America’s Future is Red, Europe’s is Green

A friend who is close to the so-called “paleoconservatives” – who (unlike the Democrats) opposed the Iraq war from the start (i.e. they did not vote for it before they voted against it) – mailed me a recent article at salon.com in which one Gary Kamiya, following last week’s American mid-term elections, is quick to announce the death of neoconservatism. I think, however, that he is wrong.

Kamiya points out that Irving Kristol once defined neoconservatism as “liberalism mugged by reality” and adds that this explains why the ideology acquired so many adherents after 9/11. For exactly this reason I suspect we have not seen the end of neoconservatism yet. Reality is bound to mug us again. Some fear that the world may experience something worse than 9/11. One recurrent fear is that a large Western urban centre may witness a terror attack with nuclear weapons, which could cause the devastation of Hiroshima and millions of casualties.

Some will say this is scaremongering. However, before September 11th 2001, no-one – not even those in the West who hold the premise that the Palestinians (or the Muslims in general) have reason to be angry with the West – was expecting a terror act of the magnitude of 9/11. What happened on that dreadful day was of an unimaginable scale. We have come to realize that some people will stop at nothing.

According to Gary Kamiya the Palestinians feel powerless and “As everyone who has studied terrorism knows, powerless people turn to terrorism.” I have not studied terrorism but I think Kamiya (and the “everyone” he is referring to) is fundamentally wrong here. Perhaps some powerless people turn to terrorism, but there also seems to be another kind of terrorism. Osama bin Laden, an extremely rich man, with the power to order his subordinates to fly planes into the WTC, is not a “powerless” man. It is exactly because the man has power, and revels in it, that he does not wince at the indiscriminate killing of thousands of people. This is not terrorism of the powerless, this is the terrorism of the bully.

The same applied to the Nazis and the terror they unleashed in the 1930s and 40s. It is certainly true that Germany had been badly treated after the First World War. It is also true that the Versailles Treaty (and even more so the criminal Belgo-French occupation of the Ruhr province in 1923, which caused the collapse of the reichsmark and hyperinflation) was the “seedbed of World War II” because it persuaded many “powerless” people to vote for Adolf Hitler. “Paleocons” such as Pat Buchanan and most recently Taki in The American Conservative [Nov. 20], believe that America made a serious mistake when it first embraced Wilsonian interventionism by entering WWI on the Allied side. If Washington had not done so, the Great War would probably have ended in a military stalemate, eventually leading to a negotiated peace without the total humiliation of the Germans. But I am convinced that to Hitler and his pagans the German humiliation was merely a pretext for waging war, because in their Darwinian ideology war was healthy, ensuring the survival of the fittest.

Similarly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is merely a pretext for a clash of civilizations between the Western world and the Wahhabites, one of the most extremist Islamic groups who suddenly grew immensely rich and powerful because they were living in the Arabian desert atop an oil field. The Wahhabites are aiming for world domination because they think this is what Allah has ordered them to do. Of course they use the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to draw disgruntled Arabs to their side. Of course they want to destroy Israel because they think the Holy Land belongs to them. But they also want to destroy Spain because they think “al-Andalus” belongs to them. And they attacked America, not only because it supports Israel, but also because they know that if they can defeat or terrorize America no-one else will oppose them.

What next?

Mugged by the reality of Wahhabi terrorism America cracked down on Saddam Hussein. This may not have been the wisest thing to do. Perhaps, as Austin Bramwell writes in the same TAC issue, an “inchoate thirst for vengeance” led to “vengeance listen[ing] to the fools’ request.” Saddam was not a Wahhabi but a secularized Sunni Muslim and an enemy of both Iran and the Wahhabite Saudis.

Whatever one may think of the wisdom of invading Iraq, this, however, is the course which history has taken. We are stuck with the situation as it is today, just as the world was stuck with Hitler in 1933. The question is: What next? And also: What if something worse than 9/11 were to occur?

In Thursday’s [London] Times Anatole Kaletsky writes that Washington should attempt a diplomatic overture to Iran because the latter is a Shi’a country. The Wahhabites are radical Sunnis, and the Sunnis are enemies of the Shi’ites, whom they consider to be heretics. Kaletsky argues that Bush should follow Richard Nixon’s bold example of dialogue with Red China. “Just as the US opening to China irreparably split the Communist world, the theocratic Islamic world could be split by an opening to Iran,” he says. I have heard this before. Another argument in favour of the Shi’a strategy, which is not mentioned by Kaletsky, is the following: Shi’a Islam differs from the mainstream (Sunni) Islam in that it has a hierarchical clergy, with ayatollahs (analogous to bishops in the Catholic church) who can speak for the entire community and who decide the doctrine and its interpretation. Christianity in Western Europe became a force of civilization exactly because it had a leading episcopal establishment, part of a linear tradition, that offered guidance and explanation about religious commandments which, without such guidance, some extremists might have started to take literally (such as “if thy hand offends thee, cut it off”). Some of the Americans working in Baghdad have a high opinion of some of the Iraqi ayatollahs and think they may be the best hope for a peaceful settlement.

Perhaps if, immediately after toppling Saddam in 2003, Washington had supported the Shi’a by giving Iraq to the Shi’a majority, or (as I argued in December 2003 in The Salisbury Review) the artificial Iraqi state had been divided, that policy might have made a chance. It may, however, be too late for the Shi’a option. Kaletsky’s proposal may also be an entirely unrealistic, even dangerous one. The Iranian leadership does not belong to the more moderate strand of Shi’ite Islam. Moreover, one of the major problems that ensued from the toppling of Saddam was that it tipped the regional power balance between archenemies Iraq and Iran in favour of Shi’a Iran. If Washington starts negotiations with Teheran it will elevate the latter even more to the position of regional superpower in the Gulf. This would upset the Wahhabite Saudis. On the other hand a pre-emptive war against Iran would tilt the regional power balance in favour of the Saudis. These are all considerations that must be carefully taken into account. What an irony it would be if a major Wahhabite terror attack tomorrow were to lead to an invasion of Shi’a Iran, like the Wahhabite attack of 9/11 led to the war in Iraq.

And what about Europe?


Meanwhile, the American mid-term elections are being widely discussed in Europe. The European media regard the results as proof that “Old Europe” was right all along, while America was wrong. In the center-right Parisian paper Le Figaro, Nicole Bacharan, a French political scientist and historian, wrote that the elections showed that “America is neither ‘red’ nor ‘blue.’ The majority votes centrist.” She also notes that, following the elections, the French have softened their view on the US because “The values and sensibilities of the Democrats seem to be closer [to those of the French]. And one can detect, in the new political constellation, a return to a less interventionist America.”

