Is European Civil War Inevitable By 2025? – Part 1
Tuesday, April 3, 2007 at 01:46PM (The latest in a series of articles and essays from Paul Weston on Europe, Islam, and the future. Enjoy.)
If I were to tell you that within twenty years, Europe could find itself engaged in a civil war so bloody it made WWII look like a bun fight, you might logically consider me a candidate for the men in white coats. You would be wrong however. Based on the demographic evidence collated for this article, such a scenario looks not merely possible, but inevitable. In 2005 European males aged 20-40 outnumbered Muslim males of a similar age by 18:1. By 2025 this ratio could drop to a mere 2:1.
There is a common misconception that a significant erosion of our present 95% non-Muslim European majority could not possibly occur for many decades to come. People such as historian Bernard Lewis, a man whose views on Islam are held in high esteem, exacerbate this. When he made his prediction in 2004 that Europe would be Islamic by the end of the century, he did so on the basis of an overall Muslim majority.
Although such a dire prediction is shocking, it does not force us into a position where urgent steps need to be taken to alleviate such a future. We will not be here at such a distant point and can therefore presently reject as overly extreme the actions necessary to prevent it. Suppose though, that contrary to Professor Lewis’s benign view of a “democratically Islamic Europe”, Europe’s Muslims felt unwilling to wait another 80 years to expand their caliphate via the voting booth, and decided instead to take Europe through force.
In this scenario our majority is rapidly eroded due to a number of factors. In 2005, European males aged 0-19 (those capable of fighting in twenty years time) accounted for only 10% of their total population. Muslim males in the same age bracket accounted for 23% of theirs. These figures can be seen in US Census demographic tables [See table in postscript - Ed] and are extracted from the population pyramids compiled by the US Census Bureau 2005. (These figures represent all the countries in continental Europe, rather than EU member states alone).
In addition, the Muslim population, with it’s birth rate of 3.5 children per women effectively doubles it’s next generation, whilst the European birth rate of 1.5 children per woman ensures the next generation is 25% smaller than that of it’s parents.
This loss of almost 1/3 of tomorrow’s generation necessitates massive immigration in order to prop up our welfare states, the majority of which is set to come from Muslim countries. According to the Daily Telegraph the UN predicts Europe will need to take in 2.2 million immigrants per year, through to 2050.
Once the Muslim population climbs over 3% of the population in Western countries, native Europeans start to emigrate. The Dutch, French, Germans and British are leaving in unprecedented numbers, as noted in a Daniel Pipes article entitled Europeans fleeing Eurabia which should be read in conjunction with this article.
If it is really true that up to 40% of Muslims wish to see Europe operating under Sharia Law, then the ingredients for a European V Islamic civil war are already in place, save Muslim weight of numbers; an issue being rapidly resolved. By 2025 the combination of factors mentioned above will lead to such a massive transformation in Europe’s demographic make up that Islam may well have sufficient numbers to confront us.
I first read Pat Buchanan’s book Death Of The West three years ago, which opened my eyes to the demographic imbalance between the birth rates of native Europeans and Muslim immigrants. Although full of doom and gloom, Buchanan never ventured a particular opinion on the likelihood of a full-blown war, perhaps due to the likely backlash from Muslims in America.
This omission was partly rectified by Mark Steyn in America Alone where he does mention war as a possible scenario, but neglects to predict any particular decade. Indeed, he seems to be of the opinion that Europe will acquiesce without any resistance at all. Much as I respect Mr Steyn, I believe he is utterly wrong about this. Europeans have a history of warfare; it is unlikely we will roll over without a fight.
If a Europe V Islam civil war is a possibility, then it is clearly prudent to look at the demographics of the particular section of our population who will actually fight it: Males aged between 18-40. The ratio of these potential combatants in 2005 was 18:1 in our favour.
Now, 18:1 appears to be a number that we can cope with, albeit with a certain amount of low-level violence, but what happens when that ratio becomes 10:1 or 5:1? What would be the likely result, for example, if twenty-five European chartered accountants were confronted by five machete wielding Jihadists? The answer is fairly predictable; they would run away, to file tax returns another day.
