Last night, having been struck by how polyglot Paris has become, I collected data as I walked along, counting people who looked like native French (which probably added in a few Brits and other Europeans) versus everyone else. I can’t vouch for the representativeness of the sample, but at about eight o’clock last night in the St. Denis area of Paris, it worked out to about 50-50, with the non-native French half consisting, in order of proportion, of African blacks, Middle-Eastern types, and East Asians.

Ah, the "native" vs. "non-native" French.

Setting aside the un-self-conscious racism and the paranoid implications (you're next, America!) the really weird thing is Murray's lazy-ass research methods. He starts doing a head-count of ethnic groups while walking down the street? And assumes that everyone he sees lives in Paris, and isn't a tourist? And further assumes that all the whites he sees are native-born, while all non-whites are immigrants?

And is it possible that Murray's sample wasn't exactly random? It is possible he decided to begin his head count at a moment in which he was struck by the multi-ethnic crowd he found himself in, because that would assist him in making the case he and his cohorts are always making -- that Europe has fallen to the Muslim hordes, and that America is the last bulwark against their insidious campaign of cultural assimilation?

I have to assume that the French government conducts a periodic census, and that the information Murray is looking for could easily be obtained by, you know, looking it up.

But really, where's the fun in that?