This is the problem with "democracy": the group with the most people wins.

The biggest threat to the western world is unassimilated aliens.

I have always been a real hard-liner against illegal aliens from Central America, but I'll tell you— the threat of these Islamists has made me change my tune.
We in the US should embrace the people who come here to join the American dream— and those are the folks from Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala. They're here because they want to share in what we have— not destroy it.
They are our hope for the continuation of The American Way. They want to be Americans! (and they tend to have large families)
The Islamic fascists want their idiotic caliphate.

I spent a good amount of time in Los Angeles in the late 70's— early 80's, and got acquainted with the Latino "culture" and some of it irritated me quite a bit, I must say. I don't care for catcalls, honking horns at 6am, and the like.
On the other hand, I got to know families who are fiercely devoted to each other, and saw how proud they were of their children.

I have a number of pals from foreign lands who are now American citizens and I've always been deeply contemptuous of illegals and the elected officials eager to give them a free pass. Cheaters! What part of "ILLEGAL" doesn't compute, you bleeding heart liberals? Send 'em home. They can jump thru the same hoops as my legal colleagues.

But in light of the purposeful, systemic overbreeding of unassimilated Islamic schemers in countries like France and Holland, I came to realize our greatest asset may just be those people willing to risk the punishments of the law to be part of America. We middle- and upper-class Americans of all races and creeds can't match the numbers of crazies who are having 12 and 14 kids. We may need to shift our focus and change our laws to embrace the people who LOVE this country, no matter how they came to be here.

(I wanted to say "unassimilated Islamic rodents" but thought better of it)

A sweet recent moment from Hitch... (I was gonna save it to clobber Robert W with, but what the heck, let's party, it's the weekend.)

If anyone can provide the sources of some of the statistics cited in the demographics video I would be grateful:

Birthrate of 2.11 necessary to sustain a culture

No culture has recovered from a birth rate of 1.9

Impossible to recover from birthrate of 1.11

I've heard similar numbers cited before but never a reference to the source data from which they are drawn.

I'm doing my part to keep us going! At some point during this pregnancy with #4, my mom actually said "good! We need to outbreed the muslims!". True, apparently.

We promote the cult of the almighty individual, and have been working relentlessly to dismantle the traditional family structure, for fear that someone will be "oppressed." We have created a "Woman's Nation" in pursuit of consumerism, political correctness and "liberation." Welcome to the Matriarchy, where women and men compete -- and we all lose.

They promote large, strong families. They maintain a Patriarchy where men and women complement one another. We will die out. They will bury us. We had our chance, and are blowing it.

Fair enough, and well-deserved. We choose "stuff" over children, and self-indulgence over self-sacrifice. Mother Nature will impose the ultimate penalty for our arrogance.

(Amazing the number of nihilists here, who just don't give a crap, so long as they "get theirs.")

"men and women complement one another"? In Muslim culture? Are you serious?

"We promote the cult of the almighty individual"

Because collectivism sucks.

" ... and have been working relentlessly to dismantle the traditional family structure"

What kind of Kool-Aid have you been drinking? Who is trying to dismantle the traditional family structure, and how? How do you define "traditional" family structure anyway? By whose traditions? Arranged marriages between 13-year-olds? You and your empty blather.

Is there any light amidst the demographic gloom? Yes. If you look up the demographics of Iran vs the USA on Wikipedia or the CIA fact book, you'll see that the USA has a slightly higher population growth rate - 0.89 % per year vs 0.88 %. The Iranian birth rate is still higher (16.9 births per year per 1000 people, vs 14.2 in the US), but the Iranian death rate is also higher, and not very many people are immigrating to the Islamic Republic. Iranian birth rates used to be much, much higher - the population more than doubled from 27 million to 55 million between 1968 & 1988, but it's only gone up to 70 million in 2008. You can't blame the plummeting Iranian birth rate on affluence & Western lifestyles - it's a poverty-stricken mullahcracy. The Ayatollahs have been screaming at Iranians to get busy breeding soldiers for Allah for over 30 years now, but people just aren't listening to them anymore.

And if Somalis & Yemenis still want to breed like rats, let them. All they're doing is sinking their countries deeper & deeper into poverty, and the more poverty-stricken the Muslim world becomes, the less of a threat it will be to the civilized world, especially after their oil runs out.

Muslim demographics wouldn't be an issue at all, if only Western countries had the nerve to severely limit immigration from Muslim countries.

But, Martin, the problem occurs when they move West. If they stayed in the Middle East, or Somalia, or whatever, it wouldn't matter.

