The ‘birth rate’ myth

BF EBF birth rate white genocideBritain First loves statistics. They’re flexible, they’re manipulable and they lend an air of credibility to any lie the Biffers want to spread around. Take for example the ‘Muslim birth rate’ myth. This is the scaremongering argument that Britain First trots out so regularly to try to frighten non-Muslims about an imagined Muslim takeover.

The basic argument is that since Muslim families have more babies than non-Muslim families the time will come when ‘they’ will take over the whole of society. This myth, which goes hand-in-hand with the ‘white genocide’ myth we covered earlier, isn’t just wrong, it’s downright ludicrous.

There are two main statistics that Biffers and other far-right Nazi groups such as the National Front or the British National Party like to quote as ‘evidence’ here. Let’s look at them both in turn…

Muslims have more babies than others

The fertility rate for Muslim families is actually falling rapidly, not just in Western countries but across the world. In 1995 the average was 4.3 children per family. By 2010 that figure had fallen to around 2.9 and it still continues to fall. In Western countries such as the UK the figure is lower still when counted across the entire time of each woman’s reproductive life (the only meaningful way to calculate her fertility over time).

EBF BF birth rate white genocide 2Actually Western nations have seen this before. We saw it in the 1930s and 1940s when the influx of Jewish immigrants and other refugees fleeing from Britain First’s ideological soulmates, the Nazis, also demonstrated temporarily higher birth rates than the indigenous British population. In fact the birth rate among today’s British Muslims is falling considerably faster than it did among Jewish immigrants in the mid twentieth century.

This isn’t about religion – it’s about the dynamics of immigration and the age at which immigrant families tend to ‘up sticks’ and move. Young immigrants often wait until they’re established in their new home before having children. That doesn’t mean they necessarily will have more children than other couples over the course of a lifetime – simply that they have them after they move. First generation immigrants do tend to have more children than the indigenous population but second generation immigrants are much closer to the established norms of their host nation. That’s not really all that surprising since, having been born here, they are themselves part of that indigenous population. This explains the ‘young bulge’ in UK Muslim demographics (88% are aged under 50).

Mohammed is the most common name for new babies in UK

Well, of course it is! That’s because it’s a name given to extremely high numbers of Muslim boys. There is no equivalent name among the non-Muslim British population and so, despite the relatively low numbers of Muslim births, the incidence of this particular name is comparatively large. Imagine what the result would look like if the right wing press had published babies’ surnames instead of given names. We think that surnames like ‘Smith’, ‘Jones’ or ‘Johnston’ would appear far more prominently than any Muslim equivalent.

The reality is that the right wing press published the research data for first names because it gave the most frightening impression – not because it gave the most accurate reflection of the demographic reality. The truth is that British Muslims’ birth rates are becoming assimilated into UK norms remarkably rapidly. 2010 birth rate research showed only 1% of British babies were named Mohammed. By 2013 it had fallen to only 23rd place in its most common variant – the most popular name in that year being ‘Oliver’. The ‘first place’ claim is arrived at by adding up a number of variant spellings but even so – it’s hardly surprising. Many Muslims give their sons the name Mohammed because the name is traditionally believed to confer characteristics of the prophet onto the child. It’s not a takeover – it’s a religious custom that distorts the figures.

Mohammed may be a common name (especially with all its many variant spellings) but it’s hardly evidence of a national takeover. Far from ‘out-breeding the infidel’ the Muslim birth rate is declining as Westernised Muslims adopt the fertility rates and patterns of the rest of UK’s population.

33 thoughts on “The ‘birth rate’ myth

  1. ebfblogger, I would only comment that there are SO many prohibited names in Islam that choosing Muhammad or another derivation also has a bearing.


  2. Very very thin apoligy for Islamisation of Europe at the speed of light.Too late because of such blind articles about ground realities and history of 1400 years of conquering,decimation,genocide of non-Muslims,out-breeding natives,conversions,indoctrination from age one,propaganda,inducements,full use of petro-dollars and ear psychosis with life-threatening cruelty on non-Muslims and ALL tricks of the trade

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Almost 10 % of babies born in the UK are of Muslim heritage when you add to that the Muslim immigrants it is very reasonable to conclude they will indeed become the majority within a lifetime so your entire cherry picking deception will be totally mute and I hope you enjoy Sharia law because that will most likely be UK law before 2100


    • New immigrant families have always demonstrated a fertility boom. But it settles down within a generation or so. People said the same about Jews in the 30s and blacks in the 60s. It’s not cherry-picking to be aware of the whole picture, including the generational nuances.


