This turned out a bit longer than I intended.
I was originally going to go through Defend Europa’s entire three-part essay, “The Great Replacement”, but unfortunately just tackling the first part ended up being way more in-depth than I intended, so I’m letting this post stand on its own (parts two and three seem to mostly parrot the same talking points anyway).
This article is part one of a series that will look into the cultural replacement of European countries. Cultural replacement, also known as “cultural genocide”, is a so-called “conspiracy theory” which forewarns of traditional European cultures being wiped out and replaced by diverse, foreign cultures. We will provide statistics and evidence to show that planned immigration and disproportionate fertility rates is changing European culture as we know it.
Defend Europa opens with a story about one of Marine La Pen’s advisors being fined after stating that there’s “too many Muslims” in French schools and that this is a problem (which needs to be dealt with via means that neither he nor Defend Europa will actually state in public, because they know it makes them look like d-bags). Man, what’s with these continental European countries being so thin-skinned about suggesting that certain groups of people are alien invaders who need to be expelled from public life? It’s almost like something really bad happened in living memory that was fueled by this exact sort of rhetoric!
Anyway, the first part of Defend Europa’s essay is basically an attempt to justify Menard’s position. They start with this argument:
In 2010, a French study titled “Trajectories and Origins” found that, out of the entire Muslim population in France, only between 3% and 5% of Muslims are traditional French nationals who have converted to Islam. The rest (between 95% and 97%) are immigrants, or children of immigrants (or children of children of immigrants, etc.). We can conclude from this, that most (if not all) of the children in the schools that Ménard mentioned are of foreign nationality.
(When they say “traditional French nationals”, they mean white people. By the way. Just an FYI. Just in case you were wondering)
The parts I want to draw your attention to are “children of immigrants” and “children of children of immigrants”, because the people they’re referring to are, in fact, French nationals. They were born in France. Therefore they’re not “of foreign nationality”, they’re French. But that doesn’t matter to groups like Defend Europa, who consider someone an immigrant forever if their skin colour is the wrong shade, even if they’ve never stepped foot outside the country of their birth once in their entire lives.
Unfortunately you have to pay 30 euro to access the study they link to as a source and I’m not quire dedicated enough to slap-righting racists for that, but here’s a news article that discusses some of its findings, namely that the children of non-European immigrants face significant discrimination and barriers to social mobility (imagine that). It also found that second-generation immigrants strongly identify with their country of birth and wish to be seen as socially and culturally “French”, as opposed to expressing a desire to maintain a separate cultural bloc within the country.
Keep that in mind for later.
Children are held back by means of support and resources when a high number of children in the class don’t speak the native language.
Unless they’re second and third generation, in which case they almost certainly do speak French natively.
At no point in this essay do we get actual statistics of Muslim to non-Mulsim pupils, percentages of children in school who don’t speak French, or any other evidence that any of the problems they talk about are actually occurring. The entire basis for this part of their argument is some racist dipshit’s opinion that the kids in his town aren’t white enough, and photos of predominantly Muslim classrooms.
We already have ideas circulating to impose Sharia-compliant meals in French schools.
“Sharia-compliant” means vegetarian. Some people suggested removing pork from school lunch menus so Muslim (and presumably Jewish) students wouldn’t have to eat it, a student asked what it would be replaced with, and a politician said “how about vegetarian meals.”
Is your white European identity being destroyed yet???
A study carried out by National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) last month, found that young Muslims are three times more likely to consider religious violence than their non-Muslim counterparts.
In the middle of all of the hysterical hand-wringing, this is the only real problem that Defend Europa brings up. But I’m going to wait until the end of this post before I address it.
What is perhaps scariest about these figures is that most of the Muslim migrants entering EU countries are military aged men. Around two-thirds of Muslim migrants are male, and around two-thirds of male Muslim migrants are young adults (aged 18-34).
Defend Europa is doing their usual thing where they use “migrant” when they’re actually talking about a much more specific demographic, in this case asylum seekers. After presenting statistics on total Muslim migration to Europe, they jump stealthily to talking specifically about asylum seekers and then hope you won’t notice that they just pulled a fast one on you.