The so-called “paleocons” have, however, been arguing longer and more consistently than the “blue” Democrats that less interventionism would be better for America. If Iraq was what decided last week’s American mid-term elections then those elections are not a vindication of the Democrats, as the European media seem to think, but of the “paleocons.” It is wrong to assume, like European journalists, that America has turned “blue” and become more like Europe. The Democrats did so well last week because many of them appealed to “red” voters. One notable example is Robert Casey, Jr., the new Senator for Pennsylvania, who defeated the incumbent Rick Santorum by 59% against 41%. Casey, though a Democrat, hence officially “blue,” is an outspoken opponent of abortion and in favour of the rights of gun-owners – not at all “blue” “values and sensitivities” which the French or other Europeans feel they share. Similar situations arose elsewhere, for instance in Virginia, where pro-gun and anti-immigration Democrat Jim Webb won the senatorial race against the Republican incumbent.

Le Figaro is one of the more sensible French papers, and Nicole Bacharan realizes well enough that it is doubtful whether more American isolationism will be better for France, a country which is currently unable to assert authority over its own territory and which was incapable of winning its last two wars without American “interventionism.” Bacharan warns that those who “blame America for its imperialism may soon regret its indifference” and urges Europe “to invent a new Atlanticism.”

However, it may be too late for that. The “paleocons” do not want to fight for any country but America, the “neocons” have come to resent Europe for failing to stand with them in Iraq, and the “blue” Liberals (the only Americans most leading Europeans feel affinity with) lack the guts to fight for anything at all, including their own hedonistic values. We can deplore this as much as we want, but, again, this is the situation we are stuck with. I doubt whether the mid-term elections showed that neoconservatism is dead. I think they announced the death of the Atlantic Alliance. The bell tolled for Europe – which makes it ironic that so many Europeans rejoiced in the results. Bacharan is sounding the alarm because she realizes America is leaving Europe. Edward Lucas, the central and eastern Europe correspondent of The Economist, does the same in Friday’s Daily Telegraph. He says that the old dictum which described the purpose of the Atlantic Alliance – “to keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out” – is now wrong on all three fronts, because “The Russians are coming, the Germans rising, and the Americans leaving. Each country seeks the best deal it can, to the detriment of its neighbours. Collective security is as badly needed as it was during the Cold War. But Nato can no longer provide it.”

Lucas’ article focuses on the old East-West relations, between Russia on the one hand, America and Western Europe on the other. There is, however, more at stake today. Who cares about “coming” Russians and “rising” Germans? Both peoples have committed demographic suicide. It is the Muslims who are coming and rising. History is still to decide whether the Wahhabite, the moderate Sunni or the Shi’a will rule, but one thing is already certain. While America’s future will still most likely be “red,” Europe’s will be “green” – the colour of Islam.

leftist immigration rhetoric doesn't make sense

Bob Doney's theory is that all will be well in the end (in 200 years), when none of us is left. Because some day, our replacements are going to stop beating their wives, and their fertility rate will stabilize. So it is all right that our lives and our children's lives are now being destroyed.

If thousands of Pakistani families are thriving and succeeding in Leeds, Manchester and London are we to suppose that this will have no effect on cousins left behind in Pakistan?

We don't care about their cousins. Why should we rejoice that Pakistani families are thriving in England instead of English families ?

the "host" societies have a great deal to gain by being welcoming and encouraging ?

What do we gain by being replaced ?

there is an assumption that Islamists will infiltrate our society, and over time their crazy and vicious ideas will prevail. The wild-eyed brigade will come over from their madrassas and everyone eventually will scratch their heads and say, "Yep, that makes sense."

The problem is happening now. I am not sure islam will make many converts in Europe, but they want to forbid any criticism of their religion. Today, Voltaire would not be allowed to speak his mind about Islam. I think the main reason our newspapers are full of garbage is the far left domination. But islam isn't making things any better.

Leftist theory says it's cool for us to be replaced by muslims. What I find incredible is to hear Bob Doney say: "Yep, that makes sense". Because it doesn't make sense at all. You are obviously parroting what you've heard in the media. So I wouldn't be surprised if you decided to become a muslim.

Doesn't make sense 2 of 2

... continued ...

"What I find incredible is to hear Bob Doney say: "Yep, that makes sense". Because it doesn't make sense at all."

I was suggesting that it was UNLIKELY that, having listened to the Islamist loony-tunes, people would finally scratch their heads and say, "Yep, that makes sense".

"You are obviously parroting what you've heard in the media."

Squawk, squawk. Some of my best friends are parrots.

"So I wouldn't be surprised if you decided to become a muslim."

Really? I'd be absolutely gobsmacked. And so would my psittacine pals.

So far today I've been told here that I'm a crypto-Islamist or a crypto-Marxist. You can't please all of the people all of the time. Apparently.

Bob Doney

Murdoch

Personally I think Rupert Murdoch's got a lot to answer for. As it happens there don't seem to be many newspapers in the UK controlled by the far left.

Massive immigration is a far left idea. I know Murdoch is right wing, but I don't suppose the newspapers he owns actively oppose massive immigration. If an immigration refendum was held in England, most people would vote for an immediate stop. However, if you ask the journalists of The Times, owned by Murdoch, I bet they will tell you there is not enough immigration. I would say that most newspapers in the UK are controlled to some degree by the far left, even when the owner is right wing. Maybe you will find right wing ideas in the Times, but I am sure the immigration madness is not denounced as it should be. No big newspaper is allowed to do that.

Immigration: right or left

Armor: "Massive immigration is a far left idea."

No, not necessarily. A lot of business people like immigration - it keeps wages nice and low. Business in Europe and the USA will tolerate a lot of illegal working, and gets very cross when government stirs itself to control it.

Bob Doney

Immigration: right or left

Let's just say that massive immigration is a loony policy that can not be embraced by conservatives or by normal moderate left-wing people.

A lot of business people like immigration

Having a business and employees doesn't necessarily make you a conservative.

Doesn't make sense 1 of 2

Armor: "Bob Doney's theory is that all will be well in the end (in 200 years), when none of us is left."

Blimey, mate, have you discovered the elixir of life? I'm certainly not expecting to be here in 200 years.

"So it is all right that our lives and our children's lives are now being destroyed."

No, it's not all right for anyone's life to be destroyed. Unfortunately there's a lot of destroying going on. And it - all of it - needs to be stopped.

"Why should we rejoice that Pakistani families are thriving in England instead of English families?"

It's another of those questions - you know, the "have you stopped beating your wife" ones. It would be really nice if both Pakistani and English families could thrive - and Jewish ones and Chinese ones and even Belgian ones. However - and I know it's a big ask - what would be necessary for this to happen is that people respect each other's common humanity.

"What do we gain by being replaced?"

Well, I'm not ready to be replaced yet. When the time comes I'd like a simple woodland burial please.

"I think the main reason our newspapers are full of garbage is the far left domination."

Personally I think Rupert Murdoch's got a lot to answer for. As it happens there don't seem to be many newspapers in the UK controlled by the far left.

Bob Doney

please wake up europe

Oh Europe, please wake up from your slumber of "tolerance" and political correctness and remember your proud history of innovation, thought, and culture.  You are about to be over-run by Islamist radicals.  There will be no Immanuel Kant, John S. Mill, Voltaire, or Da Vinci in Eurabia.  Remember your roots, your Judeo-Christian heritage.  Accept those who embrace the values of freedom and liberty, but shun those who want sharia and oppression.

