these Imams in their call for Holy War against the West. It can be seenhere on Youtube. CNN also ran an interview with Al-Muhajiroun’s Anjem Choudray, where he calls for Sharia law in Britain. This is the same man whoprophesised that the Islamic flag will fly over 10 Downing Street.
Despite the clear warnings, the concept of Sharia is still not fully understood by most Europeans. Under its laws they could either be killed for refusing to convert to Islam or they could accept that second-class status known as Dhimmitude. Homosexuals could similarly be killed, apostates killed, adulterous woman stoned to death, whilst limbs could be amputated for stealing. Forty percent of British Muslims wish this to be introduced.
What percentage of those who desire this are young males? Muslim women have a great deal to be unhappy about under Sharia law, whilst older Muslims are far less radicalised than the young. It is quite possible therefore, that for young males with a favourable view of Sharia, the percentage of those who favour Sharia in Britain is far higher than this.
So, Islam has a history of attempted Western conquest, and a present day policy of global domination. In countries such as Sudan, they are efficiently perpetrating genocide to achieve that end. In the West, their Jihadist rhetoric is accompanied by large-scale violence and lesser atrocities guaranteed to catch our attention. (Leaving out the violence in India and Pakistan and the Taliban) just in the years since 2001, there have been numerous incidents in the West:
- 9/11, of course;
- the London tube bombings;
- the Madrid train bombings;
- the lesser violence such as the murder of Theo Van Gogh;
- the indescribable torture and murder of Ilan Halami;
- the rape of European women as described by Fjordman,
- the civil unrest in France, where policeclaim they are in the midst of a civil war;
- and the death threats made against politicians who speak out against them, such as Gert Wilders.
Faced with this relentless tidal wave of Islamic aggression, what is the response of Europe’s ruling elites? Craven submission is the answer. In France the politicians promise more money for the banlieus, within which Sharia law operates and where no white European dare set foot. In Spain they gathered in squares after the Madrid train bombing and held candle-lit peace vigils, before voting out their Government and replacing it with one more in tune to the Islamists demands. In Holland, the Dutch justice minister, Piet Hein Donner has no objection to Sharia law being imposed, providing it is done democratically, and in Sweden, integration minister Jens Orback declared: “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”
– – – – – – – – – –
After the London tube bombings, the government’s immediate response was to worry not about the English, but about the terrible oppression the perpetrators must have suffered from in order to commit such a crime. Much to our rulers’ dismay, the “fabulous four” were educated and middle class; their drive had come from Islam, not from oppression.
In British schools the Holocaust is no longer taught because it runs counter to the Holocaust denial beliefs of Muslims, whilst British historian David Irving was imprisoned for holding the same views as that of the Muslims. Our teaching unions are also of the opinion that the idea of teaching British values is racist, and the BBC is so viciously anti-Christian and pro-Islamic that there is simply not the space here to detail it. The BBC treachery requires an article all its own, and a lengthy article at that (This is one of the more imponderable pathologies the BBC exhibits, considering the corporation has sheltered and encouraged a high number of homosexuals and feminists. As you know, both groups are on the Islamic extermination lists).
There are many more examples of Islamic aggression and of the consequential European appeasement. It is clear that so far we are impelled toward overwhelming submission. European politicians are clearly terrified of Islam. As well they might be. So, what can be done? Can Islam be contained, or is Europe drifting inexorably to all-out civil war?
Essentially, there are five options.
The first is that Islam integrates within Europe’s liberal democracies and we all live happily ever after This scenario takes no account of the moral sewer that Liberal policies have turned Europe into; a Europe which Islam, quite understandably, views with revulsion. Nor does it take into account that Islam today is the same as Islam in the 7th century. Why should they reform now? Given the increasing radicalisation of Muslim youth and the disturbing numbers whoagree with terrorist activity, this scenario is only possible within the mindset of deluded, ignorant liberals, whose naiveté is suicidal in the extreme. Option one can therefore be discounted.
The second option is that Islam quietly takes over demographically through sheer weight of numbers, and Europe is islamised under Sharia law. Bernard Lewis and Mark Steyn think this inevitable, Steyn being of the opinion that any country capable of the type of appeasement prevalent in Europe today, is also a country incapable of rousing a defence. Although this is a possibility, it is unlikely we will not fight back, so option two can also be discounted.
The third option is that Europe wakes up to the danger it is in and expels all its Muslims. This is not going to happen; the European Union positively embraces Islam, as noted in Bat Ye’or book Eurabia (thankfully abridged by Fjordman). Not only does the EU have no intention of such an action, they will not even stop further Islamic immigration. The 2.2 million predominately Muslim immigrants they wish to bring into Europe each and every year up to 2050 is a done deal as far as they are concerned.
Indeed, in an extract from this disturbing report published by the European Policy Centre, the EU seeks immigration not only for economic reasons but also for social reasons:
“However, the arguments against immigration remain dominant in the political debates of many European countries, and must be taken seriously and challenged if immigration is to keep its place on the social and economic agenda.”
Whilst this attitude prevails we can discount option three.
