Shocking Footage Reveals Cultural And Demographic Transformation Of Italy (VIDEO)

Gateway Pundit,  by Damien Cowely, June 27, 2017:

Not Islamabad or Karachi but Italy.

A short video published online and spreading on social media offers a glimpse of the dramatic cultural transformation underway in Italy.

Purportedly filmed in Monfalcone, a manufacturing hub not far from Trieste, in Friuli Venezia Giulia province (Northern Italy), the video shows a large crowd of men leaving celebrations for the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan. The month-long fast observed by Muslims ended on Sunday.

Previously unknown to most Europeans, Ramadan and the celebration of Eid al-Fitr have become an increasingly significant part of the cultural landscape with socialist politicians in certain countries even calling for the Muslim celebration of Eid to be added as a state holiday.

A stream of men in traditional Islamic garb can be seen leaving the celebration, an uncontroversial sight for the Islamic world but remarkable given that the location is Northern Italy.

As with many European countries outside of France and the United Kingdom, mass immigration is a relatively new phenomenon to Italy, and is increasingly transforming its towns and cities. In a similar pattern to Ireland and Denmark, large scale immigration essentially began in the 1990s, with numbers exploding in the 2000s.

Meanwhile, on Italy’s southern coastline, huge numbers of African migrants continue to arrive daily, many ferried directly from the Libyan coast by well-funded NGOs and European naval vessels. Over 3,000 arrived on Sunday alone, followed by 5000 more on Monday.

Official statistics show the cultural and religious impact of Italy’s porous borders; while only 2,000 Muslims lived in Italy in 1970, the figure had risen to nearly 2 million by 2015, with a rapid increase since that time.

Excluding EU citizens, Italy counted just under 4 million foreign residents as of January 2016, out of a total population of 60 million. This figure also excludes illegal immigrants.

Worryingly for Italy and its Catholic heritage, the country now has one of Europe’s lowest fertility rates at 1.35 children per woman, well below the replacement level of 2.1 required to maintain a stable population.

Video clips such as the one below are increasingly causing scandal amongst Italians, frequently circulating on social media and fueling a nationalist movement which seeks to stem the tide of arrivals.

Also see:

Islam on Track to Overtake Christianity as World’s No. 1 Religion

Pew Research Center study projects Muslim population in America will double by 2050

Lifezette, by Brendan Kirby, May 29, 2017:

Muslims will double their share of the population in the United States by 2050 and surpass Christianity as the world’s dominant religion by the end of the century, according to a Pew Research Center report released last week.

The Pew study comes the same week that saw two acts of mass murder perpetrated by Muslim extremists — a suicide bombing outside a concert in Manchester, England, and a gun attack on a bus filled with Coptic Christians in Egypt.

Based on demographic trends, Pew projects that the Muslim population will grow by 70 percent worldwide between 2015 and 2060, compared with an overall population growth of 32 percent. That far exceeds the projected growth of the second- and third-fastest growing religions, Christianity and Hinduism, respectively.

The reason for the disparity comes down to simple demographics. Muslims are younger and have more babies than Christians and members of other religions. The projected birth rate of Muslim women from 2015 to 2020 is 2.9 babies per woman, compared to a non-Muslim fertility rate of 2.2.

“Muslims are also the youngest (median age of 24 years old in 2015) of all major religious groups, seven years younger than the median age of non-Muslims,” the study states. “As a result, a larger share of Muslims already are, or will soon be, at the point in their lives when they begin having children. This, combined with high fertility rates, will fuel Muslim population growth.”

The U.S. Muslim population is small, about 3.3 million in 2015, according to Pew estimates. That represents about 1 percent of the population, about two-thirds of whom are immigrants. Pew projects that to grow to 2.1 percent of the population by 2050, moving past Judaism as the No. 2 religion in the country.

A 2015 study by Pew indicated that the European Muslim population is much larger and growing nearly as fast. The think tank projects Muslims will make up 10 percent of the continent in 2050.