I lament for your future, please prove me wrong.

Strong Conservative

Over-run

jstrong99: You are about to be over-run by Islamist radicals. There will be no Immanuel Kant, John S. Mill, Voltaire, or Da Vinci in Eurabia. Remember your roots, your Judeo-Christian heritage. Accept those who embrace the values of freedom and liberty, but shun those who want sharia and oppression.

Well, for starters I would have thought that Kant, Mill and Voltaire were more influenced by their Greek heritage than their Judeo-Christian one, but maybe that's a discussion for another day.

What I find interesting about this line of thought is that there is an assumption that Islamists will infiltrate our society, and over time their crazy and vicious ideas will prevail. The wild-eyed brigade will come over from their madrassas and everyone eventually will scratch their heads and say, "Yep, that makes sense." So the best fruits of our patchy civilisation will be lost.

There is another way of looking at it, which is that rather than the Islamists being a Trojan horse in the West, in fact the Muslim immigrants to the West are a Trojan horse in the caliphate. Muslim families will do better in the West; their children will get a better and richer education; their women will get away from domestic prison and find a better, more independent life. They will absorb some of the finer things that Western culture has to offer (and, no doubt, some of the less fine).

If thousands of Pakistani families are thriving and succeeding in Leeds, Manchester and London are we to suppose that this will have no effect on cousins left behind in Pakistan? Are none of them going to want some of the same?

If this is to happen, it implies that the "host" societies have a great deal to gain by being welcoming and encouraging, and a great deal to lose by categorising all Muslim immigrants as an indivisible lump of trouble who should be shunned and excluded, apart from the occasional police operation.

Bob Doney

Not so magical thoughts

@ Armor

Indeed, large-scale immigration (of either economically-inactive people and/or of lower-skilled people) cannot be economically beneficial to the 'receiving' society, for it will lower the average productivity level in the economy.  At least in the short-term. Over the long-run immigration might become beneficial, but only (a) after the necessary investments have been made to bring the productivity level of the immigrants up to (or above) the average level of the 'natives', and (b) based on the dubious supposition that the productivity level of the 'natives' would somehow have worsened (or at least be less than what it would have been otherwise) in the absence of the immigrants. There is therefore no a priori reason to assume that large-scale migration would be beneficial even in the long run.  Free trade (movements of goods and services) generally gives better economic results (in terms of promoting higher income-per-head) than immigration of people.

However, you can NOT categorically say that "immigration makes it harder for Europeans to find jobs".  In general, the more people there are in a country the more jobs there will be (because, ceteris paribus, the higher aggregate demand and supply will be), but the unemployment RATE will depend on the flexibility of its labor markets or, if you will, on the quality of government regulations and policies in that respect. Large-scale immigration could have a temporary effect on unemployment (of the 'natives') in specific sectors, particularly of unskilled labor, if the immigrants are highly concentrated in those sectors. But this should only be a temporary phenomenon.  It is labor market policies that will determine the overall unemployment RATE in an economy, not the number of people.  

High Populations and Unemployment Rates

It is labor market policies that will determine the overall unemployment RATE in an economy, not the number of people. [says 'marcfrans']

That statement may be true under normal circumstances, but it doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny or unusual conditions (which are fast becoming the new "Norm").

Brazil, India, China, Iran, and the Philippines, all have very high numbers of peoples in their borders. They also happen to have some of, if not THE very highest (true) unemployment rates in the world.

Just about every western economist, bar a few (such as my friend 'marcfrans'), has long since reconfigured his portfolio towards giving advice to these five countries. So, there has definitely been no shortage of "sound" economic policies to pursue.

If Brazil was not so over-populated, we wouldn't be seeing the systematic destruction of the Amazon Rain Forest.

Can these realities (that more than amply demonstrate high human numbers do adversely affect employment opportunities) be explained by a memorable, one-sentence piece of economic pseudo-theory?

--------------------

FOOTNOTE: Let's use a simple analogy. If the only work available was growing rice, then at what point will the division of labour break down (and the rice crop fail) as the population of work-seekers (arriving from alien cultures) continues to rise exponentially?

let's keep it simple

you can NOT categorically say that "immigration makes it harder for Europeans to find jobs"

I know. If our immigrants were Japanese engineers looking for opportunities to start new businesses, it would create more work for us. But in the real world, most immigrants coming to Europe have no qualification. And we already have too many unemployed unqualified people in Europe. So, immigration simply causes more unemployment and lower wages.

There are other problems. Our leftist governments are inviting immigrants who commit crime at a much higher rate than Europeans. Getting out of your home becomes a problem. Even schools tend to become dangerous, and the pupils no longer learn anything. So, we can say that immigration is extremely expensive. If not for the crazy immigration policy, there would be so much money around that unemployment would not be a problem at all.

I think that on average, the economic performance of a country has much to do with the natural abilities of the population, and I don't think that the descendants of African immigrants will ever be as efficient as Europeans. In a hundred years, they will still be at the bottom of society, and will still generate extra costs.
But what really bothers me is not the economic cost of immigration, it is the population replacement. And one way to do that is by giving our unqualified jobs to immigrants. If we want immigration to be less damaging to society and to the economy, the obvious solution is to switch from African and muslim immigration to Chinese immigration. But I am against any immigration, even from China. Otherwise, a simple way to improve the economic situation of Africa would also be to replace the local population by Chinese immigrants. If you understand what's wrong with replacing Africans by Chinese people, you should understand what's wrong with replacing Europeans with third-world people.

magical thoughts

It has been argued that immigrants take the jobs that no one else will take. Now, even better, they are making the babies and large families that no one else will make. They are inhabiting lands and cities that Europeans are just deserting. And in the end, they will be breathing air that the Europeans probably no longer cared to breathe. Thank you, immigrants. You are too kind!

Let's come back to reality. It makes no sense to say that we need immigrants to live for us. We need to live our own lives. Being replaced by our own children is something natural. It is the same family, the same people. But we will never be able to say "us", when we refer to the immigrants who are now taking our place and our children's place. In 300 years, history books will not say that Europeans have become darker. They will say that Europeans have disappeared.

Finally, it does not take an expert in economics or statistics to figure out that the result of population replacement is population replacement. Immigration makes it more difficult for Europeans to find jobs, and have large families. Everyone can see that immigrants are having babies in our place. What does it matter that they will start having fewer babies in a few generations ? It won't prove, in some kind of magical way, that immigration was a good thing after all.

@Bob -- Regarding Birth Rates

Bob asked earlier ... Do you or do you not think there is evidence that birth rates drop in societies experiencing increased prosperity?

I have tried to make sense of birthrates around the world, and couldn't. It's a conundrum. There does not seem to be one single reason, cause, or link. What appears to influence one culture, is irrelevant to another.

The per-capita income of several Arab states has been high or very high for about three decades. Yet the average birthrate has been astronomically high. The artificial state our Media calls "Palestine" (actually parts of Cisjordan + Gaza) is bankrupt and cannot survive without Western & Saudi aid, yet its birthrate has also been astronomically high throughout. So there is a pair of contradictions for you right away. Though I am sure you can spot the common denominator!

