Over at Gates of Vienna, there's a new article by Paul Weston, suggesting that, given present birth rates and rates of Muslim immigration and native emigration, Muslims in Europe could feel ready to launch a violent revolution by 2025.
As shocking as such a possibility is, I would regard it as far less worrying - and far easier to defeat - than what is going on at the moment. If Muslims, or at least a large percentage of them, do attempt to launch a violent takeover, then the sooner they do it, the better. On Mr Weston's most pessimistic projection, native European men of fighting age should still outnumber Muslims of fighting age by 2 to 1 in 2025. And, while Mr Weston emphasises that, at present, five native accountants could easily be sent fleeing by one machete-wielding Jihadi, he also makes the point that, were a war really to begin, everyone would have to pick sides, and, ultimately, fight. In such circumstances, I believe that the native numerical advantage would end up being decisive, albeit after much bloodshed. It would be a close-run thing, but I think that ultimately the odds would come down quite strongly on the native side.
By contrast, what is going on at the moment is far more frightening. At present, we have a situation where creeping demographic change is slowly but surely giving the Muslims the upper hand. Gradually, their numbers are increasing, while ours are declining. If they are patient, they don't need to get violent. Rather, they will be a majority soon enough (exactly how soon is unclear, but it certainly seems likely that by 2100 at the latest Western Europe as a whole will be majority Muslim). Then they can take over via the ballot box, secure in the knowledge that they will have the upper hand, should any physical fighting become necessary. In the meantime, they can slowly increase their influence: intimidating opponents, getting their people into parliament and local councils, colonising towns like Bradford and Oldham, in preparation for the eventual colonisation of the entire country.
Meanwhile, the native population will remain blissfully unaware of the problem, until one day it wakes up, and finds out that the battle has been lost before it's been fought. While I believe that Mr Weston's article is interesting, I think that the (largely) peaceful takeover scenario is what groups like the Muslim Council of Britain are aiming for, and it is the better strategy.
Of course, defeat is not inevitable. Perhaps one reason why Muslims might wish to precipitate violent conflict is that every day that their peaceful takeover goes on is one more day which the infidels have in which to wake up, and fight back. And it does seem that the public are, very slowly, awakening to the threat. The question is, whether they will wake up in time. Those of us who are already awake must do what we can to slow down the Muslim takeover, and to wake up those who are still asleep. And, on this note, I refer you to this piece by Mr Smith, discussing some ways in which we might resist the slow process of Islamification.
Postscript: The picture that illustrates this post is, I think, a very potent representation of the risk of a slow Islamic takeover. The man is a Muslim, the building a former church now destined to become a mosque, the location is Clitheroe, a town which has previously been lucky enough not to have any mosques. The slight smirk of triumph, just playing around the edges of his mouth, says a lot, I think.