Some hard-liners on Islamic terrorism said such percentages of Muslims in Western nations will exacerbate the cultural rift that has led to more frequent attacks and created enclaves that incubate Islamism. Some experts contend that after reaching about 5 percent of the population, Muslims then begin demanding that nations codify Sharia law in civil codes, with support for jihad growing.

“Even at those lower numbers, you reach a sort of tipping point,” said Clare Lopez, vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security Policy.

Lopez said terrorist watch-lists then grow beyond a manageable number.

“The security services just can’t keep up,” she said.

Lopez pointed to an interview that Rowan Williamson, the archbishop of Canterbury, gave in 2008 in which he appeared to support the idea of Sharia law. He said that “as a matter of fact, certain provisions of Sharia are already recognized in our society and under our law.”

Lopez also rejected the notion that the United States can avoid Europe’s fate because of its long history of assimilation. Notwithstanding a number of terrorist attacks and foiled terror plots on U.S. soil in recent years, she argued, the only reason why those incidents have not kept pace with Europe is the smaller Muslim population.

“We’re no different than Europe,” he said. “There’s no such thing as assimilation … The only difference between us and Europe is time and numbers.”

The growing Muslim population and terrorism are causing consternation in a number of Western nations. Half or more in Spain, Greece, Poland, Italy and Hungary told pollsters last year that they have negative views of Islam. Even in more tolerant Western and Northern Europe, negative views of Islam ranged from 28 percent to 35 percent.

The feeling is mutual. In a 2011 survey, majorities in Muslim countries associated Westerners with selfishness, violence, greed, immorality and arrogance.

In the United States, views of Muslims have diverged along partisan lines since 2002. Among Republicans and Republican-leaning voters, the share of voters believing just a few or no Muslims in the U.S. have anti-American views declined from 40 percent that year to 29 percent in a poll taken last year.

Democrats and Democratic-leaners had similar views of U.S. Muslims as their Republican counterparts in 2002. But by 2016, 54 percent believed just a few or no Muslims in America held anti-American views.

Lopez said she believes that is the result of a marked change in views by Democratic politicians, who have responded to Islamic lobbying groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Voters, she said, largely take their cues from their leaders.

Ten Years, and Slightly Less Alone

mark-steyn

By Mark Steyn, October 10, 2016:

america-alone-cover-alt-rev-bTen years ago this coming weekend – October 16th 2006 – my book America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It hit the bookstores and shortly thereafter the bestseller lists. This paragraph from early in the Prologue lays out the thesis:

Much of what we loosely call the western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most European countries. There’ll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands – probably – just as in Istanbul there’s still a building known as Hagia Sophia, or St Sophia’s Cathedral. But it’s not a cathedral; it’s merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate.

That’s just for starters. And, unlike the ecochondriacs’ obsession with rising sea levels, this isn’t something that might possibly conceivably hypothetically threaten the Maldive Islands circa the year 2500; the process is already well advanced as we speak. With respect to Francis Fukuyama, it’s not the end of history, it’s the end of the world – as we know it.

The clever chaps at The Economist called it “alarmist“, as did Tarek Fatah in my own magazine,Maclean’s. The Economist is as complacently globalist as ever, but Mr Fatah has since somewhat revised his view:

Steyn was right and I was wrong.

He’s, er, not wrong about that. America Alone did not get everything right. But, if you’d read it more attentively than The Economist did, Europe’s 2016 summer of terror would not have surprised you. Many influential persons did, in fact, read the book, including President George W Bush, Democrat vice-presidential nominee Joe Lieberman, Spanish prime minister José Maria Aznar, British Brexiteer Michael Gove, etc. But evidently Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel and many others did not – and so here we are, a decade later. All this week we’ll be marking the tenth anniversary by running a few excerpts from the book. Let’s start today with some more from that Prologue:

It’s the end of the world – as we know it. Does that make me sound as nuts as Al Gore and the rest of the eco-doom set? It’s true the end of the world’s nighness isn’t something you’d want to set your watch by.