Suppose though, that inside each accountant’s briefcase, lurking alongside their blackberries and slide rules was a machete twice the size of the Jihadists preferred tools of trade? Same answer, they will still seek to escape. Knife fighting to the death is not on the curriculum at the East Midlands College of Accountancy and Equality, nor is it in the temperament of average European males, be they football hooligans with a penchant for fisticuffs let alone accountants.
Conversely, when a solitary but fully armed US Marine finds himself confronted by five machete wielding Jihadists, it’s fairly safe to say he will recount the ensuing events to his comrades the following morning. The Jihadists, on the other hand, are more likely to have had an up close and personal chat with Allah, prior to salaciously indulging themselves amongst their newly acquired harem of celestial virgins.
Which brings me to the point of this article. 5:1 is no guarantee that the majority will win and 5:1 is where we will find ourselves long before 2025. When I started looking at these figures, I anticipated that the numbers necessary for a civil war - based on today’s 18:1 - would not be in place until well into the second half of this century, but I was wrong. By 2025 Europe could find itself with a potential combatant ratio of 2:1 as shown in the following extrapolated figures, with the figures rounded up or down:
Total Population: 519 million
Non-Muslim European population: 494 Million.
Muslim population: 26 Million.
Ratio: 19:1
Non-Muslim European population: 70.3 Million.
Muslim population: 3.9 Million 1
Ratio: 18:1
Non-Muslim European Population: 53.4Million
Muslim Population: 5.9 Million
Ratio: 9:1
This ratio of 9:1 is not hypothetical; the people it represents are already here in our maternity wards and schools. It does not however, represent the true picture of 2025. Europe’s welfare states need a constant supply of workers to dependants, a situation that requires immigration due to feminism’s legacy of career before children. The aforementioned UN report suggests that Europe will require 2.2 million immigrants per year, with the majority coming from Muslim countries. When these extra 28 million immigrants are taken into account the figures look as follows.
Non-Muslim European Population: 53.4 Million
Muslim Population: 10.1 Million 2
Ratio: 5:1
As these numbers slowly change the character of Europe, many Europeans will simply pack up and leave, a situation occurring already in unprecedented numbers in countries such as Holland which has a 6% Muslim population, one of the highest in Western Europe. According to the Telegraaf an estimated 121,000 native Dutch emigrated in 2006 compared to only 30,000 in 1999. The demographic profile of these emigrants was well educated, 35-44 with good incomes. Their exodus represents a massive 4.5% of their entire age group. In one year.
In Britain, with a lower Muslim percentage but a higher incidence of terrorist activity, more than one in two wish to emigrate. So, to take an overly conservative figure of emigration amongst 20-40 year olds running at a mere 1% per annum, the figures would look as follows.
Non-Muslim European Population: 44.6 Million
Muslim Population: 10.1 Million
Ratio: 4:1
In the event of civil war erupting, does anyone seriously think that Turkey would remain on the sidelines? By 2025 there will be some 12 million Turkish males of fighting age. They will
probably be part of the European Union well before then, but if not, it is unlikely that the necessity of a visa will stop them from crossing the border in aid of their fellow Muslims. Should this transpire, the figures are as follows:
Non-Muslim Population: 44.6 million
Muslim population: 22.1 million
Ratio: 2:1
Third world immigration into Europe is quite possibly an issue that politically correct Europeans will grudgingly accept; the Islamification of Europe is another matter entirely and I have seen nothing in the rhetoric or physical actions of European Muslims to suggest this is not their aim. Europeans will not allow this to happen, the politicians in suits will find themselves usurped by the men in the streets. This is why these numbers are so important.
