« Judge Alito, Prager on Munich, China's Secret and more | Main | K-Swiss: Ban Iran From The World Cup »



There is hope that in the wake of the French riots that Europeans will begin to assimilate Muslims and start treating them as well as the US treats them...

Road Hammer

Also crucial is abandoning cultural relativism and speaking out against it.


I always like the doom and gloom numbers people.

What are they actually trying to get across??

Are we to lay down and SUBMIT??

Are we to start having more babies??

Are we to leave the planet??

Maybe we should nuke all Muslim countries and do China while we are pushing buttons??

In the US this especially strikes me funny. We have women driving their kids around who KNOW that over 30,000 people a year die in auto accidents. If they are trying to scare us into submission they have another think coming.

If any of these Islamicists so much as make one of these ladies late they will become another one of those statisitics!! And most of the Muslims in the US have been pretty well culturally pacified already. Few of them want to return to living like animals under radical Imams.

I should point out that in Europe recently, the Imams were able to mobilise a rather large contingent of young people. If the French Police hadn't been pulled back years ago this would not have happened. If the fecal matter intersects the revolving airfoil the French Foreign Legion will put the fear of Allah into those kids post haste just like they have done in Northern Africa.

I am not a big fan of the French, BUT, more so than the US, the leaders of the country aren't THAT representative of them. The French leaders really need to start thinking about the French Revolution. Even toy poodles can make a MEAN DOG PACK!!! The standard poodle was a hunting dog!!

Solid Surfer

I think Steyn's main point was to try and alert Westerners about Islam's apparent demographic threat. Demographics can't really be easily discerned much of the time (i.e. if you live in a big city, birthrates may be low, but you wouldn't really know it and may even think the opposite because there's so many people around in general), so many people might not otherwise realize the facts without people like Steyn reporting them.

Thing is, native European demographics themselves are much less of a problem than radical Muslim immigration. Even if Europe at this very moment had, say, twice as many native people, it wouldn't solve the Islamist problem, because the same Muslims would still be there too.

Increasing the native European population (or getting immigrants from the non-Muslim world) is certainly vital for Europe's economic health. But the only thing that will solve the jihadist threat is to deport radicals, limit Muslim immigration, and crack down on extremism.

Solid Surfer

There's also one other thing I don't understand too - Europe says it needs these Muslim immigrants to fill jobs created by its low native population growth. Fair enough, but if that's the case, then why are so many of the Muslim immigrants unemployed? It doesn't really make sense; with Europe's labor shortage, you'd think there be jobs in abundance for them.


No doubt many of the immigrants are unemployable, or are only marginally so. Moreover, with the strictures and penalties the EU places on firms which wish to lay off employees, employers do not want to take chances when they employ individuals.


"Muslims have increased from 15% to 20%. True enough, but that also means the non-developed, non-Muslim world has increased its share at a greater rate: from 55% to 65%."

Acc to the above, Muslims' share hs increased 33%. Non-Muslims' share has increased 18%.

Other than that, a nice bit of reality testing. Good work.

Solid Surfer

Glad you liked the piece. That's a really good point about the percentages; I should have clarified that I meant overall growth level as opposed to growth rate.

Even with such growth rates, though, I still think my argument is valid, as most of the Muslim growth nevertheless came from births and not conversions, and Muslim birthrates are definitely slowing.

John Sobieski

This demographic is based on the current observation that 1 out of 3 babies born in France is a Muslim. That means in 20 years, 1 out of 3 20 years old will be a Muslim. The theory goes that the ratio of Muslim babies to infidel babies will grow to 1 out of 2 in 20 years, if not earlier.

Looking at islamification of other countries, it really heats up when the Muslim population reaches about 20%. France will be more than 20% Muslim in 10 years. Just look what is happening there when the Muslim population is 10% today. The trend is obvious. Of course, government can change this trend. LePen would sure do that. Sarkozy seems to be a wuss. Villepin a pompous twit.

We'll just see but I agree halting Muslim immigration should be passed by EU countries. The EU countries are losing control to that monster the EU and all its nonelected organizations that are tearing away the member's sovereignty over their population and immigration.

Solid Surfer

John, I agree with you on the EU - I definitely don't think it'll hold up for too long. Perhaps it will remain in name only, but I definitely think the member nations will curtail its powers as an overall umbrella entity.

Nice website there too.

Julien Peter Benney

As a (past) student both of terrorism and geopolitics on the one hand and of environmental science on the other, I am well aware of the trend towards declining population in Europe (and also Japan and New Zealand).