Indeed. After running through some of the more apocalyptic predictions of Sixties and Seventies environmentalists, I concede:

None of these things occurred. Contrary to the doom-mongers, millions didn’t starve and the oil and gas and gold didn’t run out, and, though the NHL now has hockey franchises in Anaheim and Tampa Bay, ambitious kids are still unable to spend their winters knocking a puck around the frozen Everglades. But that doesn’t mean nothing much went on during the last third of the 20th century. Here’s what did happen between 1970 and 2000:

In that period, the developed world declined from just under 30 per cent of the global population to just over 20 per cent, and the Muslim nations increased from about 15 per cent to 20 per cent.

Is that fact less significant to the future of the world than the fate of some tree or the endangered sloth hanging from it? In 1970, very few non-Muslims outside the Indian sub-continent gave much thought to Islam. Even the Palestinian situation was seen within the framework of a more or less conventional ethnic nationalist problem. Yet today it’s Islam-a-go-go: almost every geopolitical crisis takes place on what Samuel Huntington, in The Clash Of Civilizations, calls “the boundary looping across Eurasia and Africa that separates Muslims from non-Muslims.” That looping boundary is never not in the news. One week, it’s a bomb in Bali. The next, some beheadings in southern Thailand. Next, an insurrection in an obscure resource-rich Muslim republic in the Russian Federation. And then Madrid, and London, and suddenly that looping, loopy boundary has penetrated into the very heart of the west. In little more than a generation.

1970 doesn’t seem that long ago. If you’re in your fifties or sixties, as many of the chaps running the western world today are wont to be, your pants are narrower than they were back then and your hair’s less groovy, but the landscape of your life – the look of your house, the lay-out of your car, the shape of your kitchen appliances, the brand names of the stuff in the fridge – isn’t significantly different. And yet that world is utterly altered. Just to recap those bald statistics: In 1970, the developed nations had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30 per cent to 15 per cent. By 2000, they were at parity: each had about 20 per cent.

And by 2020…?

Well, by 2020, it will be impossible to compare statistics between “the Muslim world” and the west – because Islam is currently responsible for most population growth in English, French and German cities, and the principal supplier of immigrants to Canada, and already 25 per cent of the population of the European Union’s capital city, Brussels. Ten years ago, my line about mediation between Islam and the “host community” being the “principal political dynamic” in western Europe also struck many as “alarmist”, but after this last summer in Germany and France and Sweden it’s inarguable:

September 11th 2001 was not “the day everything changed”, but the day that revealed how much had already changed. On September 10th, how many journalists had the Council of American-Islamic Relations or the Canadian Islamic Congress or the Muslim Council of Britain in their rolodexes? If you’d said that whether something does or does not cause offence to Muslims would be the early 21st century’s principal political dynamic in Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and the United Kingdom, most folks would have thought you were crazy. Yet on that Tuesday morning the top of the iceberg bobbed up and toppled the Twin Towers.

This book is about the seven-eighths below the surface – the larger forces at play in the developed world that have left Europe too enfeebled to resist its remorseless transformation into Eurabia and call into question the future of much of the rest of the world. The key factors are:

i) Demographic decline;
ii) The unsustainability of the social democratic state;
iii) Civilizational exhaustion.

Let’s start with demography, because everything does.

Just so. My argument was straightforward. The western world is going out of business because it’s given up having babies. The 20th century welfare state, with its hitherto unknown concepts such as spending a third of your adult lifetime in “retirement”, is premised on the basis that there will be enough new citizens to support the old. But there won’t be – so Europe decided to import the babies it couldn’t be bothered having itself. Ten years ago, one of the first interviews I did was with Paul Gigot, editor of The Wall Street Journal, on his TV show “The Journal Editorial Report“:

STEYN: Seventeen European countries have what demographers call lowest-low fertility, from which no society has ever recovered. That means they are basically not having enough babies.