And Western culture is more interested in "embracing diversity" than maintaining its own civilization.

"And Western culture is more interested in "embracing diversity" than maintaining its own civilization."

If that's true, then Western culture is a sissy culture that deserves what it gets.

I'm not falling for these scare tactics, though - besides, who the hell can afford eight kids?

"A Muslim immigrant living on the dole off wage-earning modern Westerners."

Excellent point! If the French get tired of Muslims moving in and living off the welfare dole while refusing to assimilate, well guess who is in a position to do something about it? The French! Yet remember those French college kids who rioted over the possibility of free market reforms? I have a hard time feeling too sorry for them.

As was alluded to earlier, the United States is more likely to be influenced by immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American nations, rather than muslims, as latinos are a much greater part of the population here (as opposed to Europe).

Most latinos are Catholic, and thus have Christian rather than Islamic values. While not an ideal situation, it sounds preferable to Sharia law.

Just out of curiosity, JayR, how many kids do you have?

Here's a fun factoid:

| WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The more often
| Americans go to church, the more
| likely they are to support the
| torture of suspected terrorists,
| according to a new survey

Well they do belive in an all loving god who will condem you to an eternity of unending agony and horror for thousands of meaningless reasons,

When ou think about it, what is torture compared to the "love" of god?

God is a prom queen? Awesome.

If I discovered that the ants living in my back yard were creating little shrines in my honor and worshiping me, I'd be a little touched, but then I'd laugh at them and tell them to quit wasting their time. They should be improving their houses and taking care of the eggs and storing food, especially when they can't really benefit me by worshiping me anyway.

Which gets me to wondering, if there really was an invisible man living in the sky, how would we benefit him by worshiping him? Sort of like the ultimate 'What kind of gift do you get someone who already has everything?'

It always struck me as especially dumb in the Old Testament how God always wanted people to sacrifice only their VERY BEST livestock to him. I mean, here's God, who can create a perfect cow or sheep any time he wants to. And here are these people, struggling to make a living, who should be using their best livestock for breeding, not wasting them on pointless sacrifices that don't accomplish anything.

"Just out of curiosity, JayR, how many kids do you have?"

I have three great kids, MonicaP! That's why I AM worried about the future. I would have loved to have more, but life is expensive, as has been noted. Would my lifestyle have been 'better" without kids? Sure ... if you value "stuff" more than love and family.

>"'And Western culture is more interested in "embracing diversity" than maintaining its own civilization.'

If that's true, then Western culture is a sissy culture that deserves what it gets."

PJ, well said! You hit the nail on the head -- before you went back to whistling in the dark.

Valuing "stuff" is only part of the equation here. I'm sure that's a factor for some people. And if someone is going to resent a child because what they really wanted was a large-screen TV, then I think it's best for all concerned for them to go for the TV.

But I think it's largely a matter of quality of life. Many people just don't want children -- don't find them rewarding, don't think the work is worth it. They find greater rewards in careers (not necessarily high-paying ones, but careers that often benefit society as a whole). Muslims who don't want kids are SOL.

The other factor is money -- as in, being able to afford them. As you noted, three children are expensive. I remember when my ex and I were discussing having a child. I worked three jobs and still made less than $40,000 a year in NYC and still had tons of student-loan debt. He made nothing because he'd been laid off. There's no way we could have done it without help from the state. Even one child would have thrown us deeply into debt. Just like you, we decided not to bring more children into this world than we could afford to raise. Unfortunately, one was more than we could afford.

Interestingly, what makes Western civilization as great as it is -- the freedom to chart our own paths -- may ultimately hurt us, but I'd rather go down like that than coerce people into lifestyles they don't want.

"The biggest threat to the western world is unassimilated aliens." I couldn’t agree with this statement more.

Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Theodore Roosevelt:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes
here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he
shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an
outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or
birthplace, or origin. But.this is predicated upon the man's becoming
in very fact an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no
divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but
something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one
flag, the American flag ... and this excludes the red flag, which
symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it
excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have
room for but one language here, and that is the English language. And
we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is a loyalty to the
American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

I think the executive order signed by Obama (H.R. 1388) was pretty frightening? Here is a consolidated version:

By executive order, Obama has ordered the expenditure of 20.3Million in "migration assistance" to the Palestinian Refugees and "conflict victims" from Gaza. This allows hundreds Of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to Resettle in the United States, was signed on January 27 and was reported in the federal register on February 4th. The Order provides a free ticket replete with housing and Food allowances to individuals who have Displayed their overwhelming support to the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)- In the parliamentary election of January 2006.