Birth rates

The answer may be in that magic word "average". In many of the Arab states there is extreme wealth and extreme poverty, and the relative lack of skilled working and middle classes. The very poor and the very rich both tend to have larger families; per capita the income would look OK, but would be very unevenly distributed.

As regards the implications of this for Europe, which is where we started, it would be a reasonable working assumption that over time more Muslim women will escape from the household into paid employment, adopt some of the behaviours of their "Western" sisters, and have fewer kids. Hey Presto! No Muslim majority.

Bob Doney

Birth rates and religion

I think there are also indications that religion plays a role in birth rates, i.e. religious people tend to have more children. Perhaps this factor is more important than income. Has any research been done into that, or is the assumption that the richer peope become the less religious they become? This does not seem to be the case when we compare the US to Europe. I think, as you probably know, that welfarism leads to a decline of religion, not wealth.

Moreover, the problem in Bob's "working assumption" ("over time more Muslim women will have fewer kids") is the "over time." Our future in 20 years from now is decided by the demographics today.

People power

Mr PB: Our future in 20 years from now is decided by the demographics today.

You're doing it again, Paul! Yes, it's partly demographics. But our future is also decided by what the babies become. And that in turn very much depends on how they are treated - by their families, by their teachers, by their governments, even (poor things) by the Eurocrats in Brussels - BUT MOST OF ALL by the rest of us.

Bob Doney

treatment

Do not tell me we have been not been treating them well so far, these "youths". We have given them everything they did not get in their own countries of origin: welfare, education, the right to vote, even subsidies to keep their own culture and religion. And what have they given us in return for our hospitality?

why should the US continue

why should the US continue to put the lifes of their soldiers in danger

I think the idea was to help Iraq transform into a haven of democracy and common sense in the Middle East. Then, the Iraqi example would have had a moderating influence on the neighboring states.

Bob Doney: "Every wave of immigration changes lives"

What is happening now is not an immigration wave among others. In the last few thousand years, up until 50 years ago, there has been little immigration from outside Europe. And now we have this massive population replacement organized by governments and the far left.
It is more than a change in our lives. It is us, being replaced by other people. For example, instead of having European babies, Europe will have babies raised by immigrants. And if we take measures to help European families have more children, we will end up with immigrants having even bigger families. The only solution is to reverse the migration flow.

"Ask the descendants of the native peoples of the lands settled by the white Europeans"

Do you want more immigration to Europe as a punishment for the colonization of America and Australia? It seems to me you do not even try to have a coherent position. You are happy just making scatterbrained comments.

It is us

"It is us, being replaced by other people."

Now there in a nutshell is the whole problem. Who is "us"? And who is "other"? Are you proposing to draw a line and say "on this side are us; on the other side are the others"? The world isn't like that any more. Whoever let him out - Marxists, leftists, governments, whoever - the genie can't be put back into the bottle; we share one shrinking planet.

It's simply unrealistic to state that "the only solution is to reverse the immigration flow". It ain't going to happen. Movement of peoples is going to increase, not decrease. So you can throw that idea straight in the bin. Any other solutions? What about trying to identify and isolate the troublemakers, and treat everyone else, regardless of creed, colour or class, with respect and decency?

The trouble with a lot of the simplistic anti-Muslim stuff posted on this site is the lumping together of all believers in a particular faith as if they comprise an indivisible bloc. They don't. I have a suspicion that some of the most caustic of the "send 'em all home" brigade actually have very little contact with Muslims on a day to day basis. It's hard to believe they would come out with some of the stuff they post here if they did.

Bob Doney

Machiavelli....

I suppose the best for the West would be to move out of Iraq and let
Sunnis and Shiites go at each other over the question who represents
the true will of allah and who are the heretics of Mohammeds teaching.

Currently the Saudi Wahhabis and the Iranian ayatollahs pose
the greatest threat to Western civilization. So why should the US continue to put the lifes of their soldiers  in danger just to keep those  two arch ennemis  from
killing one another - especially that neither side welcomes the West? From a Machiavellian point of view spending resources on  preventing your ennemis from fighting each other is the worst case scenario..

Best for the West

"I suppose the best for the West would be to move out of Iraq and let Sunnis and Shiites go at each other over the question who represents
the true will of allah and who are the heretics of Mohammeds teaching."

I thought that was the current US government's policy! Why else would they be withdrawing their troops from the front line in the face of the present appalling sectarian violence?

Bob Doney

Osama Bin Laden was a devout

Osama Bin Laden was a devout Muslim (one who believed in Islamic Taliban-style government) who felt it necessary to come to his co-religionists' defense when the Red Army rolled across the Afghan border in 1979, in support of the socialist regime then in power in Kabul. Communism was particularly disliked by Muslims, especially the more fanatical ones, as it was Godless, anti-religious, and promoted an egalitarianism that threatened the cultural inequalities of Muslim countries, which were along gender, tribal, and national lines. The Soviet Union actively supported Communist insurgents throughout the developing world that often clashed with Muslim ones (e.g. Africa), and suppressed Islam in Albania and the pockets of Muslims across the RSFSR; and China and the Communist regimes in Indochina equally clamped down on their Muslims.

However, once the last Soviet APC crossed the bridge back into Stasiland, Muslim activists quickly realized that the Americans who were supporting them with arms and funds (not their ideal 'Republic' to begin with) were supporting regimes in Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia that were founded on tribal and not Islamic lines and in some cases anti-Muslim, and dictators in Iraq and Africa that were secular and anti-Muslim. Additionally, the Americans openly supported the Israelis, who had invaded and occupied Muslim lands, and were public enemy no. 1 before and after the Afghan War. Just as the President does not lead the first charge, so to does Bin Laden direct his campaign against the "enemies of Islam" from a distance. Today, China is in the position of 1980s America: it sells arms to the Muslims, who are enraged at Israel and the United States; however, they will not forget the torture and murder of Uighurs today or tomorrow.

Comparing Hitler and Bin Laden... (Part I)

...is a shortcut to thinking. However, both were heavily influenced by their respective environments.

 

Hitler identified with the dominant German demographic of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, obviously disliked its multicultural character (evidenced by his joining the German Army instead of the Austrian one), felt an affinity with what he considered his ancestral homeland - Germania or Greater Germany*, and believed that the presence of Slavs and Magyars in the Empire and Jews in the German Army were responsible for both of their respective collapses.

 

*Which includes but is not limited to: Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Flanders, Alsace, Lorraine, Austria, Germany, the Swiss German cantons, East Prussia, etc.

Neither Neoconservatives or Paleoconservatives benefit America

My thoughts: Paleoconservatives vs. Neoconservatives

--

As an American, I distrust both neoconservatives and paleoconservatives.  The prior wants to bankrupt the country by forcing our culture on other countries by almost any means necessary while the later wants to isolate the country from the world and its economic offerings.  Neocons are reckless while the paleoconservatives cowards.

 

immigration is already a problem

@ Bob Doney:
"Native citizens? Are they like Red Indians?"

Yes, without the feathers.