      • “It settles down.”

        Fact: Muslim increase in U.K. Has declined from its previous high birth rates to the rate of 68% per decade over the last 3 decades.

        Fact Muslim population in U.K. 1950 nigh on zero.

        At an increase of 68% per decade you get: 30 to 5.0 to 8.4 to 14.22.

        Every country with such high numbers of Muslims has a civil war.


        • FACT it goes up 1 percent per decade at the current rates. Fucking shitkicker. Not to mention most muslims aren’t trying to force u to live under a theocracy. Theres a difference between the theocratic dictatorships they fled and the majority of muslims at large you idiot shitkicker. Just fucking kill u rightwing idiots and there’ll be peace in the world.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Kylespets….Its just a fact: Take any Muslim country in the world HATE PERSECUTION and MURDER prevails. You screaming and yelling cursing sound just like one of them.

            Liked by 1 person

      • That’s all fine but i think it’s safe to conclude there will be a “takeover” unless mass migration stops, because its adding 100,000,000 new people every 3 years or so. The rate of immigration is far far greater since late 1990s. And has resulted in massive changes to the demographics of various towns in a really short time frame. If people keep on putting up articles like this saying “nothing is changing, chill out” then in actual fact it WILL change. Not really because of birth rates, but because of mass migration on top of the birth rates. That makes all the difference. The culture of mass migration is totally new thing and seems to be for a lot of cynical reasons or a desperate, short termist, attempt to sort out pensions – but it only transfer the problem onto later generations and brings with it increasingly difficult problems to sift out islamists from ordinary muslims. Something which will eventually not be possible to do, resulting in an endemic problem of terrorism similar to northern ireland but getting worse through time, and i’m sorry, but none of us wants that. We don’t want army on the streets. We don’t want prisons run by radical jihadi gangs. We don’t want white kids in areas of towns becoming 80% muslim so they feel completely isolated in school and cut off from their own culture and dress style and values and everything else. We just don’t want more of this trend. That’s not a britain first argument, not saying go back to all white britain or anything of that sort. Its about maintaining the feeling that this is still primarily an english and a british kind of country and not just “selling out” the entire culture for a short term profit, as so many political leaders seem to be willing to do. We’d rather be poorer than do that.


        • Oh i see, you meant to type 0.1% / year not 1%../ year ..making it 400 yrs. .

          well its more like 0.5% / year in the UK. thats’ gonna be higher in the 2021 census though i’m sure.

          also as regards europe gotta factor in the refugee “crisis” – although that’s partly deliberate – and Turkey’s president – who seems to wish to blackmail the EU with threats of opening his borders, etc – so that it cannot be assumed to remain a stable natural rate either.

          once you grasp the fact that the islamic world in general is getting excited about becoming the world’s biggest religion in 2050 or so, you will understand that more and more actively every avenue will be taken by increasingly many “allied minds” seeking these outcomes.

          So the conflict with european patriots is totally inevitable. This century reflects the “big chance” due to the oil boom and the opening up of the world. Its not merely economics when its a question of religion and the religion prophesies a global conquest someday.

          Ignore it if you like but future generations will be the ones who are fighting, whether they want that or not. I’d have thought the terrorism problem provided a clue by now frankly.


      • @jonwinch Your comment made me laugh, with its ridiculous non sequitur conclusions. ‘Almost 10 % of babies born in the UK are of Muslim heritage’. Q.e.d. that equates to over ‘90% of babies born in the UK are not Muslim’. Adding Muslim immigration will hardly make a dent in the demographic. In 2011 the census recorded the UK Muslim population at 4.83. An estimate for 2014 gave the UK Muslim population as 5.4%. The difference of 0.57%, divided by the 3 years gives an annual growth in the UK Muslim population of 0.19%. At that growth rate it would take 240 years for there to be a Muslim majority in the UK. ‘your entire cherry picking deception’, says the man who draws unfounded conclusions, based on his own confirmation bias, rather than actual facts, of which the EBF blogger has supplied many. ‘I hope you enjoy Sharia law because that will most likely be UK law before 2100’. A perfect example of the uninformed drivel that derives from the ill-educated. Of the 50 Muslim majority countries in the world, 12 have a legal system fully based on sharia. In contrast, 22 have a fully civil / secular legal system. The rest have either a mixed sharia / civil legal system, or have specific regions where sharia, full or mixed with civil law, applies. Strangely, one of the latter countries is Greece, where the region of Western Thrace allows Muslims to choose between sharia or civil law to resolve civil disputes. Criminal cases are always dealt with by the standard Greek legal system. Given all the above. do you seriously suggest that sharia will ever form the basis of the UK legal system? All in all, you haven’t really covered yourself in glory with your childish missive.