However, being from Australia, a nation with an exceedingly infertile environment (basically relictual -apart from its aridity and smallness - of the Triassic or Jurassic when there were no polar ice caps or high mountain ranges), I am equally well aware of the dangers of overpopulation on a fragile, resource-poor environment.

Thus, I am well aware of the potentially catastrophic combination of demographic decline in fertile Europe, East Asia and New Zealand and continud population growth and resultant environmental destruction in Australia.

It is an utterly undeniable (but in no way surprising) tragedy that nobody who looks at either of these problems is willing to go into a thorough and spotless analysis of why infertile, fragile Australia maintains higher birth rates than fertile, robust Europe, East Asia and New Zealand. The heart of the matter, of course, is essentially what has caused long-term fertility decline in Europe, East Asia, New Zealand and in more recent times Canada and the eastern United States. It also must satisfactorily explain why Australia has been so much less affected despite its massively less productive environments.

Tim Flannery and Jared Diamond, both of whom give excellent accounts ("The Future Eaters", "Collapse") of just how fragile and unusually resource-poor Australia's environment is compared to ALL other continents, at best gloss over this HIGHLY IMPORTANT question as if they fear the exaplanation they would find being unacceptable to them.

On the other side, writers like Pat Buchanan in "The Death of The West" (quite naturally of course because of his Catholic faith) and even Phillip Longman in the excellent "The Empty Cradle" assume Australia has the same problem of falling birthrates that Europe, East Asia and New Zealand do. A mere glance at the nature of Australia's soils, water resources and climate ought to throw such an idea out of anybody's mind.

Exaplaining what has (over a LONG period) created the present fertility crisis in Europe, East Asia and New Zealand and the consequent threat of a fundamnetalist Islamic takeover of Europe is, I admit, very difficult. Attributing it to a collapse of Christianity (and to former religions in Japan) may well be correct but is ridiculously shallow for the simple reason of being utterly unwilling to trace the decline of religion in Europe and Japan to its most fundamental roots.

Given the productivity of the environments of Europe and New Zealand, environmental degradation and resource can be strictly ruled out as a cause, so we must look, I feel to social change. I can see possible causes relating to the change from a pre-industrial to an industrial society and the fact that children are of little value in industrial society, but a precise explanation is still much too far away for comfort because the US and Australia have not suffered the same decline in fertility. Explanations based on the relative abundance of metallic mineral resources (generally inversely proportional to soil fertility except fof extremely scarce metals like mercury) are a possibility but I do not know if they re going to solve the problem.

In short, the problems of demographic decline in productive regions and environmental destruction in infertile ones must NOT be separated even if they seem opposite.

Solid Surfer

Those are some interesting considerations. I think the decline in birthrates has many different causes, and they're often different from country to country.

I agree that worldwide, much of the decline has come from industrializtion, because now that people become successful primarily by getting an education instead of working on a farm, parents want to raise only as many kids as they can affordably educate.

But in addition to this, secularization has further contributed to the decline, because liberal secular people seem to be much less family oriented (on average) than their religious counterparts. This, I believe, is why the more religious U.S. has a higher fertility rate than the more secular Western Europe, despite similar levels of industrialization.

Based on this, for example, I believe that Eastern Europe, because the people are more religious, will experience rising fertility over the next few decades along with economic growth. I don't think this will occur among the more secular populations of Japan and Western Europe.

Of course you never know, though, as the only thing we truly know about fertility rates is that they're always changing and quite unpredictable. Virtually no one predicted the U.S. baby boom after World War II, and so for all we know, something similar might occur again at any time.


I think the main point of this article is the fact that islam = evil. This in my humble opinion is not in fact true. 99% of muslims do not associate themselve with radical islam. It is only popular today because it is a way to release anger towards the west for those select few who were negatively affected (Cold war ring a bell?).Christianity in Europe is not at all strong. Look at the divisons in the Catholic church today. The question you need to address is are Christians practising their religion? We know that muslims indeed are since this article would not been posted then. if you explore islam, you will see that it is not much differnt then Christianity. The only big difference...in Christianity Jesus is holy and a god...while in islam Jesus is holy and a messenger. Is there so diffenence that blood needs to be spilled or hatrid needs to be stirred? isnt that to only way to crush extreamism...The real problem?

Julien Peter Benney

Re "But in addition to this, secularization has further contributed to the decline, because liberal secular people seem to be much less family oriented (on average) than their religious counterparts."

Firstly, there is little evidence that Eastern Europeans are more religious than Western Europeans. Indeed, many nations therein - such as the Czech Republic, Estonia and Russia itself - are even less religious than Western Europe. Have you read Eamonn Kelly's informative but passionless book "Powerful Times: Rising to the Challenge of Our Uncertain World"?? He clearly shows how secularised most ex-Stalinist nations are??