"it is highly questionable whether the birth rates of Islamic immigrants into Europe will remain high in third, fourth and later generations."

You must be living on another planet. It doesn't make sense to speculate on the size of muslim families in the future. The population replacement is taking place NOW. Massive immigration policies have ALREADY brought disaster. Muslims and other immigrants do not need to be a majority to change our lives.
As Europe is still run by immigration enthusiasts, and the rate of immigration is PRESENTLY INCREASING, and people like you say it is highly questionable that there is a problem, then it is safe to say that things will be much worse in 10 years, and still worse in 20 years, for us and for our children.

Making sense

"It doesn't make sense to speculate on the size of muslim families in the future."

Tell that to Mr Belien. It's his website and he's always going on about it. I dared just to question his assumptions.

"The population replacement is taking place NOW."

Yes, I noticed that too.

"Massive immigration policies have ALREADY brought disaster."

Immigration policies have brought social tensions and social problems. That's hardly a novelty in the history of humanity. So why don't we tackle the problems in a humane and rational way?

"Muslims and other immigrants do not need to be a majority to change our lives."

Every wave of immigration changes lives. Ask the descendants of the native peoples of the lands settled by the white Europeans over the last thousand years. It won't take long. There aren't that many left to ask. Is hypocrisy the defining characteristic of European man? I think it may be.

Bob Doney

Can Bob Doney be ignored?

IMHO Bob Doney is a ‘site pest’ and a small time agent provocateur. He lives to get people angry with him and notice his simple thinking ideas.

Without the attention he gets here, his life would be less interesting for him. If he is ignored maybe he will stop posting here and try to get his job as village idiot back.

@Zen Master

Agreed.

If we ignore him, then like a pimple, he'll eventually go away.

Pest

"If he is ignored maybe he will stop posting here and try to get his job as village idiot back."

Who can say, eh?

I certainly don't want anyone to get angry. There's too much of that in the world already.

Is it your usual tactic in a discussion to insult your fellow-debaters rather than dealing with the points they raise?

Bob Doney

Fools abound...

@ Bob Doney:

Your posts illustrate that you must be mesmerized by your own prostate. Pull your head out Bob.

For you to be so blind about what is going on in Europe, you've got to be deluded at best or part of the evil that is overwhelming Europe.

Even with current Muslim populations in Europe, Europe is already struggling with the "political" and "militant" actions of Muslims and they will only grow in strength politically and be ever increasingly militant until they are ruthlessly dealt with or Europe succombs.

One of these days Bob can just stupidly say, "I didn't realize Islam was the danger it really was". Duh....

Or be forced to say: "Allah Akbar" if he wants to keep his head in the up & coming "Dark Ages" brought to you by your "friendly neighborhood barbarians".

Fools abound...

Who is the arsehole?

I have extracted my head from my arse, read your comment, and notice that you don't actually address any of the points I raised.

Bob Doney

FLLaw33870

Although I don't disagree with what you necessarily say on these boards, I think your tone is too hostile. Please dial it down so that the discussion here dosen't degenerate. Thanks.

Tone

I try to look beyond the insults for the content. I'm not finding much this morning! Can't think why...

Bob Doney

Sweden vs. Holland and Denmark

I have been perusing the Statistics Sweden website, and they have pretty much decided to take 10's of thousands of Iraqis. The number coming from Somalia and Pakistan have also really ramped up. Sweden seems hell bent on total Islamification.

Holland and Denmark have definitely put the brakes on the Iraqis, but I'm not sure about other groups.

In the end, if Muslim immigration continues, it won't matter what the relative birthrates are, because the ethnic European populations will be old, scared and shrinking and the Muslim ones will be young, aggressive, and growing. Who do you suppose will win that game?

Thanks but no thanks

Dear sonomaca,

I don't change my style just because someone disagrees with my approach.

I don't tell you how to write, so I would appreciate the same courtesy.

I was just stating the obvious.

Courtesy

Ah, I just love the old-fashioned courtesy on this site!

Bob Doney

Minority Islamic Electorate

It is not at all necessary for Muslims to constitute a majority of the European electorate for democratic principles to be abandoned in Europe.  A significant minority of Muslim voters can sway parliamentary elections, especially when the leftist parties are convinced that the West deserves to die.

The future is certain or orange or something

"It are the Muslims who are coming and rising. History is still to decide whether the Wahhabite, the moderate Sunni or the Shi’a will rule, but one thing is already certain. While America’s future will still most likely be “red,” Europe’s will be “green” – the colour of Islam."

You were doing so well till your last paragraph, Paul. Then you put your green glasses on again. The one thing about the future we can be certain about is that it is uncertain. For example, it is highly questionable whether the birth rates of Islamic immigrants into Europe will remain high in third, fourth and later generations.

Second, it is possible, even likely, that Islam itself will adapt and evolve now that it has come face to face with other belief systems. Most of the followers of Muhammed have never had a choice before, and it strikes me as pretty unlikely that many won't choose to modify or abandon their beliefs.

Third, even on your own doubtful assumptions, when are you claiming that Muslims will actually form a majority of Europe's population?

I notice that you also link to your earlier piece of nonsense in which you claim that secularists are less likely to fight for freedom than believers, because they don't believe in an after-life. How many of the soldiers who fought in the International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War or for the allies in WWII do you think really believed in life after death? I know or knew more than a few who definitely didn't.

Bob Doney

Viva La Caliphite!

Why is it highly questionable that Islamic birth rates will remain high? Is it because of your deeply held philosophy that, "The one thing about the future we can be certain about is that it is uncertain."?

As to your statement, "Second, it is possible, even likely, that Islam itself will adapt and evolve now that it has come face to face with other belief systems.", isn't it likely that they are doing so at this time within the leftist parties in Europe, who are in turn not only assisting them, but imposing them on their own citizens? Why should that be of benefit to the native citizens?

As to your third point:
"Third, even on your own doubtful assumptions, when are you claiming that Muslims will actually form a majority of Europe's population?"
It appears that with the government already in place, that they already form a majority. They vote in lockstep with the hand that invites them, feeds them and allows them much more leeway than the citizens of the countries.

Lastly, what will your beliefs(or lack of them) matter when you are already not allowed to express them? When the Netherlands is renamed Potistan, the French sing "Viva La Caliphite" and the dominant fashion style is Brussels Burka you will have to hide any belief that you may have.
That seems not very different from today.

"Why is it highly

"Why is it highly questionable that Islamic birth rates will remain high?"

Because in most societies increased prosperity is associated with falling birthrates.

"As to your statement, "Second, it is possible, even likely, that Islam itself will adapt and evolve now that it has come face to face with other belief systems.", isn't it likely that they are doing so at this time within the leftist parties in Europe, who are in turn not only assisting them, but imposing them on their own citizens?"

I don't know. We don't have any leftist parties in the UK, and I don't really understand your point anyway.

"Why should that be of benefit to the native citizens?"

"Native citizens"? Are they like Red Indians?

"It appears that with the government already in place, that they already form a majority. They vote in lockstep with the hand that invites them, feeds them and allows them much more leeway than the citizens of the countries."

