2008 May 03 Saturday
Muslims Overwhelming Majority In French Prisons

Christians and secularists are minorities in French prisons. Imagine their fate should they become minorities in France as a whole.

This prison is majority Muslim -- as is virtually every house of incarceration in France. About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country's prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country's population.

On a continent where immigrants and the children of immigrants are disproportionately represented in almost every prison system, the French figures are the most marked, according to researchers, criminologists and Muslim leaders.

Sociologists predictably blame whitey for racism. I blame whitey too, but for a different reason: the French were foolish enough to let in all those Muslims in the first place.

Muslims commit disproportionate amounts of crime throughout Europe.

In Britain, 11 percent of prisoners are Muslim in contrast to about 3 percent of all inhabitants, according to the Justice Ministry. Research by the Open Society Institute, an advocacy organization, shows that in the Netherlands 20 percent of adult prisoners and 26 percent of all juvenile offenders are Muslim; the country is about 5.5 percent Muslim. In Belgium, Muslims from Morocco and Turkey make up at least 16 percent of the prison population, compared with 2 percent of the general populace, the research found.

Here is how Washington Post writer Molly Moore came across this story. This might be news to the Washington Post. The French government tries to hide it and provides no official figures. But see my July 2005 post Muslims Said To Make Up 70% Of Prisoners In France and my December 2004 post Most Prisoners In France Are Muslim.

Muslims see themselves as believing a religion that gives them the right and duty to rule the world. At the same time, the Muslims find themselves living in societies where non-Muslims are far more successful. So they have resentment and jealousy. The achievement gap can't be closed. The IQ differences between European and Muslim countries and the accumulated body of IQ research on genetic contributions to IQ make these differences in achievement likely to last for generations until genetic engineering can boost IQ of lower IQ populations.

But there is a solution: Send the Muslims back to societies where they can feel more equal. This will make France much safer for the French and for the rest of us when we visit France. Shouldn't the French government's top priority be the safety and well-being of the French people? Isn't the French government failing to carry out its responsibilities toward the French people?

Update: A reader argues in email that boosting the IQs of Muslims might not make them less Muslim and more liberal. Smart people of an opposing point of view would pose a bigger threat than dumb ones who disagree with you.

I think it fair to say we do not know what offspring genetic engineering is going to do to change political leanings. More than IQ is involved in determining genetic predispositions to believe various viewpoints. As I've argued elsewhere, some religiously devout people could even choose genetic variations for their offspring that make them more likely to unquestioningly accept the beliefs they are taught. Also, other genetic variations might make a person more likely to hold strong moral beliefs or to be more easily morally outraged.

The safe and prudent thing to do when faced with immigrants who are hostile to your way of life is to keep them out. Do not engage in triumphalist wishful thinking about the power of your culture to transform them to your political, moral, or religious persuasion.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2008 May 03 11:21 AM  Immigration Crime

HellKaiserRyo said at May 3, 2008 12:21 PM:

You know Randall, I like nanny states and I do not want to see them fail. They should at least stop admitting the Muslims. I do not think their values are compatible with modern liberalism.

Randall Parker said at May 3, 2008 2:28 PM:

HellKaiserRyo, I think some of modern liberalism's values are incompatible with other values of modern liberalism.

Liberalism is going to shrink because it is suicidal.

In my mind I'm moving on and starting to think thru how to live in a future America that is more like Latin America and in a world where the illiberal Han Chinese are the dominant force. The fools around us aren't going to make the necessary adaptations in their thinking until it is too late. We are going to deal with the three horses of illiberalism:

- Dummies
- Muslims
- Han Chinese

Wolf-Dog said at May 3, 2008 3:04 PM:

Although only 10 % of France is Muslim, at least 20 % to 30 % of the infants in France are Muslim. This means that within a few years, it will be impossible to deport the majority of Muslims in France since most of them will be native French citizens who happen to be Muslim.

Right now there are only 50 million Muslims in Europe, but by 2050 perhaps 30 % of Europe will be Muslim. But France might be more than 50 % Muslim long before 2050.

HellKaiserRyo said at May 3, 2008 3:57 PM:


Reading your blog made me realize the modern liberalism is suicidal. Illegal immigration which some liberals in the United States seems to be analogous to apoptosis. I remember you made some comments regarding Amy Chua's work and it seems if present trends continue, the situation in the United States would be similar to Bolivia. Richard Lynn also predicts this in Eugenics.

