Pipes: Moslem immigration dooms Europe

Why is this neocon different from all other neocons? Writing at FrontPage Magazine Daniel Pipes says that low European birth rates and de-Christianization, combined with Moslem immigration, spell the death of Europe. Echoing Jared Taylor, Pipes points to the tragic fact that making a society too desirable can spell its doom. What he means, apparently, is that if a society is extremely attractive as well as open to the rest of the world, the rest of the world will want to move there.

However, while it’s important to ring the alarm bells, let us not give way to the notion of an inevitable European demise, since that only makes Americans and Europeans give Europe up for lost and encourages our Moslem enemies in their aggression against us, even as it encourages American dislike of Europe and so further divides and weakens the West.


Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 11, 2004 08:57 AM | Send
    

Comments

Pipes has altered his opinions on this. In his recent MILITANT ISLAM COMES TO AMERICA, he said that the conquest of Europe by immigration, reproduction and conversion was unlikely. I’ll have to watch and see if he writes anything about his shift. His web page: http://www.danielpipes.org/.

This page is also worth reading:http://robertspencer.org/ (Jihad & Dhimmi Watch).

I have a shelf of books to get through before I attempt an essay, but I think a case can be made that Islam will “win”, that is, that by 2100 muslims will be running the West.

-Bill

Posted by: Bill McClain on May 11, 2004 10:55 AM

A number of neocons have recently changed position on immigration and culture.
Samuel Huntington, Stephen Stienlight, and Victor Davis Hanson have all come out against immigration.
I suppose that they have been mugged by the clash of civilizations.

Posted by: RonL on May 11, 2004 11:52 AM

I’m glad that Daniel Pipes, a writer who has few if any illusions about Islam, now is able to see Europe for what it is. Perhaps some of his readers in the mainstream conservative crowd will start to see the truth about this situation. Pipes actually did mention that the trend could be reversed if Europeans returned to Christianity and started having children again, though he also includes the laughable idea of Muslim assimilation in the list.

The argument for allowing uncontrolled immigration has been that the workers are needed to prop up the extensive welfare and retirement system. The Tranzis who typically make this argument are the same ones who have been advocating abortion and feminism all along. The only women to buy into the lie have been the Euros themselves. Do these folks seriously believe that the Muslims will be willing to pay enormous taxes to fund the retirement and medical care of a elderly European population once they achieve sufficient numbers? Pipes then goes on to advocate diversifying the immigrants so as to dilute the Islamic presence. This is merely a recipe for bloody ethnic conflict between various immigrant groups. The only real choice for the survival of European civilization is to repent of liberalism.

Are there any signs of life in Europe? The one semi-conservative party (Vlaams Blok) in Belgium was declared illegal by a Tranzi judge a couple of weeks ago. Once the remnant of European conservatism (Le Pen, the BNP, etc.) are successfully locked out of the political system, which seems to be the Tranzi strategy, the conservatives will have to make some very hard choices about how to overthrow the Trazi regime.
I find it very tragic that all of the newly independent peoples of Eastern Europe have signed on to the EU bandwagon - blindly handing over their sovereignty and freedom to a gang of corrupt Eurocrats in Brussels. After a decade’s respite, they have chosen to go back to servitude.

Posted by: Carl on May 11, 2004 11:55 AM

To Carl:

What is Tranzi?

Posted by: Mik on May 11, 2004 12:57 PM

Europe isn’t letting Muslims run wild because they don’t believe it’s a threat; they’re letting them run wild because they don’t believe in their own culture. They’re taught from a young age that western culture is racist, homophobic, aggressive, and barbaric.

