I don't hate the religion. But Islam, Christianity and Judaism seem quite similar to me. The difference is between them and the eastern religions.

I expect the birth rates to be more or less the same. (Turkey 2009 with Greece, Spain, Portugal 1981-1986)

According to Huntington, who you seem to respect, Greece and Bulgaria also belong to an alien cultural bloc than to western Europe, or not?

Although I don't really believe in these "cultural blocs". Orthodox Christianity, Islam and Judaism are a part of the european history and belong to the european tradition, if we like it or not.
By the way, it's more correct to speak about a Greco-Roman-Arab heritage. Don't forget that the ancient greek philosophy and science was transmitted to Western Europe to a big part through Arabs. And Turkey is also a part of this heritage. After all, didn't the Ottoman Sultans consider themselves as roman Emperors?

Bravo.Great post Afroasiatis!

What you think does not matter. You are foolish enough to think you can impose your world-view on Turks, and you consider yourself a progressive modernist while doing so! I gave a link to a poll of what Turks think of living with giaour(infidels) among other things. They are much more pious than a leftish Cypriot Cypriot such as you, so to them it is certainly not that all the Semitic religions = same.

Turkey alone almost twice as many live births (of alien and hostile Mohammedans) right now than all these three countries combined back in that period. Here is the actual data compared to your fanciful thinking:

Live Births
-----------------------------------------------
Spain 1987 - 426,399 [1]
Portugal 1986 - 126,748 [2]
Greece 1981 - 140, 953 [3]
Total - 694,100
-----------------------------------------------
Turkey 2006 1,362,000 [4]

[1] http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abo...in/ab-spac.html
[2] http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abo...b-portugal.html
[3] http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abo.../ab-greece.html
[4] http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abo.../ab-turkey.html

Further this vast Turkish Mohammedan bloc would just amalgate with its ummah brothers already loose in the European Union, and the hordes of Allah would begin their demographic preponderence in European affairs. Eventually there would be a point where your foolish projection of European leftish and bourgeoise views on top of them would explode in your face. A conflict like that which erupted on Cyprus may be likely to happen if Moslems where to firmly establish themselves demographically on Western Europe. Conquest by immigration of sorts.

This is stupid on so many levels. Why do you exageratehow the Arabs transmitted the ancient Greek texts? The West at a time may have had more contact with the Arabs, but the Arabs themselves inherited these texts from the Romaioi which they conquered. So you cannot say because the Syriac speaking Christians translated something to Arabic and then the West for a few centuries found the texts through this method that the foundation of European culture is partly Arabic! If the muslims did not conquer the Romaioi, then the West could have easily gotten the Greek originals and translated them to their own languages much easier.

Experts say Turkey's population will not pass 100 million. It'll start to decrease in 2 decades.

have they taken into account the horny factor r into the equation?

Even if it does not pass that number, it destroys the pathetic EU arguments of Dirlada-da-da Greeks(the type that constitute a majority here) who posit the European Union membership of Greece/Cyprus as their biggest asset vis a vis Turkey.

But with such demographic power and its confluence in EU Parliament (if Turkey ever got in) the EU would become one of the TSK's biggest assets against Greece/Cyprus and not any other way.

A few remarks, regarding low demographics in Europe and migrants
This applies mostly to France and the UK, but the situation seems to be the same or evolve in the same way in most of western europe, especially northern european countries. Italy seems to be trying to avoid this future but we need to see. (btw Greece is not western european, but the case should be discussed)

- muslim demographics in Europe show a decline in birth rates, as noted, but not only that, obviously their mindset is slowly evolving in every way. Some (only a few) aren't religious, a lot of them drink overtly, and it is not so hard to sleep with a nice morrocan cheek, if you do well. That's doesn't mean they are throwing away their identity, far from it, but it is naturally eroding in the same way traditional europeans have experienced.
- eventually, european people will mix with the migrants and their children, but for now high and middle classes remain quite reluctant to do so, except if the black/arab/whatever person has a high social profile, which makes it more acceptable, but due to persistant inequalities (and backward mentality sometimes) those people remain rare.
- the important thing is that those higher classes, who control most of the economy and a have more leverage in politics than their share of the population should allow, are now quite homogeneously native europeans, but the lower classes are absorbing the migrants easily right now and for a while. As I said, I believe that after a few decades the higher classes should tend to have the same make-up, but there is also clear evidence that there will always be a core of racist people who will refuse this. They will predominantly succeed in doing so if they belong to high or middle classes.
- this process won't be peaceful at all, as for a long time most of the exgtra european people will remain poor and with less opportunities; the older population of Europe, mostly white will tend to be more and more conservative (which they already are, see the european elections) and politically they will oppose this shift, holding as well a strong part of the economy : but they will fail, as their ranks will collapse and their share of the population be lower and lower.
- the mostly melted population will be, I believe completly different in its identity than the pre existing european population, but they won't have a pure foreigner (African, Arab, Turkish or whatever...) identity as well. The process seems so distant but one should remember that the shift is occuring right now in the current new-born population. It will be accelerated by the growing share of the non-"european" citizens who enter the vote age, as well as those of mixed origins : they will favor further immigration more willingly and it will be shown in the democratic process.