    • the muslim population in europe goes up at 1 percent a year at current birth rates. Assuming they don’t continue the drop they’ve been experiencing, which is highly unlikely, it would take 430 years for them to reach 50 percent of europe. Not in your lifetime you hitler right shitkicker. Sorry but voting for conservatives isn’t voting for europe not becoming a pakistan like theocracy you paranoid twat.


      • IF ti goes up at 1% a year then it’ll take 43 years not 430 years. how did you get 430 years?!

        You’re only counting birth rates not counting fresh waves of migration.

        You realise many of the groups causing the refugee waves are actually linked directly into gulf states which WANT to provoke migration . Groups like ISIL and Al-shabaab…and all the other radical groups. We’re getting more and more stories showing links to countries like Saudi Arabia. Not the royal family, but the powerful clerical factions. they know if they can cause violence that people will flee through Libya.

        And on top of that the same countries also donate massive amounts of cash into charitable foundations linked to parties like the democrats in America, such as the Clinton Foundation. They know that such parties are more likely to want to remove authoratarian dictators like ghaddafi – after which the country becomes a basket case and allow migration waves through it – and they also know such parties are likely to argue as strong a case as possible for refugees.

        You’re being naive if you think its all just humaniarian , its not, there’s powerful groups here – islamists in gulf states, plus also rich bankers – who WANT to drive as much migration as possible, as it helps their big business along. Screw whether or not it has any benefits to the “ordinary people” or the long term culture of europe. They’re only interested in a quick buck because of their ruthless competition margins. So its pay off whoever you can, bribe whoever you can, stitch up whoever you can, and discredit any part or group vaguely sticking up for the people who live here who’s grand children will discover first hand the problems

        At the very same time the very same states and cash sources fund intolerant extremist versions of islam in propoganda coming into mosques all around the world.

        If you can’t see there is a bigger game than just “refugees” or migrants”, then you’re on the wrong side of history here – and just being used the same as every other leftist.

        Britain first r indeed pricks. But that doesn’t mean you just dance like a puppet for all the highest bidders. They know full well they are stoking up civil wars in the future. Why else send out propoganda and hate preachers around the world.

        These hardliner middle eastern clerics and their networks are happy to wait 100 years if necessary. They don’t care. They waited 1400. They fully expect Allah to deliver in the end.


  4. Your sources aren’t very reliable. Who gave you the authority to call this a myth? The fertility rates among muslim immigrants is greater than that of whites in pretty much every country.

    Liked by 1 person

    • @ Danny. “Your sources aren’t very reliable”. Could you qualify why they are not reliable? I suspect your objection to the sources is more to do with your reliance on confirmation bias rather than a proper investigation of the veracity of the sources. “Who gave you the authority to call this a myth?”. The thing is, there is no requirement to have authorisation to write a blog, whatever the subject. That’s the internet for you. Suck it up.


  5. The Muslim population has not shown the same dynamics as the Hindu or Sikh populations. They mostly come from a similar background with 2/3 of the Muslim population in the UK also coming from South Asia. The Census data from the Office of National Statistics gives the full age distribution for all religions for 2001 & 2011 and gives most of the data for 1991.

    To summarize the data for the youngest age cohort, those aged 0-4 years old from 1991 to 2011 for the Hindu and Muslim population we have.

    1991 2001 2011
    Muslim =3.4% Muslim =5.8% Muslim =9.1%
    Hindu = 1,4% Hindu = 1% Hindu = 1.6%

    The relative size of the 30-34 yr old age cohort, as a % of the English & Welsh population is also instructive. In 2001 and 2011 these were
    2001 2011
    Muslim = 4% Muslim = 7.3%
    Hindu = 1.5% Hindu = 2.2%

    It can be seen that the ratio in size of the Muslim 30-34 cohort to the 0-4 cohort is 1.25, where as for the Hindu 30-34 cohort to the 0-4 cohort is 0.72. The ration is over 70% higher, for the Muslim group. This indicates that they have produced 70% more children than the Hindu population, relative to their size. So the Hindu fertility rate does appear to have dropped significantly and converged towards the rest of society, where as the Muslim community so far has not. Perhaps the 2021 census data will show a significant convergence. I am very interested for the release of this data, unfortunately that probably won’t be until 2022-2023.