And these numbers are probably worse than I suggest here. As events unfold, the 1% trickle of European emigration I cite could well turn into a flood. Daniel Pipes thinks an exodus of the bourgeoisie a distinct possibility. Also, I am not a demographer3, so I have no idea how to factor in the children of the millions of immigrants predicted to arrive year on year through to 2050. In addition, the majority of immigration is likely to be made up 20-40 year olds, so the 15% figure of their total between now and 2025 could be only half of the true number.
Finally, what statistical advantage do fanatics prepared to die for their cause have over post Christian Europeans? Unless things change, Europe will find itself with a mere 2:1 advantage within 18 years, and a 5:1 advantage within the next ten. I wouldn’t like odds of 5:1 let alone 2:1, and the argument that moderate Muslims will not become involved is specious; once a few tit for tat atrocities are committed, everybody will be forced to take sides.
The ramifications of these figures will deeply affect Europe over the next ten years, which I will discuss in part two of this article.
Copyright: Paul Weston 2007
Note 1: The US Census population pyramids suggest countries with high birth rates - i.e. Muslim - are made up of 23% male 0-19 year olds, and 15% male 20-39 year olds. These are the percentages used for this article in the regrettable absence of census figures.
Note 2: I have taken the immigration rate as being 70% Islamic, and used 15% of this figure to arrive at the number of males aged 20-40.
Note 3: I am neither a demographer nor mathematician. Due to this, there are slight inconsistencies in the excel spreadsheet accompanying this article, although they do not affect the overall figures. One example is my use of 20-40 year olds rather than 18-40 year olds, purely as an ease of projection. Should there be any professional demographers reading this, perhaps they could build a spreadsheet acceptable to scholars. These figures need to be in the public domain and discussed at the highest level.
Editor's Postscript. The US Census data (excel spreadsheet) Mr Weston refers to is provided in a spreadsheet format attached to the article, but the spreadsheet doesn't translate well into Squarespace, so I'm reproducing it here as a jpg. I only hope it remains legible enough for purpose.
US Census Demographic Statistics referred to throughout article.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (33)
My sincere thanks for the article and to Mr Smith for publishing it.
LOL. The only inevitable thing here is that an absurd conclusion inevitably follows from incoherent reasoning.
This is all based on so many mistakes and stupid assumptions, it's hard to know where to start: the belief that Turks see themselves primarily as Muslim warriors, or that emigration of Europeans is due to the growing number of Muslims, or that most Muslims would like to take power in Europe by force, or that current birth and immigration rates will continue, or that - even if this dazzling scenario were to come to pass - disparate bands of fighters would be able to conduct a war leading to the deaths of over 50 million people or thereabouts.
Hysteria, hatred, paranoia.
There are problems with the muslims communities within Europe and I think that continued immigration by muslims ought to be discouraged, but the idea that once a certain ratio of muslims to non muslims is reached war is inevitable is preposterous as can be demonstrated by looking at countries such as India with more than 200 million muslims and no civil war There is a lot of communal violence but in a context of a war that would make 'WWII look like a bun fight' that doesn't really cut it.
'
There is a case that the initial skirmishes have begun. Remember the public disorder in France is down played by the media who don't want to admit that Islamic agitation may be somehthing other than a response to Iraq war.
However Europe has long expereince of variously working with, living alongside and also fighting Islam so I tend to think that after a few bouts of nastiness it will settle down to reasonable co-existence.
It already happened in parts of Europe - Kosovo , the french ZUS and various other muslim suburbs .
Will you flee ( to US perhaps ) if the muslims demand their own country within EU , complete with flag and anthem ? Hey , the UN said that's ok to dismember the sovereign state of Serbia - here is your precedent .
I think the point of ATW is to provide space to consider such possibilities as Paul posits. Thinking the unthinkable does not mean it will happen, but it does mean that we get to discuss issues that the MSM would run a mile from. I am indebted to Paul Weston.
Many of their Imams openly preach against the infidel states they are in. The UK is a centre of fundamentalist Islamic groups. My major fear is that another atrocity in this country or Europe perpetrated by individuals of the Islamic faith could well lead to intercommunal strife and an increase in the popularity of the extreme right.