In the end, western identity is doomed, whatever is your definition of it. Something new will replace it. Currently, outside of western europe and other western countries, I don't see that much of the other countries, at least those with some clout, have a chance to change like this in the forseeable future, they will be older, face many problems and changes but not of this sort. If those who will radicalize succeed in their attempt to hamper this evolution, and if external powers apply successfully their pressure it could become quite messy and the considered countries could face a decline in the future.

Why do you use the term "alien" when you speak about Muslims? This could only be true, if you see it from a north-western european perspective (in that case, Orthodox Christians should also be considered as aliens). Islam is an important part of the european culture and tradition for more than 1000 years. This doesn't mean that you have to like it, but you can't pretend that Europe has nothing to do with it.

Arabs did not just transmit the ancient greek texts. In contrast to the Byzantines they worked a lot on the ideas of the ancient Greeks and they developed them further. If you are in doubt of the fact that the foundation of Western European culture is partly arabic (I don't think a lot of people would question that today), you can read the book of Konstantinos Romanos "Hellenistic Islam" (Ελληνιστικό Ισλάμ).

It can also be seen in the fact that many key words in science (like algebra or medicine) are arabic, as you know, I suppose.
Even creating the first universities in Europe was a part of arabic influence.

Yet again:lol:!

Dum da dum dam!!!

@Agrippa, what makes you think that there will be a large inter-mixing with non-muslims and muslims just because they immigrated to Europe? You are a Syriac Christian, do muslims intermix much with the non-muslim minorities at all in the Mideast or anywhere else in the world? Traditionally in Sharia it is accepted for a male Muslim to take an infidel women as wife and convert her to Islam, expanding the ummah, but traditional muslims will never allow their women to inter-marry(since in Islam the father is the conditioning factor on the religion of the child). There is a good short documentary called Turkey's Hidden Armenians 13 min. that covers "muslim Turks" who learned of their secret Armenian Christian roots late in life and others of whom just pretend to be muslim because of the fanaticism even in a pretend secular country like Turkey. Alot of village families that converted to Islam between 1910-1920s(to save their lives) are not even accepted in the surrounding muslim society at this advanced date. In one village the young women have no problem marrying to other fanatic Mohammedans in neighboring settlements(since this is halal), but the young men cannot find wives(because they are still considered as giaour sperms so it is haram to give daughters to them for marriage).

I do not feel a large intermixing is in the future with Europe's muslim minorities, but rather an eventual backlash and civil war replete with military operations against them. Inter-mixing instead is gonna happen more with inter-European immigrants, people of Christian background, non-Islamic Asians, etc. Infact it would be best to start military operations right now, before the muslim demographics and power is truly shown after further decades of immigration following the established patterns. Because if European post-Christians(and Christians) do not start the conflict when it is to their advantage, the muslims will either take power by the womb and the stupid immigration-political-social policies, or by their own martial conflict.

Spoken like a true fascist

Why is this so important for you?

As long as they are good citizens why make a such fuss about whom they marry?

BTW I think you are talking absolute bollocks once again about intermixing.

I know many Turks who married Americans.

Once you get down to third and fourth generations all these traditions become almost obsolete.

Really, how is that fascist? Because even in pretend secular Turkey the tiny insignificant non-muslim community there is the object of much larger mainstream suspicion and is the traditional victim of muslim intolerance and conspiracy theory, than the comparatively growing, drop in replacement, demographic substitute of muslims in Europe. And Turkey conducted military operations against Christians in its own territory in a form re-conquest, the so called "Turkish War of Independence" or the "Cyprus Peace Operation", yet you expect like a cunning Turk for European politically correct culture to hide this option to them, which you have already pursued many times in your own history.