I thought the dummies would be easy to handle: instead of the dummies being cancers, make them into parasites. I really think encouraging them to isolate themselves in the fashion of the hikikomori would lower crime and prevent them from reproducing. However, it is easy to support hikikomori in a country that has a lower birth rate and where parents can house their children for a rather long period. It is a compassionate and non-coercive way to sterilize the dummies.

"fear that a new kind of conservatism is becoming the dominant ideology of the affluent - not in the social tradition of an Edmund Burke or in the economic tradition of an Adam Smith but 'conservatism' along Latin American lines, where to be conservative has often meant doing whatever is necessary to preserve the mansions on the hills from the menace of the slums below." (from The Bell Curve)

What a wonderful quote about the apoptotic nature of modern liberalism. I do not like conservatism so I do not like the effects of illegal immigration. I do not expect liberals to solve this problem, but I want a right-wing populist movement to gain enough influence to rectify it. But the right-wing elites are more concerned about maintaining their tax shelters and tax cuts, so you are indeed right that the elites do not have any incentive to solve this.

Randall Parker said at May 3, 2008 6:21 PM:


The Latin American conservatism is coming and lots of Americans who now call themselves liberals are going to turn themselves into Latin American style conservatives living in compounds.

You complain about Republicans and tax policy. You hope and expect Obama will do better on that. Well, I used to care about tax policy. I've ceased to care. I'd take a high tax President if he'd shut the borders and deport the illegals and stop legal immigration of dummies. But I'd take a low tax President if he'd do the same thing. Welfare policy and tax policy are really secondary considerations that aren't even close to the top in my mind.

Demographics is king.

This is why I can't get worked up about the Presidential candidates. They are all very wrong on the most important issue the nation faces. McCain is terrible on immigration. I can't tell whether Hillary or Obama will be better on immigration.

Your not liking conservatism: I suspect you haven't thought thru what is conservatism versus what are the interests of factions in the upper classes. Are you sure that you oppose, say, Burkean conservatism? Do you have a clear idea of what it is? Do you have a clear idea of what are the various factions on the Right? (that link is a hint)

HellKaiserRyo said at May 3, 2008 7:36 PM:

The Pew Center divided the Republican constituency into enterprisers, social conservatives, and pro-government conservatives. Furthermore "upbeats" are more likely to vote for Bush than Kerry. I also remember an expatiation of ten principles of conservatism by Russell Kirk but I did not agree with them. Randall, I have thought it through, but my previous use of the word "conservative" above merely reflects my anger towards "Tory" conservatism not conservatism in general. "Tory conservatism" seems to be an unpleasant eccletic mixture of the worst of what the enterprisers, social conservatives, and pro-government conservatives have to offer.

As for myself, I consider myself a Rawlsian liberal and a Darwinian leftist - I am a rare liberal:

"A Darwinian left would: Accept that there is such a thing as human nature, and seek to find out more about it, so that policies can be grounded on the best available evidence of what human beings are like; Reject any inference from what is 'natural' to what is 'right'; Expect that, under different social and economic systems, many people will act competitively in order to enhance their own status, gain a position of power, and/or advance their interests and those of their kin; Expect that, regardless of the social and economic system in which they live, most people will respond positively to genuine opportunities to enter into mutually beneficial forms of cooperation; Promote structures that foster cooperation rather than competition, and attempt to channel competition into socially desirable ends; Recognize that the way in which we exploit nonhuman animals is a legacy of a pre-Darwinian past that exaggerated the gulf between humans and other animals, and therefore work towards a higher moral status for nonhuman animals, and a less anthropocentric view of our dominance over nature; Stand by the traditional values of the left by being on the side of the weak, poor and oppressed, but think very carefully about what social and economic changes will really work to benefit them."

McCain, in my opinion, is quite dangerous for the long term welfare of the United States. But I do not know who would I support (privately) between Obama and Buchanan.

miles said at May 3, 2008 7:37 PM:


That comment above EXACTLY relates what Ive felt since 2002 (when I figured out Bush was betraying us). Nothing matters except demography for any hope of future conservatism.

Immigration is simply peaceful invasion. The people who want more of it either hate this place or are so overconfident in their "compound-living" (gated communties) and their place in the corporate-world shielding them from the "real" America that is rising Brazil-like beneath them. Everybody else is against it. If I were a betting man......................Id bet on the future turing pretty bleak around 2035 or so in this nation, when the demographic bomb becomes all-too apparent.

HellKaiserRyo said at May 3, 2008 7:52 PM:

And I didn't send you any email. It might be something that I might consider though.