Secondly, the question of exactly WHY the US and to some degree Australia are much more religious than most of Europe and hence have higher fertility rates even if they are (as is actually true to some degree of the more religious regions of the Western US when compared to the secular yet ecologically robust Northeast) more ecologically fragile and cannot support larger populations still seems a sort of taboo topic among both demographers and ecologists. It even seems taboo among these groups to suggest that in fact the ratio of sustainable population denisities of Europe, East Asia and New Zealand on one hand to that of Australia on the other are in fact MUCH GREATER than the ratio of actual population densities today. Yet, Flannery, Diamond and Australia's leading hydrologist Tom McMahon show Australia to be so ecologically different from other developed nations that it is utter fallacy for ANY demographer to treat Australia in the same way as Europe, East Asia, Canada or New Zealand.

It will be an enormous breakthrough when demographers worldwide are aware of this and are perhaps willing to ask why ecologically fragile regions should be more religious than ecologically robust ones. Whilst I have some understading from Flannery's work on Australian and American history, he (and others) really should go into the topics with many times more depth.

Solid Surfer

I haven't read Kelly's book, but religion (both Christianity and Judaism) is growing dramatically in Eastern European countries. Of course, 70 years of Communism made these nations ultra-secular, and they are still mostly secular today. But when Communism fell 15 years ago, there was virtually no religion there at all. Today, a significant portion of the populations of all of these countries are practicing their religion(s) again. Sure, it's not everyone, but religion has a very positive growth rate there, especially as compared to the dramatic decline in religious belief in Western Europe over the last 40 years. For these reasons, I think Eastern European fertility will rebound along with the region's economies.

As for your second point, I don't know that ecology makes much of a fertility difference. I have read Jared Diamond's work on the subject, and while I agree ecology may have made a difference in the past when people lived in pre-industrial societies, I think that in today's modern societies, the major factors determining fertility are necessity, opportunity, and culture.

In the past, culture didn't matter so much, because children were a necessity on the farm, and there was no effective opportunity for contraception. Today, however, children are not needed for family income (and, in fact, they do the opposite, as bringing them up costs money), and contraception opportunites are there if people want.

So really, a nation's fertility depends on its culture, the major question being: is having kids considered important in the nation's culture, or is it not? Religiosity plays a large part in creating a family-oriented culture, but other factors exist as well, such as the country's economy and worker salaries, housing prices, male-female social norms (i.e. ultra-feminism as a social norm is bad for fertility), national optimism, and the status of mothers in the workplace.

Both the U.S. and Australia, I believe, have more family-oriented cultures that Europe does, due to a combination of these factors such as a more religious population, cheaper land and housing prices, more traditional female social norms, and higher national optimism over the future.

This, I think, can explain the fertility difference.

Solid Surfer

Just saw Roman's comments above...somehow I missed them before.

You say that: "99% of muslims do not associate themselve with radical islam" and that "if you explore islam, you will see that it is not much different then Christianity."

I think many practicing Muslims would largely beg to disagree with you.


Here's a bigger question: Longterm...is there peace for these two vastly opposed religions? Yes, they are not that different but the radicals who currently teach their children (primarily in Palestine...Does anyone know the true demographics of radical Islam?) to hate and kill Jews and Americans (because American is Israel's army) are dangerous. I would like to know if Christianity/Judaism and Islam can coexist longterm on this planet?

Solid Surfer

Hi Wheresmypen,

I don't think any religion can co-exist long-term with Islam unless enough Muslims change their views to make it happen. It's not just Islam vs. Judaism/Christianity; it's Islam versus the entire rest of the world.

Notice that Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. don't generally fight with each other? And notice too that Islam is fighting people of every other religion in many parts of the world? (Israel, Ethiopia, India, Bosnia, Thailand, Russia, Philippines, Nigeria, Indonesia, etc.)

The problem is that according to fundamentalist Islam, Muslims are commanded to wage violent jihad against all non-Muslims until Islam takes over the world. Until enough Muslims give up this concept, it does not appear Islam can peacefully coexist with any other faith.

So how can Jews, Christians, and everyone else solve this problem? Islamic countries are so backward compared to the West in essentially every indicator of national vitality (economy, military, culture, etc.) that, left alone without Western aid and petrodollars, they would completely collapse into global insignificance. If the West was to cut off such funding and isolate the countries, they would wither to such a point that giving up jihadism and sharia would be their only chance for survival.