You've lost me here. I was talking about demographics.

"Lastly, what will your beliefs (or lack of them) matter when you are already not allowed to express them?"

Aren't I? There's more freedom of expression for the likes of me than ever before in our nation's history.

"When the Netherlands is renamed Potistan, the French sing "Viva La Caliphite" and the dominant fashion style is Brussels Burka you will have to hide any belief that you may have.
That seems not very different from today."

You've been borrowing those green glasses off Paul. You know they're not good for you...

Bob Doney

@Bob Doney

"Because in most societies increased prosperity is associated with falling birthrates"

Of all the silly things you have posted so far this one takes the cake.

Tell me, how will the great "prosperity" of Europe provide all of its welfare state benefits when there are no working people to pay the taxes to support them? Who will pay for the care of Europe's elderly when the working population is halved by the next generation as it will be in Spain and Italy?

Pure idiocy. Your remark demonstrates that you haven't an iota of familiarity with basic economics and math. How can we take anything you say with seriousness?

Who is the idiot?

"Of all the silly things you have posted so far this one takes the cake."

So are you saying that there is no evidence that increased prosperity leads to a fall in birthrates?

Bob Doney

@Bob Doney

I think we've had a misunderstanding. This is your original statement:

"Because in most societies increased prosperity is associated with falling birthrates."

I interpreted that as saying that falling birthrates contribute to increased prosperity, which I disputed.

Now you say: "increased prosperity leads to a fall in birthrates."

See? There's a difference in what you originally said, and what you say now. Which is correct?

Clarification

"is associated with" = "correlates to"

As regards cause and effect, I would guess that the increase in prosperity would lead to falling birth rates, as people would feel they don't need so many "spare" children to allow for mortality and to maintain family income etc. However it may be a "chicken or egg" situation, because I can equally well see that having fewer children leads to greater prosperity provided that the children themselves aren't the source of the income. A classic case of positive feedback.

Regarding the context here, I would guess that over time immigrant community birth rates would tend to move towards those of the host population.

But as I indicated before, none of this is certain.

Bob Doney

Still waiting

Still waiting for a reply, Atheling. Do you or do you not think there is evidence that birth rates drop in societies experiencing increased prosperity?

Over to you...

Bob Doney

Bob Doney

Bob Doney, as those who click on his name can see, is one of the first readers of TBJ and the very first who ever posted a comment. Though I do not always agree with him I value his opinions and remarks and have learned much from them.
Regarding his question whether there is evidence that birth rates drop in societies experiencing increased prosperity: I think there is evidence suggesting such a link.
However, (1) as Hayek and Julian Simon have remarked, there is also evidence suggesting that underdeveloped countries need a hight birth rate and large numbers of people to get out of underdevelopment; (2) if a population falls below replacement level there are bound to be problems, certainly in countries, such as those in Western Europe, where the social security system is based on pay-as-you-go models;
(3) This leads to a question thatr I think is far more important: Will prosperity in Western countries keep increasing? There are data suggesting that the current immigration flow into Europe (which is predominantly welfare immigration, i.e. the immigrants are attracted by the welfare benefits they can get from a system to which they have not contributed) costs us more than its benefits us. Hence, instead of an increase in prosperity we will are likely to see a decrease.

Prosperity

Mr PB: "Will prosperity in Western countries keep increasing? There are data suggesting that the current immigration flow into Europe (which is predominantly welfare immigration, i.e. the immigrants are attracted by the welfare benefits they can get from a system to which they have not contributed) costs us more than its benefits us."

The latest research by Migration Watch UK (hardly a pro-immigration lobby!) shows that the effect is roughly neutral: their figures show a net "deficit" of £100m. Of course one of the problems with such studies is that after a generation or two immigrants cease to be "immigrants", and join the same porridge as the rest of us.

http://tinyurl.com/y95lme

Mr PB: "Hence, instead of an increase in prosperity we will are likely to see a decrease."

There are much bigger factors than immigration at work to determine "our" overall prosperity, not least this irksome misdirection of carbon that seems to have crept up on us.

By the way, I just don't recognise this picture of idle immigrants scoffing at the rest of us as we foolishly toil off to work to keep them in the luxury to which they've recently become accustomed. Chances are round here when you see someone with a mop and bucket, or carrying trays of lattes to the waiting clients, or laying pipes and bricks, it's an immigrant.

Bob Doney

Wow Bob!

You can't beat a recommendation like that "Old Timer"!!! :)

By the way, I've been known to "eyeball" my prostate at times! LOL

The problem of an open border with Mexico

The U. S. faces a problem in that the illegal immigrants from Mexico are uneducated and they are most likely to draw upon our free ‘social services.’ They can get free rent, or rent that is largely free, free food, free education, and free medical care. In addition, they take the lower paying jobs and work for less than a U. S. citizen would expect to be paid.

Since they are low paid and they have many children, they pay no income tax. In my state, it costs the taxpayers $10,000 a year for a K- 12 education and $5,000 a year for an education in Spanish. I have seen Mexican families with five children. Five children X $15,000 = $75,000 a year, all a net loss to the people who pay taxes.

In addition we have a population that is retiring and no longer paying income tax. This brings about the question of; who is going to pay for the pension costs for the retirees and the social service costs incurred by the Mexicans? We are looking at an economic time bomb - lower tax revenues and higher expenses.

The same applies in the E. U. countries where working ethnic citizens are retiring and being replaced by non-working immigrants from Muslim countries.

i would bet..

Surely there is evidence that suggests that economics have a big impact on birthrates, but I would bet that the liberalization of the woman’s role in western societies has the largest impact on declining birthrates. I would guess that if you looked at the areas in western societies where woman live a more traditional lifestyle, you'll see a correlation between these sections of society and higher birthrates. I would also guess the opposite is generally true, the areas where woman take on a more expanded role in society (namely a full time career), birthrates will be lower. Whether or not this is related to economic demand or the rise of secular society, or both, I'll leave up to people much smarter than me :)

Another bet

Guantanamo: "I would bet that the liberalization of the woman’s role in western societies has the largest impact on declining birthrates."

I'd also bet that the liberalisation of the woman's role in Islam will have the largest impact in modifying (softening) its harsher effects.

Bob Doney

Smug Certainties don't make Cogent Policy

I'd also bet that the liberalisation of the woman's role in Islam will have the largest impact in modifying (softening) its harsher effects.

Bob Doney, you give the impression of being very smug in many of your opinions or expressions of certainty, example: ... I'd also bet that the ... etc.

Ok then, go ahead and place your bet. As you are so certain of the favourable outcome, you should be betting very large sums. Right?

I'd be interested to know why you think the "liberalization" of Muslim women (within Islam) will take place. I would also like you to explain how this is going to happen. And while you are at it, give us your guess at its start and finish dates. Where will this revolutionary change begin? Who will initiate it? What will the cost of this change be, and who will pay it? Will all Muslim countries follow suit? Will it result in violence; if so, where? Will your smug prediction bear fruit before Sweden, Norway, France, Holland, and Spain have become Islamic? What happens to Shariah Law in your grand vision of rational and spontaneous enlightenment? What (the heck) DO you mean by the liberalization of women's roles in Islam anyway??? Will it still be Islam when your so-called "liberalization" has been complete? Why do you think a woman's role is so definitive for the behaviour of any culture; is this the only litmus test? As you are so very well-informed about Islam and Muslim societies, can you tell us how many years you have lived and/or worked in Arab countries? Can you speak Arabic?