Full text of the Order can be found here: http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2009-02-04-E9-2488

All this to Palestinians, unanimously voted the “Residents-least-likely-to-assimilate-and-prove-to –be-productive-members-of-their-new-society”.

Careful folks, some of us are bordering on "extremist" tendencies- according DHS:

(U) anti-immigration extremism: (U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who are vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, particularly along the U.S. southwest border with Mexico, and who have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism to advance their extremist goals. *They are highly critical of the U.S. Government’s response to illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are designed to extend “rights” to illegal aliens, such as issuing driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education.*

"Interestingly, what makes Western civilization as great as it is -- the freedom to chart our own paths -- may ultimately hurt us, but I'd rather go down like that than coerce people into lifestyles they don't want."

You get it, MonicaP. If you ever want to move to Iowa, where the cost of living is a lot less and there are still jobs, I'd be happy to call you a neighbor.

P.S. It won't ultimately hurt us.

No Jay R, I'm not whistling in the dark, it's true - the reason people are on this planet is to take care of dogs. You have three kids, so that's great - at three dogs per kid, you just took nine dogs out of shelters.

Really, who gives a rats ass about dogs? Would that we could euthanize people who bite as easily as we do dogs in shelters.

"nterestingly, what makes Western civilization as great as it is -- the freedom to chart our own paths -- may ultimately hurt us, but I'd rather go down like that than coerce people into lifestyles they don't want.""

Well, thanks for volunteering the rest of us to go down with you. I wonder why society should provide you with things like police, fire dept, roads, etc, since you're so happy for it to disappear rather than sacrifice in any way for the better good.

You do realize that that quote exactly describes any number of societies-Rome, greece, etc-right before they did disappear, right?

Postal box scene from Bedazzled

Peter Cook and Dudley Moore discuss what God required of Lucifer, and why Lucifer became bored of adoring God all of the time, and fell out of favor. From the 1967 film "Bedazzled".

The roads!!! I couldn't wait for that to show up.

Thank you. Like I don't pay association dues, state and county taxes, and property taxes. THAT must be what I'm complaining about, right. Yes, THESE are huge restrictions on me charting my own path. I'm just another tinfoil-hat-wearing loony, who doesn't want to pay for the water main in front of my house.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The more often
| Americans go to church, the more
| likely they are to support the
| torture of suspected terrorists,
| according to a new survey

Unsurprising, since Christian theology teaches that people are responsible for their own moral choices. People who don't believe in personal responsibility are naturally more likely to oppose anything resembling punishment.

It's coming, thanks to the Muslim birth rate.

I'm not concerned about some future Caliphate. Islamic rules prevent Islamic societies from competing successfully with non-Islamic countries like ours; they can't win if half their potential Einsteins and Edisons are kept purposely uneducated. Their inherent unfairness is a massive competitive disadvantage.

What I am concerned about is the cost of our victory; the sooner Europeans wake up to the threat, the fewer people will be hurt in the long run.

One way to fight this culture battle is to stop rescuing people from their own bad decisions (such as the decision to have more kids than one can support) by abolishing the nanny state. A society that is more free and less corrupt provides little incentive for opposition and is simultaneously stronger and therefore better able to face opposition. Islam is strong in the middle east partly for social reasons that do not have to be true in the West.

Unsurprising, since Christian theology teaches that people are responsible for their own moral choices. People who don't believe in personal responsibility are naturally more likely to oppose anything resembling punishment.

Posted by: Pseudonym

Please explain away foreordination then

"Islamic rules prevent Islamic societies from competing successfully with non-Islamic countries like ours; they can't win if half their potential Einsteins and Edisons are kept purposely uneducated."

Sure they can't "win" in the sense of creating modern competent industrialized societies that can compete with other modern such societies. However, they most certainly *can* turn the whole world into one huge, backwards third-world slum, like Africa but worldwide, where billions just live in poverty for centuries or millenia to come, technology all but forgotten. A new 'dark ages', if you will.

In fact, if you really analyze these trends in any depth, you will realize that this is by far the most likely outcome. I mean, sure they rely on Western welfare now to have a good quality life. But nothing prevents everyone from just living in poverty once we're gone.

I most certainly don't want such a future, and I think people with any sense would do whatever it takes to prevent such a future scenario from unfolding. We've come so far with science and technology, and are on the verge of incredible breakthroughs; this is something truly special that needs to be nurtured and protected.