And the way Europe is set up, they have these unsustainable social programs and welfare. And they imported the babies that they didn’t have. They imported them essentially from the North Africa and the Middle East.

So we’re seeing one of the fastest population transformations in history, whereby an aging ethnic European population is being replaced by a Muslim population. And the Muslims understand that, in fact, Europe, as they see it, is the colony now.

GIGOT: Is there any way that Europe can avoid being Islamacized in this way?

STEYN: Well, I think, to be honest, some of the Eastern European nations didn’t throw off communism in order simply to throw their lot in with the doomed French and Belgians and Dutch 15 years later. And I think Poland and Hungary and so forth, will be determined not to go down the same path that the West Europeans have.

That observation has been borne by the different reactions to the “refugee” “crisis” by, say, Germany and Sweden on the one hand and Poland and Hungary on the other.

GIGOT: Is the problem only demographics or is it somehow broader, a kind of lack of intellectual confidence, cultural confidence… I remember during the Cold War, there was a strain of pessimism about whether the West would prevail in that conflict. James Burnham, the great strategist, wrote about the suicide of the West.

And some people, as late as the late 1980s, were still saying we’re going to lose the Cold War. Yet we won that because the West had a great — demonstrated a lot of resilience, democratic resilience.

Why is this conflict, in your view, different?

STEYN: Well, I think we understood then, anyone who meet Czechs or Hungarians or Poles or any of these people on the other side of the Iran Curtain during the Cold War, understood that they actually had no dog in the fight. They weren’t interested. They weren’t interested in conquering the world.

And I think it is different now. I think the average Muslim does, in some basic sense, when he immigrates to the Netherlands, when he immigrates to the United Kingdom, when he immigrates to Canada or Michigan, wants eventually to live in a Muslim society in those places. And he expects effectively — I am not saying he wants to fly planes into buildings or any of that nonsense — but his expectation is that the host society will assimilate with him rather than the other way around.

And that’s a profound challenge in a way that communism wasn’t.

When America Alone came out all those years ago, another early interview was by the indefatigable Michelle Malkin for her then new Hot Air website. It stands up pretty well a decade later. Click below for Part One:

As you can see from the above video, time has beaten the hell out of me this last decade, although not Michelle – and not my thesis. This is the biggest story of our time, and, ten years on, the west’s leaders still can’t talk about it, not to their own peoples, not honestly. And they’re increasingly disinclined (as Angela Merkel fumed to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg) to let you talk about it. Yet, for all the “human rights” complaints, and death threats from halfwits, and subtler rejections from old friends who feel I’m no longer quite respectable, I’m glad I brought up the subject. And it’s well past time for others to speak out.

If you haven’t read America Alone during its first ten years, well, you’re missing a treat. It’s still in print in hardback and paperback, and personally autographed copies are exclusively available from the SteynOnline bookstore.

25% of French Teenagers now Muslims

unnamed (10)

By Counter Jihad, March 15, 2016:

There is a general danger to mass immigration and a danger specific to Islamic immigration.  France is facing destruction because it has chosen to combine the two.

In terms of Islamic immigration, the danger is that it comes with a mandate to change the civilization to which it moves.  Mohammed said to his followers, ““I charge you with five of what Allah has charged me with: to assemble, to listen, to obey, to immigrate and to wage Jihad for the sake of Allah.”  In this they are emulating Muhammad himself.  He left his home town of Mecca in a migration known as the hijra. He did so with intent of establishing a base of operations from which to return and conquer.

Figures across the Islamic world proclaim their intent to conquer through the process of Muslim migration.  These include Yousef al-Qaradawi, the senior jurist of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Anjem Choudary, the outspoken jihadist imam in the U.K.  The danger of Islamic immigration is most evident in Western Europe.   The results of misguided “multicultural” experiments, lax immigration policies and indifference to assimilation are sharia and clashes with police.

