On paper, these tragic figures are a very small statistic; last year, many more people died in car accidents across Europe than terror attacks. But the thing about terrorist attacks in Europe is that, unlike car accidents, terrorist attacks in Europe typically affect only one demographic group: native Europeans.
The birth rate among the native European population hovers somewhere around 1.5 children per woman. Taking into account Europe's fertility rate, the assailant killed four native Europeans and, assuming half the deceased are women, three potential native European children. The radical Islamists lost zero people. Carry this pattern out just twenty more times and there are eighty native Europeans killed and sixty potential native Europeans denied an opportunity for life. The radical Islamists, by contrast, lose zero and the "net loss" calculation comes to 140 lives to 0 lives.
There are several factors to consider before rubber-stamping this estimate. For example, does choosing to commit acts of terror instead of fathering children also have an impact on the Muslim population? Probably not, because the actors are typically male, which does not disrupt a woman's ability to find a different suitor. Furthermore, in a place with liberal laws like Sweden, which is the site of the attack, the assailant may not even get a long prison sentence and may soon be released back into the pool of Islamic suitors, with another opportunity to find a spouse.
That said, the only real obstacle to assuming a 140 to 0 "net loss" from twenty hypothetical attacks is that more than half of the deceased in this hypothetical could be men. If that is the case, then the "net loss" could be lower than 140 to 0.
On the other hand, the given "net loss" sum does not take into account several factors which could actually increase the net loss. For instance, if the deceased in all of twenty hypothetical terror attacks are all women, "net loss" could be as high as 200 to 0. What is more, taking into consideration that the injured parties may also be women who either ultimately suffer from injuries that make their having children unlikely, the figure could climb as high as 687.5 lives to 0 lives. Taking these factors into consideration, it is plausible that the "net loss" ratio grossly underrepresents actual loss. This is important to understand because such isolated attacks appear to be on the rise, and are the radical Islamist's choice method of engagement.
Why have the radical Islamists made this choice, you may ask? First, I would urge you to consider the history of war. In recent times, civilizations have returned to deciding conflicts on the field of battle because the war production front is no longer an important element. Moreover, in the nuclear age and due to the threat of total annihilation, targeting the people of another civilization is a very dangerous idea that simply opens up the likelihood of devastating retaliation.
But a jihadist, though he represents a state, is not sent into battle by a civilization. He is sent into battle to destroy one civilization and replace it with one that has not yet been constructed. This is what makes the jihadist so terrifying, because there is firewall of feared retaliation to deter his acts from receiving endorsement. His financiers hide in the shadows and may not even be agents of a particular state. The other reason the jihadists are so dangerous is that, with the goal of destroying one civilization and replacing it with another, the standing civilization is the target, not the military that we put forth to defend it. Encountering the military is an obstacle that prevents them from getting to the front. Once you understand these basic developments, you will understand that each attack is not a call for help from some angry, awkward foreigner who has not integrated or we have not integrated ourselves towards. It is an act on the battlefield. Our civilization is their battlefield.
Where all of this comes into play is as follows. The borders remain open and the fastest growing religion is that which the jihadists want to prosper, because it is the basis upon which they hope to build a radical Islamic civilization. While the native European birthrate is approximately 1.5 children per woman, Muslims, typically of a south-of-Europe background, are averaging 2.2 children per woman. For every twenty attacks like the one in Sweden today, people are eliminated from the sample which is producing 1.5 children per woman, while 0 people are eliminated from the sample that is producing 2.2 children per woman. I hope now you understand what is going on, because most of the West does not get it.
Useful links:
1) Pew Research:
www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/europe/ www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/19/5-facts-about-the-muslim-population-in-europe/
2) Gatestone Research:
www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9892/germany-muslims-demographic
3) Breitbart report on native, British-born mothers vs. non-native mothers:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/12/24/britains-fertility-rate-outpaces-europes-no-thanks-british-born-mothers/
4) World Health Organization (WHO)
WHO, ed. (2015) "Deaths on the roads: Based on the WHO Global Status Report on Road Safety 2015" (PDF) (official report). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organisation (WHO). Retrieved 2016-01-26.