HellKaiserRyo said at May 3, 2008 8:03 PM:

"That comment above EXACTLY relates what Ive felt since 2002 (when I figured out Bush was betraying us). Nothing matters except demography for any hope of future conservatism"

I would also say the same about liberalism. Interesting that some liberalism such as myself and conservatives such as your self agree on this.

Kenelm Digby said at May 4, 2008 4:56 AM:

'The French Government has tried very hard to hide the statistic'

This is the ral name of the game - to reach such a high proportion as 70% of all prisoners, this must have been a very long running trend, going on for decades, since the first mass muslim migration.
That the French authorities managed so successfully to pull the wool over the eyes of the native French people speaks volumes about the machinations of state control and propaganda - and the real shocking truth behind the picture the french state wishes to present.
As I've said before there are really only two players in this game:
1/. The French political class.
2/. The indigenous French people ('the Gaulois').

The immigrants are just a side-show.

On another point, the figure of 3% of muslims in the british population is quite frankly laughable, and shows another totalitarian, deceitful propaganda machine in action.

Randall Parker said at May 4, 2008 10:23 AM:


Regarding the indigenous French: I need to start using "indigenous". I see parallels between the language used to refer to indigenous in other parts of the world and whites in Europe.

Bob Badour said at May 4, 2008 2:16 PM:

As in the indigenous people are the people who where there before the colonists arrived... by any chance?

averros said at May 4, 2008 3:55 PM:

Muslims starting to dominate France? Heh. That's the terminal stage of the French disease of leftism. The French should've had more reverence to Défenseur de la Foi. Now they'll get to be dhimmi. A well-deserved penance for the sadist orgy of their beloved revolution.

Randall Parker said at May 4, 2008 4:32 PM:


The French aren't guilty of original sin just because some of their ancestors were involved in the French Revolution.

HellKaiserRyo said at May 4, 2008 5:04 PM:

averros, if Sweden does decline, it not because of the "labor market political activities," but because of Muslims.

Kenelm Digby said at May 5, 2008 3:20 AM:

Wolf-Dog has got it right.At present muslims account for 20-30% of births in France - and this figure has shot up from neglible proportions in the space of just four decades.It doesn't take too much effort to extrapolate that in the very near future, musllims will account for the majority of births and thusly, in a generation or two, a majority of the French population.Perhaps then it will be a case of muslims booting out the 'Gaullois'.
On this note ii is ironic that French colonization of Algeria has backfired to produce Algerian colonization of France.Algeria was first invaded way back in the 1830s by a France smarting from the defeat of Napoleon and its dreams of a continental empire shattered.It hit upon the idea of establishing 'living space' across the Mediterranean in the then backward and under populated territory of Algiers, that included much fertile land in the cooler highlands.From the start, Algeria was settled with French farming stock and was regareded as an 'overseas department' across the water.The ending was tragic for France, as is the hubris of the whole affair.

Secondly, the French Government talent for suppressing freedom of the press in stories involving Africans is extraordinary and borders on the oppressive.I well remeber a few years back a case of armed robbers attacking passengers on an express train, the story vanished as quickly as it surfaced - when it was made known the robbers were Africans.

Wolf-Dog said at May 5, 2008 8:35 AM:

Of course, we shall see what will happen to the enormous French military machine, including the many nukes and even hydrogen bombs that France has. By 2025, at least 30 % of the voters might be Muslim in France. In the year 2000 everybody was thinking that in this century, since the world will be very modern and technologically advanced, religion is destined to disappear. Absolutely the reverse is happening...

averros said at May 5, 2008 10:29 PM:


> The French aren't guilty of original sin just because some of their ancestors were involved in the French Revolution.

Tell that to my (French) girlfriend. Then you'll get an earful on how distasteful average Frenchmen are. But, then, it was her ancestors which were dragged to guilliotines by the mad crowd of nobodies.

And, no, I wasn't talking about the original sin. I was talking about the majority of that country still celebrating the event inspired by the infamous marquis (who do you think was calling from the Bastille to the crowds? Yep, the ideologue of ultralibertinism, popular pornographer, and a "hero" of the Revolution, de Sade).

You may want to read Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihin, "Leftism Revisited: From De Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot" to understand that there's unbroken chain of the acolites of this quasi-religious insanity (and it has religious tributaries, too, because collectivism has roots in monastic orders, particularly those which practiced strict discipline and self-mutilation) from ultralibertine sadism of, well, de Sade, to the institutional sadism of Stalin, Hitler, and, yes, US Government (I bet you never heard about cannibalist proclivities of the great leftist idol, FDR - check the story of the letter opener which he was fond of using - made from a thighbone of a Japanese soldier). Abu-Gharaib is just newer manifestation of the same beast.