And about those asylum seekers who are “military aged men”, Defend Europa throws this out there and then doesn’t actually explain why it’s a bad thing. This is because they’re suggesting (without directly stating) that these asylum seekers are actually moving into Europe as part of a massive ploy to commit terrorist attacks and get up to other nefarious acts. This unstated conspiracy theory lies at the heart of a lot of anti-immigration hysteria, but it’s almost never spelled out explicitly, because then the people pushing it would have to answer questions about how such a vast hidden operation could possibly function without being exposed or collapsing, and they obviously can’t do that.
As to why so many asylum seekers are actually young men, it’s probably because they’re hoping to either find work abroad and send money back to their families or establish a foothold in their destination country so that their family can come and join them via safer means (the latter is particularly true of refugees using dangerous routes into Europe from Syria and north Africa). In other words, it has more to do with traditional gender roles than the existence of a secret army of Muslims coming to invade Europe.
There are major issues relating to disproportionate fertility rates between White, native European families and Muslim families, at present.
Oh boy, this is the part I was waiting for!
Defend Europa basically presents the same old canards about Muslims out-breeding Europeans, but with some extra incompetence thrown in for good measure.
We can also think of it this way: If two native French parents, have two native French children, the population of native French people would stay the same.
Uh…no, actually, unless you assume the two children are going to breed with each other. Each of those two “native” French children would actually go on to have two children each, and then each of those children would also have two children, and the population would increase over time. In fact it would have increased at the initial generation as well, because each of the parents would have a sibling of their own, both of whom could have had two children at the same time.
(This is obviously a hugely simplistic way of looking at population growth since humans don’t actually reproduce exponentially like bacteria, but it’s at least more realistic than Defend Europa’s scenario)
This image, as you can see, comes from a 2011 study called The Future of the Global Muslim Population, and it shows pretty clearly that birth rates among Muslims living in Europe will be higher up through 2030. But hang on, why is the birth rate among Muslims declining in the 2025-2030 range? It might be because immigrant birth rates tend to fall to the level of their destination country beginning with the second generation (source), a fact that Defend Europa fails to mention, instead blithely asserting that the higher birth rates will continue “through 2030” even though there’s no evidence for that. And their own source points out that, while the global Muslim population will rise between now and 2030, birth rates worldwide will fall as a result of economic development and growing equality for women in Muslim-majority countries.
Of course, I kind of have to wonder why we’re talking about birth rates at all when immigration is expected to be the main driver behind growing Muslim populations in Europe over the next few decades. I guess the old “they’re out-breeding us” canard is just too good to pass up.
The figures above certainly paint a picture of how immigration and disproportionate fertility rates are allowing Muslims (predominantly non-White migrants from Africa, Turkey and the Middle East) to replace native French people in France.
Defend Europa then goes on to cite studies showing that the Muslim population of Europe is indeed going to increase going forward. But what’s with this talk of “replacing” the native French population? What exactly are they suggesting here, that a white European evaporates every time a Muslim moves into their country?
Their own Pew source estimates that the European Muslim population will only rise by a whopping 2% between 2010 and 2030, and in no western European countries will they attain anywhere near a majority by that time–the highest percentage estimates just barely climb higher than 10% of the population.
Of course, what they’re doing here (and hoping you’ll do) is assuming that these increases will continue at the same rate forever, which is wildly unrealistic for reasons I assume I don’t need to go into.
Many people, including the mainstream media, will lead you to believe that this is purely coincidental. France’s growing non-White, Muslim population is the consequence of us tolerant Europeans saving the world, right?
Wrong. Cultural genocide is a planned ideology.
Now we’re getting into the juicy stuff!
They quote (selectively) from, and link to, a UN report on using replacement migration to offset declining birth rates and ageing populations in certain countries. Here’s how the study is summarized:
Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.
Now, Defend Europa quotes this very same text, but then goes on to insist that the study is evidence that the UN wants to eliminate the white race by importing people of other races (for…some reason). Their confusion seems to stem from mis-understanding the meaning of the word “replacement” and not actually reading the study.