In terms of mass immigration, the danger is that civilizations depend on their members upholding the values of the community.  Even in terms of mass immigration from Latin America to the United States, where mass immigration is from Christian nations to a majority-Christian nation, the challenge to the values of the civilization is intense.  The United States of America was founded on a particular view of human liberty protected in part by strict Constitutional limits on the powers of government.  Latin American immigrants come from cultures favoring much stronger government models, even socialist models, that are not compatible with the United States Constitution.  As mass immigration empowers this community with more and more votes, it becomes more and more likely that the traditional civilization will wither away.  Such voters elect Congressmen who anoint judges who rewrite the Constitution in court to make way for socialism.

Now put the two together, and consider a rapidly-growing mass immigrant population of Muslims:

Over two decades, the French Muslim population is thus supposed to have increased by 25% according to the lowest estimations, by 50% according to median estimations, or even by 100% if one compares the INED and government figures of 1997 to those of 2014, from 3 million to almost 6 million.

This is respectively almost two times, three times, or six times the French average population growth.

France stands on the edge of destruction by such immigration.  The France of the future, should this not change, will not be the land of liberty, equality, and fraternity.  It will be a land harboring an unassimilated Islamic majority.

Also see:

It’s Still the Demography, Stupid

1702Steyn Online, by Mark Steyn, Ten Years On, January 19, 2016:

Ten years ago this month – January 2006 – The Wall Street Journal and The New Criterion published my first draft of what would become the thesis of my bestselling book, America Alone. The Journal headline sums it up: “It’s the Demography, Stupid.” Opening paragraph:

Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries. There’ll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands–probably–just as in Istanbul there’s still a building called St. Sophia’s Cathedral. But it’s not a cathedral; it’s merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate. The challenge for those who reckon Western civilization is on balance better than the alternatives is to figure out a way to save at least some parts of the West.

The argument was straightforward. The western world is going out of business because it’s given up having babies. The 20th century welfare state, with its hitherto unknown concepts such as spending a third of your adult lifetime in “retirement”, is premised on the basis that there will be enough new citizens to support the old. But there won’t be. Lazy critics of my thesis thought that I was making a “prediction”, and that my predictions were no more reliable than Al Gore’s or Michael Mann’s on the looming eco-apocalypse. I tried to explain that it’s not really a prediction at all:

When it comes to forecasting the future, the birthrate is the nearest thing to hard numbers. If only a million babies are born in 2006, it’s hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2026 (or 2033, or 2037, or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management and Queer Studies degrees). And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they’re running out a lot faster than the oil is. “Replacement” fertility rate–i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller–is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?

Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you’ll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada’s fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That’s to say, Spain’s population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy’s population will have fallen by 22%.

Enter Islam, which sportingly volunteered to be the children we couldn’t be bothered having ourselves, and which kind offer was somewhat carelessly taken up by the post-Christian west. As I wrote a decade ago:

The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism. Indeed, in its reliance on immigration to ensure its future, the European Union has adopted a 21st-century variation on the strategy of the Shakers, who were forbidden from reproducing and thus could increase their numbers only by conversion.

That didn’t work out too great for the Shakers, but the Europeans figured it would be a piece of cake for them: “westernization” is so seductive, so appealing that, notwithstanding the occasional frothing imam and burka-bagged crone, their young Muslims would fall for the siren song of secular progressivism just like they themselves had. So, as long as you kept the immigrants coming, there would be no problem – as long as you oomphed up the scale of the solution. As I put it:

To avoid collapse, European nations will need to take in immigrants at a rate no stable society has ever attempted.