Just a few easy questions for you to answer, as I'd hate to mistake you for a hardcore Marxist who can work out any world problem, with utter certainty, just by applying his smug dialectic.

Smug dialectic 2 of 2

... continued.

"What (the heck) DO you mean by the liberalization of women's roles in Islam anyway???"

If you don't know what is implied by women's lib I suggest you get started on finding out. I recommend a good search engine and a strong cup of coffee.

"Will it still be Islam when your so-called "liberalization" has been complete?"

That's not really my call, is it?

"Why do you think a woman's role is so definitive for the behaviour of any culture; is this the only litmus test?"

See above. Women's lib. No, of course it's not the only litmus test.

"As you are so very well-informed about Islam and Muslim societies, can you tell us how many years you have lived and/or worked in Arab countries?"

I haven't claimed to be "so very well-informed about Islam and Muslim societies. I didn't think that expert knowledge was a pre-requisite for posting on this site. If it was, it would be pretty quiet! I have never lived in Arab countries. Are you, by the way, confusing the terms "Arab" and "Islamic"? The majority of Muslims are not Arabic. But I expect you knew that.

"Can you speak Arabic?"

No. I also don't speak all the other languages that Muslims speak apart from English. And I don't speak Mandarin either, which of course disqualifies me from having an opinion about the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

"Just a few easy questions for you to answer, as I'd hate to mistake you for a hardcore Marxist who can work out any world problem, with utter certainty, just by applying his smug dialectic."

I think you're being a bit disingenuous there. Some of those questions were quite hard. I'm not a hardcore Marxist. In fact I'm not any sort of Marxist. I wonder what made you think I might be.

As for your most serious charge against me, smugness, I'm probably not the best person to judge. I don't think I am, but me thinking that may just be the proof you need.

Bob Doney

I'll give you 7 (out of 10) for a good attempt

Correct Bob ... it's all the proof I need.

By the way, have you stopped beating your wife? @*&££@%$$!

Have you ever been a stand-up comedian?

And thanks for taking the trouble to give us a line by line response, although I shan't be quoting you.

Smug dialectic 1 of 2

Mission Impossible: "I'd be interested to know why you think the "liberalization" of Muslim women (within Islam) will take place."

It already is. I'd be interested to know why you haven't noticed it.

"I would also like you to explain how this is going to happen."

As above.

"And while you are at it, give us your guess at its start and finish dates."

It started in the past and will be an ongoing process.

"Where will this revolutionary change begin?"

As above, it has already started.

"Who will initiate it?"

Muslim women and those that want to encourage them.

"What will the cost of this change be, and who will pay it?"

I have no idea. But it's always wise to consider benefits as well as costs. Wouldn't you agree?

"Will all Muslim countries follow suit?"

No, not in the foreseeable future.

"Will it result in violence; if so, where?"

Yes. There's quite a bit of that already.

"Will your smug prediction bear fruit before Sweden, Norway, France, Holland, and Spain have become Islamic?"

I don't know. I don't have any say in what the peoples and governments of those countries do. Do you also want to know if I've stopped beating my wife?

"What happens to Shariah Law in your grand vision of rational and spontaneous enlightenment?"

Hopefully it will end up in the dustbin of history. That's one of the benefits of equal rights for women - repressive laws get changed.

To be continued...

Bob Doney

It’s the timidity.

I think it is disgust with the handling of the war. The war won’t be over until one side gives up and there are a lot of us who want to pile it on until they beg for mercy. Why hasn’t the Mahdi Army been totally destroyed? Why does Sadr still walk the earth? Etc… Nuance is for disagreements amongst genuine friends or when one is trying to get laid.

 

Immigration hurt the GOP as well. Their core constituency expects the laws to be enforced, they may understand but they are not very understanding.

Clues

'Sonomaca' makes a number of sensible comments, but mistakenly takes his wishes for reality w.r.t. the political preferences of Mexican immigrants.  'Vanishing American' and 'Zen Master' have debunked that latter illusion well, and 'Vanishing American' also makes the important point that the conservative 'tent' is much wider than the neocon-paleocon split. 

'Piedmont60' unwittingly opened the door for a nihilist like 'Amsterdamsky' to engage in a bit of additional senseless America-bashing. But 'Turbanbomb' - despite his ridiculous name - has well disposed of the underlying argument concerning WW-1 and displayed a greater ability to interpret the contextual reality of early 20th century Europe.

Pat Buchanan is like 'Kapitein Andre': a strange mixture of some sensible ideas with other misguided opinions.  

 

Very astute analysis

I have read the opinion piece twice and it seems to be dead on accurate.  I'm not entirely sure about all of the categories of American political subgroups but it seems essentially correct. 

I will be keeping this on my "must reading" list.

 

My opinion exactly on US

My opinion exactly on US intervention in WWI Piedmont.  Incredible that in the "Land of the Free" you could be drafted, sent to europe and shot by your own country if you refused to participate in the insanity. The article, however, is full of unsubstantiated generalization like "Osama bin Laden, an extremely rich man, with the power to order his subordinates to fly planes into the WTC, is not a “powerless” man." By most estimates bin Laden was pennyless by the time he was in Afganistan if not before.

Should the Americans have intervened in the Great War?

If Washington had not done so, the Great War would probably have ended
in a military stalemate, eventually leading to a negotiated peace
without the total humiliation of the Germans. But I am convinced that
to Hitler and his pagans the German humiliation was merely a pretext
for waging war, because in their Darwinian ideology war was healthy,
ensuring the survival of the fittest.

Who can know for sure how the war would have ended if the Americans hadn't intervened? However, here's one possibility. A negotiated peace might have prevented the social collapse that brought down the Kaiser. There might have been no Weimar republic and no possibility for a party like the Nazis to emerge. Sure, some Nazi-like ideas were already in circulation before World War I, but as far as I know, no pre-war German political movement exhibited the radicalism of the Nazis. Would there have been a Nazi party if there had been no Weimar republic? There's no way to answer that question, but I suspect there would have been no Nazis. Europe would probably have been better off if the US had stayed out of the war. The Americans themselves had no stake in the conflict. It would have been in their own best interests to stay out, or so it seems to me.

Who can know for sure how

@Piedmont60
"Who can know for sure how the war would have ended if the Americans hadn't intervened? However, here's one possibility. A negotiated peace might have prevented the social collapse that brought down the Kaiser."

Germany would have lost wether the US had entered the war or not, but it would have taken longer and thus with more bloodshed.
The victors (especially the French)would have been even more lusting for revenge and the peace treaty would probably been even harsher on the Germans than the Versaille treaty.

