Birthrates are not very important except insofar as immigration brings the competing peoples together.
Alex K on January 22, 2007 at 6:23 PM

Really? You might want to cc the Chinese on this.

George Galloway, that’s who you mean.

i was actually surprised not to see good ole galloway standing underneath the hangmans trap door holding up saddam to make sure the noose didn’t go snap… can you imagine the imagery… there is saddam captured on the camera phone and as he is in the middle of his prayer, BAM!!! the trap door opens, saddam falls through and people rush to see him hanging with his neck snapped in half, and there is george galloway holding up by the legs making sure that doesn’t happen…

how did the english ever let that little communist into their midst will be a mystery to me…

But in the liberal mind, to concentrate on the fertility of any one group is to flirt with Nuremberg laws.

liberals like Honora get nervous with talk about high birth rates among discrete ethnic or religious groups because of the long, ugly history of what that kind of talk can breed (no pun intended).

Birthrates are not very important except insofar as immigration brings the competing peoples together. There’d be no urgency for the concentration on fertility that so terrifies liberals and neocons-other-than-Mark-Steyn if political control of Western polities wasn’t at stake.

2. A strong, open alliance with India on all fronts, from the military to the political and economic, backed by an extensive cultural exchange program, to demonstrate solidarity with the other great multiethnic democracy under attack from Muslim fascism. A hugely enlarged quota for qualified Indian immigrants and a reduction in quotas from Pakistan and other nations where fundamentalism dominates.

Sounds like an excellent idea to me.

It was something to the effect that reasonable men may well want to talk to other reasonable men to come up with reasonable solutions, but that the opinions of those other reasonable men aren’t really relevant. So long as there are people like Usama bin Laden and Moqtada Al-Sadr out there, with followers willing to obey their orders, there won’t be anything to come out of reasoning with people.

Only when the UNreasonable men come to the conclusion that their actions are self-destructive, is there a chance that talking will help.

(no pun intended)

None taken ;^)

I think he’s kidding himself when he imagines different ethnic strains of European Muslims emerging as checks on each other.

That was my thought exactly. I like Hitchens a whole lot, and I did like his 8 points at the end, but he’s wrong on this one.

In Christopher Hitchens’ commentary on the prologue in Mark Stein’s new book, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, Hitchens identifies Steyn’s ridicule of novelist Martin Amis and Jack Straw – formerly Tony Blair’s foreign secretary, …

In Christopher Hitchens’ commentary on the prologue in Mark Stein’s new book, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, Hitchens identifies Steyn’s ridicule of novelist Martin Amis and Jack Straw – formerly Tony Blair’s foreign secretary, …

Seems a bit narrow though, don’t you think?

Yeah, although that might be owing to the fact that we’ve already smacked the hornet’s nest.

Liberals like Honora want a high birthrate from Muslims because Muslims overwhelmingly vote for liberals and socialists because they know liberals will not oppose their jihad to take over the world for Islam.

No, liberals like Honora get nervous with talk about high birth rates among discrete ethnic or religious groups because of the long, ugly history of what that kind of talk can breed (no pun intended).

Unconditional solidarity, backed with force and the relevant UN resolutions, with an independent and multi-confessional Lebanon.

Pablo, you’re right. Read it too quickly. Seems a bit narrow though, don’t you think?

Liberals like Honora want a high birthrate from Muslims because Muslims overwhelmingly vote for liberals and socialists because they know liberals will not oppose their jihad to take over the world for Islam.

I wouldn’t bet on that. See Hamas.

Interesting that none of Hitchins’s point suggest military options.

See #6.

Liberals like Honora want a high birthrate from Muslims because Muslims overwhelmingly vote for liberals and socialists because they know liberals will not oppose their jihad to take over the world for Islam.

Nice try. Better luck next time. Can you think of another reason that discussion of “the other’s” high birth rate can be problematic? (hint: what’s the next logical point in this discussion?)

Facing the Islamist Menace Christopher Hitchens Mark Steyn’s new book is a welcome wake-up call. In the prologue to his new book, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, Mark Steyn sarcastically alludes to two people…

The discussion of the birth rate associated with any group makes me mightly nervous.

honora on January 22, 2007 at 12:48 PM

Liberals like Honora want a high birthrate from Muslims because Muslims overwhelmingly vote for liberals and socialists because they know liberals will not oppose their jihad to take over the world for Islam.

Liberals will never attack a country that threatens the U.S. For instance, that is why Democrats have proposed a bill to ban Bush from attacking Iran. Liberals and Muslims are natural allies.

The one point that Hitchens misses it the most effective. The best way to stop Islamism is to stop importing the anti-Semite Muslims (i.e. all Muslims) into Western countries. Muslims overwhelmingly support the destruction of Israel and would be content to have sharia law.