    The Muslim population is not of course uniformly distributed around the UK. With 4.7% of the total English & Welsh population being Muslim in 2011 and 9.1% of Children being Muslim. If an analyse is carried on on the 348 Districts of the England and Wales.
    The District with the highest Muslim % was Tower Hamlets with 34.5% of the entire district population being Muslim. However 53.7% of Children 0-4 yrs old were Muslim in Tower Hamlets and into the 60-65% range for those aged 10-14 yrs old.

    Of the 31 districts with highest Muslim % of the Population in 2011 (not 2017, this is old data), they ranged between 10% (Hammersmith & Fulham) to Tower Hamlets topping the table. Of the whole UK Muslim population, nearly 60% were living in these 31 one districts. The % of 0-4 yr olds in these 31 districts ranged from 16.6% to 53.7% and again around 60% of Muslim Children were living in this districts.

    If the Analysis is continued down to the level of wards, to take Manchester as an example, which ranked 16th with 15.8% of the Manchester population recorded as Muslim, but 24.9% of 0-4 yr olds and around 27.5% of 10-14 yr olds as Muslim. When the individual Wards of Manchester are analysed, in 2011 (old data), it was found that 50% of Muslims who are 10-14 yrs old, were living in Wards with a Muslim density of 50% or higher.

    Of the total Muslim child population 42% are living in Districts which have the same or greater than Muslim density recorded in Manchester.

    Incidentally the vast majority of the ethnic British population live in Districts with very low Muslim % and it would thus be most likely that the Muslims they meet on a day to day basis are the most integrated ones in Britain. As an example, only 5.8% of the Ethnic British population are living in the 16 most highly concentrated Muslim Districts, inclusive from Manchester to Tower Hamlets. Only 10.2% of the Ethnic British population are living in the 31 most highly concentrated Muslim Districts, inclusive from Hammersmith to Tower Hamlets. And only 23.5% of the British population are living in Districts which have a Muslim population which is equal to the English & Welsh average of 4.8%. This included 69 districts, the 69th one being Milton Keynes (0-4 yrs Cohort was 8.75 % Muslim) .

    The vast Majority of Ethnically British people (76.5%) live in Districts where the Muslim density is below the national average. Thus most will probably see integration working very well. Only 17% of the total Muslim population live in districts alongside these 76.5% of the Ethnic British population.

    If the Muslim fertility rates were to instantly match those of the rest of the UK population from 2011 onwards, and if immigration had been zero from 2011 onwards ( which as of 2017, it has not been), the Muslim population would eventually still rise from 4.8% of the Population to around 9.1% as the 0-4 yr old cohort grows up and works it’s way through the demographic profile.

    And article in the Guardian estimated that the Muslim population would have risen to 8.2% by 2030 for example, though predictions prior to the 2011, proved to be an underestimate, with the government predicting around 4.2% for the total Muslim population rather than 4.7%

    If the prediction in the guardian was taken to be accurate, all those figures for the concentration of Muslim population, would need to be scaled up from 4.7% (2011) to 8.2 % (2030). As I’ve already said once the 2021 census data is released, we will be able to see how we are getting on. I am so excited 🙂

    Hopefully everyone will be integrating just fine. But if I was living in a foreign country, in a semi British enclave which represented 15-40% of the population. I can’t see why I would change my pro western stance and suddenly decide to adopt the values and culture of the country I was living in. That hypothetical British population could quite happily live in a parallel society. So it shouldn’t be beyond to all possibility that communities representing 15-40% of their district population can quite easily live parallel lives here. This is made even easier, when the actually concentration is even higher on an individual ward level (reference Manchester 50% of Muslim teenagers across the city, living in Wards with have between 50-90% of the teenage population as Muslim)

    One last point, I think all communities have right wing elements, not just White Anglo Saxons, all groups have right wing nationalist elements. I think it’s entirely logical for a right wing nationalist from a non european group, with an anti western world view, to vote for left wing and hard left wing parties while living in a European society.