US intervention in WWI was a great help, but it was not crusual. Unlike WW2 where US participation was absolutly vital to win the war.

paleo vs. neocons

It's true that paleos do not favor intervention and foreign adventurism; in that, they have the American Founding Fathers on their side. Conservatives generally have not favored foreign entanglements, except when our direct national interests necessitated it. Nation-building and 'democratizing' projects are decidedly un-conservative actions. The neocons of course are wildly enthusiastic about remaking the world, and I think they are finally being discredited as many ordinary citizens with conservative tendencies realize they have been taken for a ride by the faux conservatives known as neocons.
Neos and paleos are not the only choices; many of us identify as traditionalists. So the choice between neocon Europhobes and paleo isolationists is not the only choice.
As far as Hispanic immigration making this country more conservative, I can't imagine where that canard originated, except from neocon party operatives; they, being immigration enthusiasts, want to put a good face on the Mexican invasion.
Mexicans, who comprise most of the Latino immigrants, vote Democrat, as the record shows. There has never been any real Republican constituency among Hispanic voters; that is an urban legend. As the country becomes Hispanicized, it will be more liberal.

@VA

"Mexicans, who comprise most of the Latino immigrants, vote Democrat, as the record shows."

I guess you didn't see the midterm results for Texas.

American Demographics

Interesting to hear what Europeans think of US political demography. Now, here's what is really going on:

Although all US states are experiencing population growth (except high-tax Massachusetts), the so-called red states are growing relatively faster, much of this due to higher fertility rates.

This will be reflected politically at the next census in 2010. Red states such as Texas, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, and Georgia will gain congressional seats and electoral college votes at the expense of blue states such as New York, Michigan, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.

It would thus seem that the Democratic Party's only hope will be to shift rightward, as we saw recently.

However, there are a couple of factors which may favor Democratic prospects in the future. First is the question of Hispanic political preferences. We have seen that socially-conservative and hard-working hispanics tend naturally to favor the Republicans. However, some Republicans have tended to alienate the Hispanic voter, so this raises certain questions about future red state voting patterns

As regards black voters, they have shown a tendency lately to vote Republican in greater numbers, particularly in middle-class black communities. This could become important should the Republicans recognize the trend.

Also, we have seen that, as blue state voters have moved south and west, some states have turned purple. This is especially true in Nevada, New Mexico, and Virginia, but has had an impact in Arizona, Tennessee, and North Carolina as well.

A little recognized fact is that the party which controls Congress in 2010 may set the rules in such a way as to influence the outcome of the census.

All that said, I do believe that if the Republicans can get back to first principles and stop attacking Hispanics, the country will be pretty much RED on an ongoing basis.

About the US - Mexican open border

The idea that Hispanics will vote Republican is an ‘urban myth.’ Most Hispanics will vote Democrat because Democrats will vote them higher benefits and lower immigration controls. Look at the four states bordering Mexico and you will see states that are facing the bankruptcy of school districts full of new Hispanic students. Hospitals in border states are also looking at bankruptcy because of the large numbers of Hispanic patients who visit emergency rooms and by Federal law, they can’t be turned away.

Hispanics have lower job skills and larger families. Under US tax laws, lower incomes, and more children equal paying no income tax. At the same time the new Mexican arrivals are being allowed to move into government paid apartments and get ‘food stamps.’ They pay little or no income tax and yet they collect many social benefits from the government. Few illegal immigrants are ever deported.

With more Hispanics casting votes illegally, many close elections are thrown to the candidate who favors an open border policy. Mexican immigration is out of control in the US.

There is a growing feeling among many in the US that ‘old Europe’ is beyond hope of being willing and able to make the changes that are needed for economic and social success. They have grown accustomed to endless ‘debate’ and then taking no action that takes courage. When is the last time the Belgian army fired a shot in a war? When did courage leave Europe?

About the US - Mexican open border

The idea that Hispanics will vote Republican is an ‘urban myth.’

Steve Sailer would agree with you. He has written extensively about the vain attempt of Republicans to court the Latino vote. Read his latest article on the subject: The Incredible Latino Supervote, The Invisible White Majority: Tales From Election ’06. One of Sailer's main points is that while the Latino population has risen dramatically in recent years, only a small percentage of Latinos actually vote. The Latino share of the electorate is much smaller than their share of the population. For one thing, many Hispanics are illegal immigrants. See also Sailer's article GOP Future Depends on Winning Larger Share of the White Vote.

Certainly

the Cuban immigrants tend to vote republican. They are well aware of the dangers of large government and can see right through all of the democratic party bs. I would guess that a lot of it sounds the same as the standard party lines from Castro's administration.

Pat Buchannan and Paleocon Thinking.

I have seen Pat argue it was excessive intervention that brought on Pearl Harbor as well. America was pressuring Japan to stop what it was doing in China and Japan resented it and lashed out.

Overall, Paleocon philosophy strikes me as selfish and callous.
 

Buchanan

He really dosen't have much of a following among Republicans at this point. The Democrat-biased networks like MSNBC (where he works sometimes) and CNN (which often features his sister) love to parade him around because he has so many nasty things to say about his fellow Republicans. (Ditto for Andrew Sullivan, BTW).

The nativist, isolationist wing of the Republican Party is completely marginalized at this point.

Some Democrats, it should be noted, have nicked ideas from the Buchananites. Jim Webb is a prime example. He hates free trade, low taxes, and immigration.

Buchanan out of step? I think not.

Buchanan is indeed out of step with the Republican party but in step with the average American. They (Republicans) are completely out of touch with the majority of US citizens who agree with Buchanan on the need to stop illegal immigration.

There are good reasons why 'nasty things' are being said about an administration which does not actively represent US national interest and which tries to undertake a series of moronic steps, such as the effort to nominate Harriet Meyers to the Supreme Court- a clear slap in the face against a wide conservative base which supported Republicans in order to transform the Court's makeup.

The natavist sector of the US is anything but marginalised. Again, the clear majority of citizens want US interests put first and foremost, a clear point of departure from the position of the current Republican Party leadership.

The future of US/European relations

I think it's safe to say that the US wants to cut Europe loose at this point. If Merkel and Blair were to be replaced by Chirac types, I think that would be end of story.

It would be suicidal for a US presidential candidate to say in the 2008 campaign that we should, "work with our European allies," or, "work through the UN." Even Kerry wouldn't say it.

Wahhabis

This is a threat which is not widely recognized in the US at present. And yet, Saudi and Gulf money has worked diligently to radicalize US Muslims, to buy political influence, to convert susceptible populations (in prisons and among Blacks and Hispanics), and to create a falsely benign picture of Islam in schools and especially universites (see new $20 million Islamic studies center at Georgetown, where lots of future US diplomatic and other government types go to school).

Wahhabi money from the Saudi oil exports

'... And yet, Saudi and Gulf money has worked diligently to radicalize US Muslims, to buy political influence...'

Sonomaca is right in thinking that our Saudi friends are supporting the export of the radical teachings of the Wahhabi Muslim sect. The State Department allows more Wahhabi Imans to immigrate here. Many of them work in prisons with Muslim converts. Once again our State Department has its own agenda and it does not favor the US public.