Is this a likely scenario? Right now I don't think it is, but the more Islamic violence continues, the more likely it will probably get. I certainly hope Islam could one day coexist with other faiths, but if they won't take the steps to do it themselves (and judging from current events, it sure seems like they won't), it seems we'll be forced to defeat them to make it happen.


thesolidsurfer.typepad.com - the Best site

Good night

Thank you, I will add it to my bookmarks




umm.. y do u hve to look at religion? cant u just say the west not growing much and the east growin more but still less..
im from pakistan and im very liberal.. and i dunt like how u thnk tht pple here only want more kids for a takeover!!.. :p thts stupid..


Hi,one guy in this discussion told europe needs immigrant muslims to work. If europe is so desperate for immigrant workers why can't they recruit peaceful immigrants like Hindus,Sikhs,Budhists from Asia who will simply do their job and earn money apart from attending radical teachings and doing suicide bombings. If europe wants peaceful immigrants, better go for above mentioned religions as they are also available in vast millions to fill the work force deficit in europe. They are already working in USA but never involved in terrorist activities as Hinduism,Sikhism,Budhism are known as Dharmic religions who believe in peace and tolerance for others rather than waging mad jehad against fellow humans. My request to european heads is to stop muslim immigration first and then mobilize christian missionaries to convert european muslims to christianity which will solve major risk. Also ban all mosques and madarsas who r preaching jehad to innocent kids and youth in the name of allah. If it's too late, it will become Eurabia. As an indian and non-muslim, i got good respect and opportunities in UK . I don't want to see this liberal european society taken over by radical mad mullahs. In India identifying the possible explosion of muslim population,Hindus and Sikhs preferring to have more kids so that India will remain a Hindu dominated society rather than being occupied by Arabs. So it's up to u all europeans to save the heaven of west.India is my home, Europe is my beautiful garden :-) I want to see both to remain as they were now rather than turning into guest houses for terrorists. The liberal laws of europe as boon for radicals. Europeans respect everybody irrespective of race,religion as they believe other person also behave as gentleman like them.But it's wrong.All immigrants are not having same mindset.Indians(excluding radical muslims) by default are calm going workers who just work and earn their money and lead a decent life.


" do their job and earn money apart from attending radical teachings and doing suicide bombings"

sorry for mistake in my english

Correct it as

" do their job and earn money rather than attending radical teachings and doing suicide bombings"

johann svet

Would it not make more sense to provide incentive for europeans to have more children, than to just import a large amount of people from elsewhere.

we have the some of the lowest birthrates in the world.

martin c.

Just some statistics to confirm Mark Steyn point.

Comparative chart - number of Muslims to Christians:

1900 world population Christian 27% Muslim 12.5%
1980 world population Christian 30% Muslim 16.5%
2000 world population Christian 30% Muslim 19%
2025 world population (PROJECTED) Christian 25% Muslim 30%
2100 ?????????????????????????

In the Maghrib between 1965 and 1990, the population rose from 29.8 million to 59 million. During the same period, the number of Egyptians increased from 29.4 million to 52.4 million. In Central Asia, between 1970 and 1993, populations grew at an annual rate of 2.9 percent in Tajikistan, 2.6 percent in Uzbekistan, 2.5 percent in Turkmenistan, and 1.9 percent in Kyrgyzia. In the 1970s, the demographic balance in the Soviet Union shifted drastically, with Muslims increasing by 24 percent while Russians increased by only 6.5 percent.
The increase in the Muslim heartlands will have a significant impact in Muslim minority areas as well. In some countries, such as Tanzania and Macedonia, the Muslims will become a majority within twenty years. Largely through immigration, the Muslim population of the United States grew sixfold between 1972 and 1990. And even in countries where immigration has been suppressed, the growth continues. Last year, seven percent of babies born in European Union countries were Muslims. In Brussels, the figure was a staggering 57 percent. Islam is already the second religion of almost every European state - the only exceptions being those European countries such as Azerbaijan and Albania where it is the majority religion. If current trends continue, then an overall ten percent of European nationals will be Muslim by the year 2020.

Solid Surfer

Those past numbers you quoted might be accurate, but they do not confirm Mark Steyn's point. Past population growth has already occurred in the past, but what matters now is *current* birthrates and conversion rates. And at the present time, Muslim birthrates are shrinking dramatically all over the globe, and more Muslims convert out (mostly in Africa) than convert in.

As a result, a straight-line future projection from past population numbers is almost certain to be inaccurate. For Muslims to be 30% of the world population by 2025, they'd essentially have to double their current numbers in the next 16 years, and their current birth and conversion rates aren't nearly high enough for this to occur.

The comments to this entry are closed.