I'm sure Paul would ask for no more than that.
Wellcome to EU - the future Bosnia .
"prescient" and "insightful" when rightworld makes wild predictions. "moonbattery" and "apocalyptic doom-mongering" under any other circumstances.
guff like this is much more dangerous than anything else.
The real violence is dangerous - but most europeans are waiting like sheeps for a bigger 9/11 .
How many victims does it take to wake them up ? A few millions maybe - because of an iranian nuke ?
"LOL. The only inevitable thing here is that an absurd conclusion inevitably follows from incoherent reasoning.
This is all based on so many mistakes and stupid assumptions, it's hard to know where to start: the belief that Turks see themselves primarily as Muslim warriors, or that emigration of Europeans is due to the growing number of Muslims, or that most Muslims would like to take power in Europe by force, or that current birth and immigration rates will continue, or that - even if this dazzling scenario were to come to pass - disparate bands of fighters would be able to conduct a war leading to the deaths of over 50 million people or thereabouts.
Hysteria, hatred, paranoia"
Mr Cunningham
Assuming this website is a place of reasoned discourse, I will attempt to answer your points.
This article is not based on mistakes or assumptions; it is based on what is happening now. Am I mistaken in the fact that our population of 20-40 year olds has declined by 25% from that of its parents? I am not, that is a fact you can check with the US Census figures I provide.
Am I mistaken in the fact that the male European Muslim population has expanded and that right now they are 1:9 in the 0-20 year age group rather than 1:18 in the 20:40 year old group? I am not, again, look at the census figures.
I did not say that Turks see themselves as Muslim warriors; I merely alluded to the fact that in 2025 there will be 12 million Turkish males aged 20-40. In the event of a European war whose side do you think they will take, or do you know so little of history that you are unaware that large-scale violence sucks in surrounding countries? The large-scale violence I refer to is the First World War; if you are unaware of Turkey’s part in that, do feel free to read a history book.
If you re-read the article you will see a link to a Daniel Pipes article in relation to European emigration. Please read it. When you have done so, you will notice that the four countries with unprecedented emigration rates are Holland, France, Germany and Britain. When you have read it ask yourself two questions: What do these four countries have in common, hint – it begins with I and ends in M - and why are the numbers emigrating so large?
I did not say that “most Muslims” wish to take Europe by force. Please re-read the article. I said “ Muslims” – whether they are a minority or a majority is irrelevant. Do you think that the Bolsheviks were a majority? Do you think the Nazis were a majority and do you think the Khmer Rouge were a majority?
Whether birth rates change is immaterial. The figures I cite for this article are the existing population in 2005. The immigration figures I cite are the UN’s, not mine, and are to replace the unborn Western children. This is not an assumption or a mistake.
With regard to disparate bands of fighters I suggest you look at a history of the break up of Yugoslavia and the carnage unleashed based on tribal/religious differences. A population of 27 million managed to kill up to 200,000 of each other and only stopped because the UN (read America) forced them to do so. It was also a war notable for a higher death rate amongst civilians than the military. What sort of figure would you care to put on an unstoppable war amongst 500 million people where the principal casualties will be civilians?
Before you make wild accusations of hate, hysteria, mistakes and assumptions I suggest you read the article thoroughly before you denigrate it. You may also wish to read Samuel Huntingdon, Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald or from a reformed Muslim’s point of view http://www.faithfreedom.org/ I am afraid that ignorance of reality does not give you the occupation of the moral higher ground. Educate yourself.
I do not wish to appear rude, but if you would like me to furnish you with a reading list that involves Islamic reality then do please ask Mr Smith to contact me, and I will send you the essentials.
and rightworld are the first to treat such tripe as academic and, dare i say, peer reviewed.
if there is any lesson to learn from european history (especially modern history), then it is in the creation of enemies where none really exist and the justification for dispatching said enemies is sought at a later date. with luck through victory.
in the modern world of pre-emption, your words are much more dangerous than "five machete wielding Jihadists".