Last year, Angela Merkel decided to attempt it. The German Chancellor cut to the chase and imported in twelve months 1.1 million Muslim “refugees”. That doesn’t sound an awful lot out of 80 million Germans, but, in fact, the 1.1 million Muslim are overwhelmingly (80 per cent plus) fit, virile, young men. Germany has fewer than ten million people in the same population cohort, among whom Muslims are already over-represented: the median age of Germans as a whole is 46, the median age of German Muslims is 34. But let’s keep the numbers simple, and assume that of those ten million young Germans half of them are ethnic German males. Frau Merkel is still planning to bring in another million “refugees” this year. So by the end of 2016 she will have imported a population equivalent to 40 per cent of Germany’s existing young male cohort. The future is here now: It’s not about “predictions”.

On standard patterns of “family reunification”, these two million “refugees” will eventually bring another four or five persons each from their native lands – or another eight-to-ten million. In the meantime, they have the needs of all young lads, and no one around to gratify them except the local womenfolk. Hence, New Year’s Eve in Cologne, and across the southern border the Vienna police chief warning women not to go out unaccompanied, and across the northern border:

Danish nightclubs demand guests have to speak Danish, English or German to be allowed in after ‘foreign men in groups’ attack female revellers

But don’t worry, it won’t be a problem for long: On the German and Swedish “migrant” numbers, there won’t be a lot of “female revelry” in Europe’s future. The formerly firebreathing feminists at The Guardian and the BBC are already falling as mute as battered wives – saying nothing, looking away, making excuses, clutching at rationalizations… Ten years ago, I wrote:

The problem is that secondary-impulse societies mistake their weaknesses for strengths–or, at any rate, virtues–and that’s why they’re proving so feeble at dealing with a primal force like Islam.

“Multiculturalism” was less an immigration policy than an advertisement of our moral virtue. So the really bad thing about New Year’s Eve is not that Continental women got groped and raped by coarse backward “migrants”, but that all these gropes and rapes might provoke the even more coarse and backward natives. I did all the gags a decade ago:

The old definition of a nanosecond was the gap between the traffic light changing in New York and the first honk from a car behind. The new definition is the gap between a terrorist bombing and the press release from an Islamic lobby group warning of a backlash against Muslims.

And so it goes ten years on. We’re beyond parody now. A decade back, I noted:

Then September 11 happened. And bizarrely the reaction of just about every prominent Western leader was to visit a mosque: President Bush did, the prince of Wales did, the prime minister of the United Kingdom did, the prime minister of Canada did . . . The premier of Ontario didn’t, and so 20 Muslim community leaders had a big summit to denounce him for failing to visit a mosque… But for whatever reason he couldn’t fit it into his hectic schedule. Ontario’s citizenship minister did show up at a mosque, but the imams took that as a great insult, like the Queen sending Fergie to open the Commonwealth Games.

Nobody makes that mistake these days. Six Canadians working for a Quebec Catholic humanitarian organization repairing schoolrooms in Burkina Faso get slaughtered by Muslim terrorists, and the Prince Minister skedaddles to a mosque run by a woman-hating loon to hold the moment of silence.

Like I said, I did all the jokes way back when, and it’s not so funny after ten years. My thesis was straightforward: a semi-Muslim France will not be France; it will be something other, and – if you happen to value things like freedom of speech and women’s rights – it will be something worse:

Can a society become increasingly Islamic in its demographic character without becoming increasingly Islamic in its political character?

This ought to be the left’s issue. I’m a conservative–I’m not entirely on board with the Islamist program when it comes to beheading sodomites and so on, but I agree Britney Spears dresses like a slut: I’m with Mullah Omar on that one. Why then, if your big thing is feminism or abortion or gay marriage, are you so certain that the cult of tolerance will prevail once the biggest demographic in your society is cheerfully intolerant? Who, after all, are going to be the first victims of the West’s collapsed birthrates?

And so it goes, on the streets of the most “liberal” “progressive” cities on the planet.