The problem that many European nations have is that excessive levels of welfare statism, political correctness, and social engineering have undermined their ability to fight for survival in the face of serious threats.

As Mark Steyn amply notes, soft cultures don't survive for long in the face of hard cultures. And nanny statism is the ultimate soft culture, while Islamic fundamentalism is the ultimate hard culture.

Please explain away foreordination then

There's no need to explain it away because it does not conflict with free will and personal moral responsibility, and in any case it's moot because you don't believe in it anyway. :)

If you want to know what I believe: "predestination" means that God knows what we will choose in the future.

Sure they can't "win" in the sense of creating modern competent industrialized societies that can compete with other modern such societies. However, they most certainly *can* turn the whole world into one huge, backwards third-world slum

When Americans see what happens to Europe, we will not allow it to happen here. Or when some European countries see what happens to other European countries, they will change their behavior (or immigrate to America).

Part of the competition I referred to is for the hearts and minds of the next generation. In a country that is repressive, corrupt, and absent of opportunity, Islam can look appealing. In a country that is free and full of opportunity to better one's life, Islam is less appealing. If the culture offers a better alternative, people (even those raised in Islam) will take it.

"'m not concerned about some future Caliphate. Islamic rules prevent Islamic societies from competing successfully with non-Islamic countries like ours; they can't win if half their potential Einsteins and Edisons are kept purposely uneducated. Their inherent unfairness is a massive competitive disadvantage."

Then please explain why the educated enlightened societies are always, always overrun by the ignorant barbarians. Every single time in history. Obviously, they can win. And sheer numbers is a great way to do so.

I don't necessarily think we're seeing the end of civilization, just the end of Western civilization. Some societies may well be strong and advanced and intelligent and hardworking enough (and not suicidally self-loathing like Western culture) to carry the baton of civilization forward even as the West ultimately sinks into a third-world Muslim status --- for example Japan, and perhaps combined with e.g. China / South Korea etc. Japan don't take no "immigration" nonsense.

"No Jay R, I'm not whistling in the dark, it's true - the reason people are on this planet is to take care of dogs."

Great. Now my cats are pissed off ...

Nick S: "The problem that many European nations have is that excessive levels of welfare statism, political correctness, and social engineering have undermined their ability to fight for survival in the face of serious threats."

So true. And how exactly is the U.S. (now a "Woman's Nation," per Maria Shriver) any different?

"I'm not concerned about some future Caliphate. Islamic rules prevent Islamic societies from competing successfully with non-Islamic countries like ours; they can't win if half their potential Einsteins and Edisons are kept purposely uneducated. Their inherent unfairness is a massive competitive disadvantage."

Then please explain why the educated enlightened societies are always, always overrun by the ignorant barbarians. Every single time in history.

The barbarians have not always won. When they did, they typically had a military advantage; for example, central asian nomads were very good at fighting from horseback. Furthermore, in most of those cases, the barbarians were culturally assimilated by the civilization they conquered.

To be fair, "barbarian" is not accurate; the Huns, Mongols and so on had their own cultures. "Barbarian" was an epithet applied by their enemies.

Nomadic invaders frequently had to adopt the tools of the sedentary civilizations they preyed upon to be successful. The Mongols would not have been able to conquer China's fortified cities without the siege engines built for them by their Chinese slaves.

In North America, sedentary civilization defeated nomadic opponents and imposed its way of life on them.

In Spain, Europeans drove out the African Muslim invaders after a few generations.

The Eastern Roman Empire successfully resisted many barbarian invasions before eventually being conquered by Ottoman cannons.

Jay R, I guess the US has not gone quite as far down the same path, but is still getting there nonetheless.

The difference is that in the US there is still a certain degree of cultural support for limited government, free speech and personal freedom.

P.S. I assume you are the same Jay R that used to comment on Glenn Sacks. I was disappointed to hear you had been banned. I thought you used to make a lot of good contributions there.

My family goes back to the second voyage of the Mayflower and I'm distantly related to Robert E. Lee and, through him, to George Washington. My daughter would be eligible to join the D.A.R. So, from my perspective, just about everybody reading this is a recent immigrant.

Here's what I think about immigration from Mexico. I like Mexicans and think we need more of them in the United States. In my experience (which is extensive, having lived in Los Angeles for 22 years), Mexicans are 1) Family-oriented, 2) Hard-working, 3) Easygoing, 4) Charitable. It's not a perfect culture, but it's a hell of a lot better than, say, urban black gangsta culture or rural white hillbilly culture.