I only really have one "what if".
What if the 40% of Muslims who say they wish Europe to be ruled under Sharia law, really mean what they say?
What I have done is the opposite of what you suggest. I looked at the "what if" and then researched the ststistics to come up with a time frame. It is closer than I thought and to be forewarned is to be forearmed.
You don't really think the 21 century will consist of watching soap operas and going shopping do you?
Now however we are asked to forget that Jews lived and prospered in,for example, the Ottoman Empire, in order that we should support Likudniks in Israel.
Never forget that there's a wealth of scholarship out there which can't be accessed by a quick Google.
What if the 40% of Muslims who say they wish Europe to be ruled under Sharia law, really mean what they say?<<<
and what if turkey takes sides in a what if conflict
and what if emigration drastically rises
and what if muslim birth rates remain the same
and what if these birth rates increase
and what if non-muslim birth rates remain the same
and what if they decrease
then you stray into even more bizarre what if territory involving machetes and accountants. drawing conclusions that we as western europeans are too decadent to fight if directly faced with the possibility.
anyways even if youre right, im sure the ex-soviets will begrudgingly come and do all the heavy lifting, like they did the last time.
I think you are too alarmist. The vast majority of immigrants to the UK are white, Christian Europeans. I am a member of the white flight you describe (left England for Australia last year) but i didn't leave because of all those nasty Muzzers round the corner trying to sell me kebabs.
I think the 'white flight' from Old Europe reflects a change in the priorities of people like myself from those of our parents. In times of full employment, we increasingly value 'quality of life' over 'job for life'. Australia offers families a vastly better quality of life than England.
My thoughts are here.
http://pommygranate.blogspot.com/2007/04/are-europeans-fleeing-eurabia.html
That said, i hope i am right and you are wrong. Or you're fucked.
"What if the 40% of Muslims who say they wish Europe to be ruled under Sharia law, really mean what they say?"
Then 40% of Muslims would still be a minority of Muslims who in turn would still be a minority in Europe.
But in fact it is not true that 40% of Muslims say that, and the only figure that comes close is from a poll of young male Muslims in Britain.
So your 'what if' is both based on a false premise and doesn't lead to your conclusion. Nice going.
You on the other hand with your unexplained "necessary measures" are more of a worry.
Exactly.
Until then , we have Kosovo , the harsh reality . I rest my case .
A goodly number of Muslims what Sharia. Their numbers are increaasing.
A goodly number of native Euros are emigrating. Also the natives aren't reproducing at the 2.1/2 ratio needed to sustain a population.
Therefore it is reasonable to assume that a population and therefore a political shift is going on.
I don't know how all this will play out, but I am glad I am over her, and not over there. (for many reasons!)
is toto standing beside him?
"A goodly number of Muslims what Sharia. Their numbers are increaasing. "
In this country a minority of a minority wants Sharia (which in turn means a range of things, and doesn't mean that they all favour the barbarity that tends to be associated with that). Nobody knows what their numbers really are, never mind which direction they are going in.
Meanwhile it is obvious that significant numbers of Muslims are westernised and the reason is that such values are good ideas and thus spread of their own accord and not just down family lines That is why Sharia has much of an uphill struggle in implementing their theocratic notions as Christian rightworld has had so far with better numbers. The evidence is the ROI which had a demographic of 97% Catholic yet still theocracy crumbled and fell apart there.
BTW, glad to see you back. Hope all is well!
Got all of that off of Wikipedia, did you?
What we see in numbers, and what we see on the ground are usually 2 different things, and in this case I can assure you that what we see on the ground is an increasingly isolated, frustrated and angry Muslim population.
Moderate Islam is no counter to radicalism, especially a radicalism that shows no respect for human life.
I think this article whilst it may have some dates wrong, has the outcome pretty well pinned down.
American's may like to draw similarities that to an extent they have their own problems with the increasing number of Hispanics, and take some time to reflect on what they see in the figures and what they see on the ground, with gang warfare on the rise.