Recently I took my grandmother to the airport in May, and the Turkish Airlines weighing station was moderately close to the Olympic. I saw many traditional mustachioed Turkish women with headscarves. It is the characteristic of most Turks that would know English to tend to portary the Turkish population as being a lot more rich, educated, open, tolerant, and less religiously conservative than it really is.

I do not think too many of those traditional mustachioed Turkish women with headscarves, are gonna be inter-marrying.

Really, how is that fascist?

Once again why do you assume so many things about a place you've never been to.

Why did that war happen?

Because the Greek government led by their army wanted to apply Megali and got their arse appropriately given to them .

The kind you fancy no doubt.

And the Greek women are not much hairy? LOL

BTW how old were those women?

As I said before you go down few generations all these things you rant about become less and less important. People adapt to their new homelands.

It is only the people who left their homes recently and their kids who try to hang on to their culture in a more obvious fashion.

So the people you observed so keenly at the airport are not a true reflection of how well the Muslim population integrate to their new society.

And even if they don't intermix, why give a shit if they are good citizens?


For fuck sake Nikki, your grandparents are immigrants.

You live in a nation build solely on immigration.

Stop this nonsense and hypocrisy .

I'm a rum orthodox
Of course, if we still exist as a people, it's because we don't intermix with muslims, and that's exactly what we should do. Like the jews, that's why they managed to survive until now.

I was not stating my opinion, that was just some kind of forecast based on what I see nowadays. Marriage with people of non-european origin is quite frequent in France. Now, most of them are muslims so indeed with the muslims it's rather muslim men who marry european women. Frequently they try to convert the girl, but it's quite hopeless since it is a fake conversion and divorce is widespread...Children are another story. Also when I speak of racist people in Europe, I was not really judgmental. As they will become a minority, such reaction will be as racist as jews refusing intermixing.

Again, muslims there aren't successful in general, especially all those villagers coming from Algeria, Morroco, Tunisia, Turkey or black africa...So you're more likely to see intermixing within poor classes. Now don't ask for figures, since ethnic statistics are forbidden by the french law. But you can see it before your eyes, anecdotical evidence is not always useless...

But those statistics are allowed in the UK
cf http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jan/18/r...y-britain-study

It's a good thing that you remind the role played by muslims in educating latin Europe, but please don't play us again the Greek pseudo-enlightenment thing, last day I saw SK criticizing the "Byzantine administration" in Greece...Don't you people have any pride? So western medieval scholars started a rant against you greeks, stereotypes still used by Voltaire or Gibbon many centuries later, and which still echoes in the current historiography, despite the best efforts of some historians to counter it, and you are going to stupidly parrot that? And if you want to start comparing apples with oranges, ie the ever shrinking byzantine empire stuck in the middle of two aggressive civilizations, vs one of these civilizations, Islam which encompassed so many people, muslims or not. People who studied in arabic, the new lingua frinca, and successfully imported Indian sciences and Chinese technics. Doesn't it strike you that many of these great scientists, if not most of them were Iranians, Christian "arabs" or jews? That's normal when your empire subjugated so many people and riches. Back then, hellenistic science had the same advantages.

Now you can't compare it to the besieged byzantine empire, which didn't do so bad : I know that Photios, this backward christian, wouldn't have been envious of anyone in scientific knowledge of this time. No really, you greeks are hateful toward your own history, you have a problem.

On the contrary, muslims always remind their part in the history of science, transmitting ancient knowledge to Europe, which was something the romans didn't do in the first place, leaving thje western part of the empire quite estranged from hellenic sciences. Regarding the improvements made, yes they were important in medical science, optics, and algebra essentially. The problem is that this history is used for politicking ; a french historian Guggenheim has published a book where he develop his theory that muslim transmission of ancient greek knowledge wasn't that much important as some centers (esp one in the Mont Saint-Michel) seem to have also kept and copied the ancient sources. It was a normal history book, not an inflamatory pamphlet, and it started a debate among historians. Whether he is right or wrong isn't the problem here, and I would tend to think that's he is quite exaggerating. The probleme is that muslim organisations accused him of racism then anti-racist groups tried to silence him. All this while even his most fierce critics among the historians agree that there's nothing racist in his book...So it's only a political question right now...One french forumer somewhere said that there could be a bias because those who debated are the sons of two great cultures with a subsquent huge historical research, while noone was here to defend the byzantine side and care about its legacy, thus reducing the knowledge of this byzantine connection.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristote_au_Mont-Saint-Michel
I can translate some parts