    The Respect party I feel was an example of this, until ultimately it began to split, due to a divergence of opinion between the Socialist Workers Party element and the more Right Wing (Non integrated, so their national locality remained to their religion & original home country) elements of the Muslim community, and the Labour Party was no longer the party of government and shifted it’s position towards the left.

    Of course from some people’s political point of view it might be very advantageous if a large community is forming, which shares an international view more in line with their own.


    • The muslim birth rate will not fall in 2021. If anything it will increase. The reason being there are large numbers of muslims who now perceive it as a way to accelerate the day when the society is more their own.

      This idea – of “taking over” – is not only stated by britain first. It is stated by many muslims too. Imams in th emiddle east. Preachers in certain mosques. OCcasionally someone will say it in a newspaper. Colonel Ghaddafi was talking about it gleefully back in the 1990s.

      “Muslima! Have more babies! You will one day conquer Europe!”

      Clearly the less integrated areas are the areas with more strict gender roles, typically women just at home, not in the economy, and having a lot of babies. There’s a reason why pakistani and bangladeshi economics fallen so far behind their black counterparts. Blacks are doing well in the UK now.

      So if you think it will all just settle down naturally think again. The concept of takeover is religiously of interest to very many muslim groups. It reflects a history of rivalry between European christendom and Islamic empires. For 300 years a coutnry like britain controlled the fate and destiny of many muslim countries and , perhaps more than any other country, has been responsible for many of the gripes and grievances which are used to excite and motivate people to consider things in these terms.

      Yes britain first have a nazi view and agenda – but it is matched and mirrored by the very same aims being reality for large numbers of muslims, and especially, for many influential muslim networks groups speakers and even governments.

      For this reason the statistics will not just settle down. The alarm will grow. The era of anti-Islam politics is fast approaching and will be unstoppable in house of parliament.

      I just hope that there is some representation or party which emerge or which can reshape perceptions about “british culture” and how to keep it – which tackles the issue with reasoning and common sense, not with anger and exciting people up into hysterical feelings!

      For one thing mass migration has to stop. I would propose a change to welfare rules aswell. I think people are equally resentful of immigrants having large families as they are of white workshy doleys with no qualifications having them – and all on benefits in both cases – we are tied in by the philosophy of the EU and human rights acts – and the overall cultural “socialism” – but my ugess is that will soon be changing because the taxpayer will make demands – and become less compromising, in a way.


  6. Liberals in Europe and North America will not allow any drastic step to stop Muslim immigration. They want to change the COLOR and the Culture of the USA!
    Don’t you see ?? Just stopping Islamic Immigration or Hispanic Immigration is only one part of the Solution.
    It takes 2.1 Kids per family to just SUSTAIN A CULTURE!
    Our culture will die off if we do not have a plan to repopulate America… What kind of people do you want to repopulate with ???


    • @ Hany Fathy – The video you posted is bullshit. Most of the statistics it quotes are complete fabrications. The rest are misused & manipulated to appear in the worst light. Many of the quotes from politicians used in the video are embroidered with erroneous statements. If you want a simple example of how rubbish the figures are, go to 5 minutes & 19 seconds. Note that the narrator & the video claim there are 31 countries in the European Union. The maximum number of EU member states there has ever been is 28. At the time the video was made (2009), there were only 27, Croatia not joining until 2013. If the producer(s) of the video cannot even get that simple fact right, how could anyone trust any of their other ‘facts’. Read this { } & stop being a gullible idiot.


  7. The post is highly disingenuous, such as when it calls anyone who disagrees with it a ‘nazi’, common lefty behavior. According to research from Pew, the Islamic birth rate is so high worldwide, that their numbers will increase by 1.2 billion over the next 45 years. In comparison, the total number of people in the world without any religion will increase by ~25 million.


    • @Scientific Christian – The post clearly doesn’t call ‘anyone who disagrees with it a ‘nazi’. Nor has the blogger call anyone a Nazi in the subsequent comments, of which he or she has made but one. The reference to Nazis was specific, to wit, ‘Biffers {Britain First} and other far-right Nazi groups such as the National Front or the British National Party’. Unless you’re a member or supporter of any of those specified groups, the description doesn’t apply to you. It posit it you that is in fact being disingenuous.