The Muslims believe. The West does not believe. This battle may be decided before it is fought…

Posted by: Mark on May 11, 2004 1:20 PM

A good summing up of the problem by Mark. Since he seems to be a newcomer at VFR, I recommend that he read my booklet, “Erasing America: The Politics of the Borderless Nation,” where I discuss how the alienation and moral nihilism operating inside the West work hand in glove with the immigration invasion coming from outside the West.

http://www.aicfoundation.com/booklets.htm

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on May 11, 2004 2:34 PM

To Mik: Tranzi is an abbreviation for “transnational progressive.” This term was coined by John Fonte of the Hudson Institute a couple of years ago entitled “The Ideological War Within the West.” Here is a link I found to an archived web page

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2002_04-06/fonte_ideological/fonte_ideological.html

Basically it’s an expansion of the author’s thoughts on the tremendous success that leftists have enjoyed in the west through the application of the theories advocated by the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. The ruling elite of the west, politicians, corporate, relgious, and institutional leaders overwhelmingly share this bankrupt, nihilistic, utopian worldview. I would include both George Bush and John Kerry in a list of American Tranzis. The only viable force on earth that actually presents a viable opposition to them is, ironically, Islam. Since Muslims wish to destroy the west, most Tranzis view Islam as a useful ally in their goal of destroying what is left of traditonal western civilization so the “new world order” can be ushered in. They are counting on Islam falling to the same corrupting influence of a popular culture and media machine they control. Hence their enthusiasm for unlimited immigration from the Islamic world. It also explains why we so often see corporate types like George Soros and Bill Gates supporting the expansion of government and other socialist, leftist policies.

Some Tranzis may actually view Islam as a threat to their plans and thus are willing to fight against its more agressive forms (George W. Bush). This may very well explain the split between “old Europe” (Kerry, Chirac, Schoeder, et al) vs. Bush, Blair and Co.

Posted by: Carl on May 11, 2004 3:26 PM

Mark writes:

“The Muslims believe. The West does not believe. This battle may be decided before it is fought…”

Very well put. I have heard Michael Savage put it this way on his program:

“Muslims are happy to die for their cause. We are not willing to kill them to defend ours. They will win.”

Posted by: Mik on May 12, 2004 1:44 PM

One of the most disturbing things to me about the whole ‘neocon’ movement has been its attempt to decouple America from Europe. Go back and read some pre 9/11 ‘Weekly Standards’ if you don’t believe me on this. A distinctly remember articles about how Guatemala represented our future (which it well may) and how this was a G
Good Thing.

One of the hopeful signs is that in Europe — at least on the continent — anti mass immigration parties are actually winning elections. Despite the whole EU apparatus against them. Think list Pym Fortyn. Think Pia Kirkegard (sp?)in Denmark, think 19% of the vote going to Le Penn. And of course Haider.

Posted by: Mitchell Young on May 13, 2004 6:53 PM

Not only do the neocons want to decouple America from Europe as Mr. Young says, they want to separate America from it’s history. Not every neocon will go this far, but many of them will. One, Tamar Jacoby, has written that “immigrants” should be recognized as the “True American Heroes,” instead of the people who actually founded this country.

At times (such as the Trent Lott affair), they will sneer at “White racist America,” which was redeemed by the civil rights movement, plus immigration. One example is Cal Thomas’s enthusiastic reception to GWB’s speech in Africa denouncing the American past.

Posted by: David on May 13, 2004 10:59 PM

Or, speaking of distorting our past, check out this quote from Rumsfeld:

“On Tuesday, Rumsfeld defended the U.S. military’s role in Iraq and suggested that Iraq’s expected reconstruction was no more deadly that the building of the United States after the Revolutionary War. “The building of a free state in Iraq has proceeded probably with fewer lives lost and certainly no more mayhem than we endured here in the United States 228 years ago when we were going through it, or than occurred in Japan or Germany after World War II,” Rumsfeld said at the Pentagon.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&u=/nm/20040511/pl_nm/iraq_abuse_inhofe_dc&printer=1

Does he really believe the mayhem of a failed Middle Eastern state closely resembles that of the U.S. revolutionary period ? Did either side in that era resemble any of the various Iraqi factions? What’s Rumsfeld saying ?

Posted by: Allan Wall on May 14, 2004 8:26 AM

Mr. Auster
As a new viewer to your site for the last month I hope you will allow me to post this insightfull Israeli perspective from one of my favorite observers. Thank you.
B.Ramer

Note from LA: This looks like an interesting article, but please do not paste the entire text of an article into this discussion forum. Instead, provide the link to the article. Below is the link to the article. The Jerusalem Post requires a sign-in.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1084510308405&p=1006953079897

Posted by: B. Ramer on May 14, 2004 1:48 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?





Email entry

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):