In population terms, “replacement” refers to a country’s birth rate being higher than the rate at which people are dying, leading to a net increase in the total population (Defend Europa correctly explains this elsewhere, but somehow forgets about it when it’s time to scare their readers), and this is clearly the way the UN report is using the word; nowhere does it suggest that
If one ‘thing’ takes the place of another, the original ‘thing’ has to die out. “Replacement Migration” means the end of French culture as we know it.
The UN report does not mention Muslims. It’s not solely about Europe (Japan and South Korea are also considered as countries with problems stemming from low birth rates), and it says nothing about the race, religion or even origin of the immigrants in question. It doesn’t even really make a qualitative statement on whether or not this is something that countries should desire; the vast majority of the paper is dry statistical analysis, with some vague commentary at the end suggesting that governments make policies to handle the immigration already taking place within their borders more effectively.
To finish up, I want to go back to the statement I quoted earlier, claiming that a study found that “young Muslims are three times more likely to consider religious violence than their non-Muslim counterparts.” Defend Europa are being a wee bit dishonest in presenting the findings (I’m as shocked as you are), as this is actually what the article they linked to says:
The survey also shows that “the dissemination of radical ideas in religious matters is approximately 3 times stronger among young Muslims than in the whole sample .
“Dissemination of radical ideas in religious matters” includes support for religious violence, but it’s not actually synonymous with it. Elsewhere, the article classifies statements like “there is only one true religion” and support for creationism as expressions of “religious absolutism”; I don’t know whether those opinions were included in the “three times stronger” tally (I can’t find a link to the actual study itself), so our interpretation of these results is marred by the author’s rather vague language, but it’s not making the unambiguous statement about violence that Defend Europa wants you to think it is.
And then there’s this bit, which of course the author of the Defend Europa piece didn’t quote (see if you can figure out why):
However, O. Galland wishes to point out that although the religious effect is very present among the young Muslims studied, “it is ultimately only a very small proportion: radical absolutism is far from being the majority Among Muslims!
You see this all over Defend Europa and similar sites. They much prefer to use percentages and magnitudes (1000% increase in refugees! Three times more likely!) than to deal with actual figures, because they know that large numbers seem scarier than small ones. It’s a classic way of over-inflating statistics that maybe don’t actually have the punch you’d like them to.
But putting all of that aside, they do raise the valid point (and I’m honestly kind of surprised that they didn’t make it a bigger part of their thesis, since it would seem to be the strongest arrow in their quiver) that some Muslims in European countries are aligning with radical ideologies and committing acts of violence as a result. What’s to be done about this?
Well, I don’t have an answer for that since it’s a complicated topic and not one that can be solved easily (I suspect the ultimate solution to Islamic terrorism would require widespread political and military stabilization of the parts of the middle east currently embroiled in conflict, which is a long way from happening), but I do want to make what I think is a self-evident point: European Muslims are the best ally you could possibly have against this sort of terrorism. They’re uniquely positioned to spot potential problems and give information to the authorities, which we saw in the case of the Manchester and London bridge attackers, both of whom were reported multiple times before they committed acts of violence.
And they’re much more likely to do that if they feel secure that coming forward with information won’t be used as a justification to demonize their entire community. If they’re genuinely included and welcomed in their adopted country–if their children are treated as the citizens they rightfully are, if they’re not expected to give up their own culture in the name of “assimilation”–then they’ll have an active stake in protecting and defending that country. On the other hand, if they’re treated like a hostile occupying army, if they’re told that their descendants will never be accepted as real citizens no matter how many generations pass, if they’re furiously asked to denounce the actions of people they’ve never met…well, would you want to come forward with suspicions about your neighbors or family members in that sort of environment?
Radical groups like ISIS are sending out a message that the West and the Islamic world are at war, and that the only allegiance of young Muslims should be to the most extreme and violent expression of their religion. And groups like Defend Europa are enthusiastically reinforcing that message by telling young Muslims that they’re not welcome, not wanted, and some day soon radical white nationalists are going to rise up and drive them out of Europe.