      • Not convincing in the least. I wasn’t at all familiar with these political groups before you commented, but now I’ve searched it up. The National Front Party (or whatever it’s called) is definitely out of proportion, but I found not a shred of evidence for the tiny Britain First movement being ‘nazi’. This demonstrates the author of the piece takes his little righteousness out of proportion and labels his disgressors at nazis without rationality.


        • You haven’t taken my point onboard at all. You claimed that the blogger called anyone that disagreed with their point of view a Nazi. Which clearly they haven’t. They have called those specific groups Nazi, & only those specific groups. That is not the same thing. You are of course free to disagree with their view-point, but you should at least do so without making unfounded assumptions, based only on your prejudice (‘typical lefty behaviour’). I would also point out that your use of Pew’s figures is simplistic & lacking in perspective. While it is true that Pew estimate the growth in Islam that you quote, at the end of that period, if Pew’s figures turn out to be accurate, the Muslim population will be 6% larger than it was in 2015. Big deal. Why would that worry you? And how is the projected increase in the ‘unaffiliated’, as Pew labels them, in any way relevant?


          • I have to concede at least one error on my part — at a quick reading, I claimed the poster labelled everyone he disagrees with a nazi — however, he only labelled specific political groups he disagrees with nazis, not everyone. That is something I must admit right away.

            “based only on your prejudice (‘typical lefty behaviour’)”

            That’s not “prejudice”, pal, although you might be offended at my use of the term ‘lefty behavior’. We must take note that it has become mainstream for the political left to label everyone they disagree with ‘nazis’. I’ve seen it more times then I’ve seen other forms of leftism, which is frightening.

            “if Pew’s figures turn out to be accurate, the Muslim population will be 6% larger than it was in 2015.”

            I think you misread Pew — the # of Muslims will be 60% higher, not 6%.


        • Hi Scientific Christian. I’m sorry to be late to the party, so to speak. I have some family celebrations ongoing – my beautiful, mixed-race little boy had a celebration I needed to prepare for.

          You say you can’t find a single shred of evidence that BF are neoNazi? You really haven’t looked too hard, have you? Fom the resources tab on this very blog…

          Click to access nazi-biffers-pdf-august-2015.pdf

          Or if you dislike PDFs try checking out the main blog…

          You’re welcome


          • God Almighty help me. I went through the first two links and was bombarded by conspiracy madness. My research on BF involved reading the Wikipedia page — as a former editor at Wikipedia, I know Wikipedia has a liberal slant, and so I thought if they BF were LITERALLY nazis, at least something on the subject should come up there … nothing did.

            Just look at this madness:

            “Last weekend the Biffers gave us the greatest gift they ever could. No more will we need to speculate about their Nazism. They’ve finally come clean and proven our original point for all the world to see. Fuhrer Golding’s hilarious announcement that he intends to run for election as London’s Mayor is nothing short of a complete admission of neo-nazi Biffer cockwomblery. They’re pretending no more. Britain First is now an OPENLY Nazi organisation.”

            Besides the link that doesn’t actually work, this almost shocked me to read. They are now an OPEN NAZI ORGANIZATION FOR …. wanting to become the mayor of London? Huh? LOL. And just look at this pdf comparison of a quickly written facebook post to a compilation of nazi quotes:

            Click to access ebf-fransen-meets-streicher.pdf

            The only problem here is that … after going through the pdf … there were no parallels. LOL. This is really pushing it. The only real argument is “BF hates Muslims, therefore they are LITERALLY HITLER”. Although this proves they hate Muslims, hating Muslims isn’t a nazi thing. Deporting illegal immigrants is not even a problematic thought as far as I’m concerned (Mexico seems to love doing it to border hoppers from South America, but I don’t remember the last time Mexico was literally Hitler amiright?). Seriously, what else are you supposed to do with a border hopper? Put them on your welfare?

            In conclusion, the BF hates Muslims but they are nothing approaching nazis. The policies of the BF go along the lines of “screw immigration in this many ways” and not exactly along the lines of “gas Jews”.


  8. “I think you misread Pew — the # (sic) of Muslims will be 60% higher, not 6%” No, I most certainly did not. From the Pew article, ‘Why Muslims are the world’s fastest-growing religious group’. – “In 2015, Muslims made up 24.1% of the global population. Forty-five years later, they are expected to make up more than three-in-ten of the world’s people (31.1%).” 31.1 – 24.1 = 7.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s