HellKaiserRyo -- I didn't talk about Swedes in this thread. In any case, this is not about Muslims, this is about suicide of the West.

Audacious Epigone said at May 6, 2008 10:21 AM:

Estimates from the article of how many times more likely Muslims are to be incarcerated than are non-Muslims in the following European countries:

France -- 14 times
Britain -- 4 times
Netherlands -- 4 times
Belgium -- 9 times

An important French prison official in charge of integration is there to assuage our concerns, however:

"Many immigrants arrive in France in difficult financial situations, which make delinquency more frequent," said Jeanne Sautière, director of integration and religious groups for the French prison system. "The most important thing is to say there is no correlation between Islam and delinquency."
Correlation doesn't necessarily indicate causation, but there very clearly is a correlation between Islam and criminality in Europe, as Sautière acknowledges one sentence before asserting that no correlation between Islam and criminality exists.

Apparently statistical literacy is not a requirement of those who pursue a noble career in the multicultural racket. Then again, she might realize that indeed a correlation does exist, but, as her line of work dictates, she understands stating that no such correlation exists (irrespective of reality) is of the utmost importance.

Randall Parker said at May 6, 2008 6:53 PM:


You can find American girls who will dis American guys in a big way. You can find Russian girls who will do the same for Russian guys (and justifiably given the level of alcoholism and other substance abuse there). I'm not going to reach big conclusions about a society just because of that.

Celebrating the past: People want heroes. They elevate people for all sorts of reasons. In America celebrate freedom-loving slave owners while also celebrating the Civil War that ended slavery.

You are a libertarian, right? The French revolutionaries overthrew a monarchy. Of course they ended up putting something worse in its place. But the revolution eventually ended and the French became very un-revolutionary. The French want to see heroes in the people who overthrew the monarchy. Well, some of them were motivated by freedom-loving reasons. But they didn't understand freedom. America had the advantage of a free people raised in freedom overthrowing a pretty thin layer of representatives of a distant and not really tyrannical government.

averros said at May 7, 2008 11:11 AM:

> You are a libertarian, right? The French revolutionaries overthrew a monarchy.

You don't know anything about libertarianism, don't you?

If you did, you'd know that monarchy (as opposed to tyrrany - these are two different forms of government, which most modern people simply don't know) could be quite compatible with libertarian political philosophy. Monarch is simply a private owner of the country. Now, the question of how he came to the ownership is interesting.

In any case, monarchies (even absolute monarchies) were not exploiting their subjects as aggressively as democracies (and people's regimes, particularly) do - by at least an order of magnitude.

And if you learn something about how the French revolution came to be, you'll find that it wasn't something the kings did, other than giving power to the third estate due to financial mismanagement and the need to find additional sources of revenue - which the kings traded for more "self-government". The revolution came as a result of partisan bickering in the parliament, with some fractions trying to seize power by inciting riots. (The Russian revolution, incidentally, went along the same route).

There's a sound economical reason for democracies being much worse than hereditary monarchies - a monarch is interested in preserving long-term capital value of his country (and since it will be passed onto his heir, the typical planning horizons in monarchies stretch to a century). In democracy, the rulers have only temporary access to the country's resources, so they are interested in gaining as much advantage to themselves while they can, which means aggressive looting (typically, in form of some warfare).

BTW, the slave owning (Negroes weren't considered fully human at that time by the general public, BTW - and the "abolitionist" Lincoln wasn't shy about stating that his opposition to slave ownership was mostly caused by his distaste of Negroes being imported to the new territories) founders of US weren't democratic - they actually tried to invite a qualified monarch to rule America, but no one agreed.

See the monarchist point of view at http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_1/15_1_1.pdf

Also, see Hans Herman Hoppe, "Democracy: The God That Failed".

Dragon Horse said at May 11, 2008 5:30 PM:

I'm curious as to how many of these Muslims are black sub-Sahara African in ancestry and how many are Berber/Arab? I was told that the Arab/Berbers have the highest rate of crime in France, more than blacks, by a Frenchman I know from Paris, but he did not say "Muslim black" he said "blacks", a good number of the blacks in "France" are from overseas French departments and many of them are Catholic and "want to be French"...I suspect the Muslims from Subsahara Africa do not.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©