Here's a real life experience to provide some context. I've been to perhaps 250 business conferences in my life. The best conference I ever attended was a HP meeting in Mexico, attended entirely by Mexican sales teams. Everybody brought their families with them, to all the meals and all the non-business events. Rather than a bunch of stuffy speeches and mind-bendingly boring conversations, there was real life and fun just about everywhere. Just watching the flirting among the teenagers was a real hoot.

I made more friends and had a better time than any vacation I've ever taken, which is saying something because I hate business conferences and I generally go on pretty cool vacations.

I think U.S. culture (in general) and U.S. business culture (in particular) needs a bit less of "let's all be type A assholes" and a lot more of "we can deal with that manyana." As such, I see the influx of Latino culture as a positive rather than a negative.

This is an issue I spend a lot of time worrying about. There is a chance that my husband may land a job in Switzerland this summer. We both love Switzerland, and it would be convenient since all his relatives, and all my maternal relatives live there, and we would have a higher standard of living.

I'm worried about the Islamic problem, though. I don't mind having -some- Muslim/other neighbors, a bit* of diversity adds some spice, and they usually make good neighbors in my experience. However, there are just too many, and they aren't all assimilated. I don't want our kids to go to schools that are half muslim, which is the situation in the city. The eastern Europeans are a big problem as well.

We could move to the countryside, but we both have a bi-national background (his parents immigrated from Germany, so they aren't really Swiss, and my Swiss mom emmigrated to marry my dad). Some of the countryside is not even just "La Suisse pour les Suisses", but very regional-minded as well. On the other hand, maybe they'd be psyched that Swiss people are coming back and having Swiss babies (as is the plan).

But I'm still quite nervous. I do not feel as safe in Geneva as I do in the States. Or in Paris, which isn't in CH but has similar problems. Largely because of the North African men who like to grab me... this doesn't happen so much in America, even though I regularly am in sketchy neighborhoods. It happens often in Europe... I haven't mastered the cold wall of hardness that the European women have.

* I cannot emphasize the word "bit" enough

Geoffrey, I'm in the DAR :) I also have enough choctaw blood I qualified for tribal membership, although I'm as guerra as one can be.

I wouldn't agree about the overwhelming positives on mexican immigration. Mexican gangs have overtaken black gangs in causation of crime. And their single parenthood is going up very fast.

"The barbarians have not always won. When they did, they typically had a military advantage; for example, central asian nomads were very good at fighting from horseback. Furthermore, in most of those cases, the barbarians were culturally assimilated by the civilization they conquered."

They were considered barbarians by those they conquered. I doubt muslims call themselves barbarians, but we do. Also, they do have military advantage-a seemingly unlimited supply of people willing to blow themselves up while taking out large numbers of us.

"I assume you are the same Jay R that used to comment on Glenn Sacks. I was disappointed to hear you had been banned. I thought you used to make a lot of good contributions there."

Hi, Nick S! Yes, it's me. Thank you for the kind words. Well, Glenn needs to protect his image now that he's going "mainstream." I appreciate his efforts, but he has a pretty thin skin sometimes. (I didn't violate any of his rules, though. I was banned for excessive "asininity." :) )

Sorry this is personal and off-topic, Amy!

Jay, it is kind of funny that you were banned for being excessively asinine. There are plenty of people a hell of a lot more asinine than you who are still welcome there. I have often made the mistake of debating them myself.

"There are plenty of people a hell of a lot more asinine than you."

"Individual assholes, again, are quite welcome here."

Uh, thanks, Nick S and Amy, for your kind(?) sentiments! ;)

Nick S, actually I wounded Glenn's pride, I'm afraid, in a private e-mail exchange with him concerning one of the biggest Manginas on earth, Hugo Schwyzer. That was the unpardonable sin.

Well, thanks for volunteering the rest of us to go down with you. I wonder why society should provide you with things like police, fire dept, roads, etc, since you're so happy for it to disappear rather than sacrifice in any way for the better good.

You do realize that that quote exactly describes any number of societies-Rome, greece, etc-right before they did disappear, right?

I don't recall volunteering anyone for anything. I think society should provide me with police, roads, etc., because I have a job and provide tax money for those things. I'm not sure where that response came from. Are you saying I should have brought multiple children I couldn't afford into the world and lived off welfare to do my part to save Western civ?

Wasn't responding to you, Monica. And no, I've never advocated people having kids-more people shouldn't. I just hate the "I don't care if our society ends" line of crap.

By the way, you pay no where near in taxes what any of those services would cost you personally. Society does benefit us all. Even though I think gov't should be smaller.