A few weeks before The Wall Street Journal published my piece, I discussed its themes at an event in New York whose speakers included Douglas Murray. Douglas was more optimistic: He suggested that Muslim populations in Europe were still small, and immigration policy could be changed: Easier said than done. My essay and book were so influential that in the decade since, the rate of Islamization in the west has increased – via all three principal methods: Muslim immigration, Muslim birthrates of those already here, Muslim conversion of the infidels. David Goldman thinks aging, childless Germany has embraced civilizational suicide as redemption for their blood-soaked sins. Maybe. But it is less clear why the Continent’s less tainted polities – impeccably “neutral” Sweden, for example – are so eager to join them. As I wrote:

Permanence is the illusion of every age. In 1913, no one thought the Russian, Austrian, German and Turkish empires would be gone within half a decade. Seventy years on, all those fellows who dismissed Reagan as an “amiable dunce” (in Clark Clifford’s phrase) assured us the Soviet Union was likewise here to stay. The CIA analysts’ position was that East Germany was the ninth biggest economic power in the world. In 1987 there was no rash of experts predicting the imminent fall of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself.

Somewhere, deep down, the European political class understands that the Great Migrations have accelerated the future I outlined way back when:

Can these trends continue for another 30 years without having consequences? Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world.

It’s the biggest story of our time, and, ten years on, Europe’s leaders still can’t talk about it, not to their own peoples, not honestly. For all the “human rights” complaints, and death threats from halfwits, and subtler rejections from old friends who feel I’m no longer quite respectable, I’m glad I brought it up. And it’s well past time for others to speak out.

‘By the Numbers’: Watch Clarion’s New Short Film

By-the-Numbers-IP

Clarion Project, Dec. 11, 2015:

“By the Numbers” is an honest and open discussion about Muslim opinions and demographics. Narrated by Raheel Raza, president of Muslims Facing Tomorrow, this short film is about the acceptance that radical Islam is a bigger problem than most politically correct governments and individuals are ready to admit.

The film addresses the questions: Is ISIS, the Islamic State, trying to penetrate the US with the refugee influx? Are Muslims radicalised on U.S. soil? Are organizations such as CAIR, who purport to represent American Muslims, accepting and liberal or radicalized with links to terror organizations?

The Hard Line | Raheel Raza and Ryan Mauro discuss a new film about Islamic extremism

Islamic State’s Global Ambitions

3463035770Secure Freedom Radio with Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Diana West, Soeren Kern, Tom Rogan, Jim Hanson on November 25, 2015:

Dr. SEBASTIAN GORKA, Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University:  Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • Seriousness of the Islamic State’s global threat
  • Growing threat of ISIS in the United States
  • How to deal with the refugee crisis and the Muslim Brotherhood

DIANA WEST, Author of “American Betrayal”: Podcast (podcast2): Play in new window | Download

  • Multiculturalism’s negative effect on the West
  • Immigration destroying Western culture
  • Threats coming from Canada’s acceptance of Syrian refugees

SOEREN KERN, Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute: Podcast (podcast3): Play in new window | Download

  • Germany as a case study in the rise of European Islamic supremacism
  • Europe’s model of immigration verses that of the US
  • Angela Merkel perpetuating a public health crisis  through refugee resettlement
  • European Union’s failing model of a single currency and open borders

TOM ROGAN, Senior Fellow at the Steamboat Institute, and Columnist for National Review: Podcast (podcast4): Play in new window | Download

  • Islamic State’s movement to the West
  • Concern of “No Go Zones” in Europe
  • Dealing with the hijra from the Middle East

JIM HANSON, Executive Vice President of the Center for Security Policy, former operator in the U.S. Army Special Forces: Podcast (podcast5): Play in new window | Download

  • Identifying the ideological background of Islamic jihadists
  • Danger of the violent and pre-violent stages of jihad to America
  • Importance in the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization
  • Review of Turkey shooting down a Russian fighter jet