The fourth option is that moderate Muslims reclaim their peaceful religion from the “fundamentalists”, who, as we are told over and over again by our media, are not representative of Islam. But where exactly are these moderate Muslims, what power do they wield within Islam as a whole? When have we seen marches and protests organised by them, waving banners reading “Not in my name” or “Not in the name of Islam?” They are as cowed by the radicals as are our politicians, or perhaps they are in agreement with them, but are squeamish when it comes to spilling blood. The only face of Islam we see or hear in the West is that of the violent Jihadist. As such, option four can be discounted.
The fifth option is that we resist the Islamic take over, and fight back. I disagree with Lewis and Steyn, who both appear to think Europe will roll over and submit. The wholesale and unprecedented racial and cultural transformation of a continent with a history of violent warfare will simply not happen without confrontation.
As options one, two, three and four can therefore be discounted; we are left only with option five: to fight. Whilst it is unfortunate that we should be confronted by an expanding, youthful culture with a set of beliefs they will die for, just at the time we are demographically declining, ageing, and apparently believe only in shopping, celebrity and alcohol, does not mean that we will not fight. We will simply have to. Not for domination, but for survival.
E. Raymond Hall, professor of biology at the University of Kansas, is the author of the definitive work on American wildlife, Mammals of North America. He states as a biological law that, “two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same geographic area.” (Emphasis in the original) Human races are biological subspecies, and Prof. Hall writes specifically that this law applies to humans just as it does to other mammals: “To imagine one subspecies of man living together on equal terms for long with another subspecies is but wishful thinking and leads only to disaster and oblivion for one or the other.”
The history of man is essentially a history of warfare, where territory, tribe or religion drives the impetus for conquest. That our ruling liberal elites in the West today believe that history, current reality and the law of nature no longer apply to us, does not mean the end of warfare. Rather, their wishful thinking simply makes it easier for those who are determined to wage war against us. The idea that wars are a thing of the past is so fantastical that only liberals, who cannot distinguish ideological fantasy from historical reality, could possibly believe that war will ever be vanquished.
Islamic terrorist activity is being constantly thwarted by European intelligence services, but over the next ten years some of these Jihadists will slip through the net and carry out their next very large atrocity. Although most Europeans are still in a deep liberal sleep regarding Islam, this will not last. By 2017 the tensions between Europeans and Islam will have become nerve jangling. Impotent officials will employ ever-stricter government controls in a futile attempt to preserve the façade of societal order.
Somewhere between 2017 and 2030, during a period of heightened tension, Islamists in France, Holland or Britain will blow up one church, train or plane too many. Retaliation will begin and they, in turn will respond. So will the spiral begin.
The police are unable to cope now; they will be even less prepared then. The army will be drafted in, and members of the military who are even willing to carry out orders against their neighbours will find themselves massively outnumbered and outflanked. Civilians will be massacred. And so begins the civil war.
When the violence reaches a tipping point every person — be they moderate or extremist in their views — will be forced to take sides in this war. There will be no bystanders, and no civilians. Moderate Muslims will in all likelihood take the sides of the extremists. This war will resemble none of Europe’s previous conflicts, with their standing armies massed along clearly delineated lines. In the coming conflagration, it will initially be civilians, armed not with tanks and machine guns, but with knives, bombs and terror, who will call out the dogs of war.
I say “initially” because although the army will be of little use in the beginning, it will certainly be capable of forming an impregnable line behind which the native Europeans, unused to knife fighting, will flee and re-group.
And then, enter America — as always— Europe’s saviour. Whilst Europe’s navies blockade the ports, America will deliver technical weaponry to the organised Europeans, weaponry against which Islam will have no response. Whilst they are being annihilated in response to the butchery they carried out in the early days of the war, Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Iran will threaten a nuclear response. If they do, they too will be annihilated.
Such is the future brought about by multicultural liberals. Not only will they be responsible for bloodshed unseen even in the last century, they will also be responsible for the extinction of Islam. In 1907 no one could see the coming carnage, whereas in 2007 all educated people with some knowledge of history can see the inevitable. Quite how large this war becomes is of course beyond any prediction. However, it will not be limited to a merely European conflict. Our civil war could well become a global nuclear war against Islam; and one the Islamists have no hope of winning.
Such a scenario is unimaginable to the vapid multiculturalists, but it is their actions, past and present, which will bring about this nightmare. One can hardly blame Islam for wishing to dominate the world, but one can certainly blame liberals for giving them the geographical means and ideological confidence whereby they feel confident that it is actually possible. Will they attempt it? On a small scale, with their ratio of 18:1 they are attempting it now. How do you think they will behave with a ratio of 5:1 let alone 2:1?
The liberal response to an essay such as this is to make accusations of hysteria and paranoia. To those, I would say only one thing: rather than leave sneering one line comments, give us a thousand word, closely reasoned article explaining why the scenario outlined above is not likely. Use reality-based arguments rather than simply repeating outmoded ideology.
As much as I wish you could present such a case against my scenario, I believe the war is inevitable, and it will be a tragedy for the West, for Islam, and for all of mankind.
Please refute it. I really would like it another future than the one I have outlined.