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.

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

@ 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.  

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 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!

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.

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..

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.

...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.

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.

From the halls of Montzeuma to the shores of Tripoli...

It's true that paleos do not favor intervention and foreign
adventurism; in that, they have the American Founding Fathers on their
side.

Hmmm, Sounds like some Founding Father foreign advernturism to me

@ 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.

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.

"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

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.

'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.  

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.