Peters’s novel theory of why we don’t have to worry about the Islamization of Europe

Igor R. writes:

This has got to be one of the most insane rants Ralph Peters has ever written. Some choice quotes:

• “The notion that continental Europeans, who are world-champion haters, will let the impoverished Muslim immigrants they confine to ghettos take over their societies and extend the caliphate from the Amalfi Coast to Amsterdam has it exactly wrong.”

• “The year 1492 wasn’t just big for Columbus. It’s also when Spain expelled its culturally magnificent Jewish community en masse—to be followed shortly by the Moors, Muslims who had been on the Iberian Peninsula for more than 800 years.”

• “And Europe’s Muslims don’t even have roots, by historical standards. For the Europeans, they’re just the detritus of colonial history. When Europeans feel sufficiently provoked and threatened—a few serious terrorist attacks could do it—Europe’s Muslims will be lucky just to be deported.”

• “Far from enjoying the prospect of taking over Europe by having babies, Europe’s Muslims are living on borrowed time. When a third of French voters have demonstrated their willingness to vote for Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front—a party that makes the Ku Klux Klan seem like Human Rights Watch—all predictions of Europe going gently into that good night are surreal.”

This man is a menace, he must be stopped.

LA replies:

So, far from seeing Muslims in Europe as a danger, he sees them as the once and future victims of Europe’s genocidal hatred of the Other.

The practical upshot is, we don’t have to worry about or do anything to prevent the Islamization of Europe. We simply have to wait for Europe’s Nazi-like true self to kick in and kick out the Muslims. (Peters presents a scenario in which U.S. Navy ships help the Muslims escape with their lives from Europe; doubtless he would want us to bring them all hear, since he believes so much in America’s powers of assimilation.) In the meantime, we let Islamization proceed apace.

In the same way, Mark Steyn says that we shouldn’t do anything about Islamization (such as stopping immigration). We should just increase native European birthrates, which at some future point will make the Islamization of Europe magically go away by itself.

What do Steyn and Peters have in common? Utter disdain for Europe. Utter indifference to its fate. And the complete absence of advice to do anything to prevent the Islamization of Europe.

LA continues:

And here, lo and behold, is a response by Mark Steyn to Peters’s column. Steyn apparently feels that Peters in his reference to an unnamed “rash of pop pundits” predicting Europe will become Eurabia is targeting Steyn himself. Steyn insists that Peters has mischaracterized his views. Far from predicting that Europe will simply fold to the Muslims, Steyn says that in his book he has predicted that some Europeans will emigrate to escape Islamization, some will convert to Islam, and some will turn fascist and fight back against Islam, but that low European birthrates doom Europe to defeat in such a battle in any case. So Steyn’s disagreement with Peters’s characterization of his views changes nothing essential: Steyn thinks Europe is doomed to Islamization, a prediction he keeps lovingly repeating, while Peters thinks Europe is a fascist monster who will remove or kill Muslims to prevent the Islamization of Europe. Both of them despise Europe, and both of them do not suggest a single step that Europe ought to take now to prevent further Islamization. This is the big “debate” we are observing today between “conservatives.”

By the way, this is the first time I remember Steyn, the One Man Global Con-Artistry Provider, who normally soars in his own stratosphere far above this dingy earth, deigning to notice and respond critically to the arguments of another, uh, conservative writer, however inadequately and pointlessly he has done so.

- end of initial entry -

Daniel H. writes:

Peters has hit a new low, or else he is showing the effects of self medication gone awry. If you haven’t read his piece, don’t bother. Here’s a summary: a compact, ahistorical, screed that has roped together—out of context, of course—notorious incidents in European history, sprinkled with outright fallacies, to compose a pastiche of anti-European (and by implication, ant-Christian) bigotry, all under the guise of good ol’ honest clear-headed American straight talk and concern for the dear Muslims and how they are in mortal peril from those evil Europeans. Straight talk! What an irony, I have never encountered a more confused load of b.s.

Let me state right off. I’m Europe and Europe is me. As Europe goes, so go I, and I assure you, so goes America.

David B. writes:

Someone should inform Peters and Steyn that we really aren’t much better off than Europe is. When the Paris riots were taking place last year, Peters and other neocons were crowing about how much better we Americans are regarding “minorities.” He didn’t seem to remember the LA riots of 1992. At any time, we are only one incident from a riot in this country. While the neocons want us to “defeat the insurgents,” they ignore the fact that we can’t completely control large areas of most major cities, or a few blocks from the White House.

LA writes:

As I look again at Peters’s piece, it’s hard to imagine why Steyn bothered protesting it. Here’s Peters’s opening:

A RASH of pop prophets tell us that Muslims in Europe are reproducing so fast and European societies are so weak and listless that, before you know it, the continent will become “Eurabia,” with all those topless gals on the Riviera wearing veils.

Well, maybe not.

The notion that continental Europeans, who are world-champion haters, will let the impoverished Muslim immigrants they confine to ghettos take over their societies and extend the caliphate from the Amalfi Coast to Amsterdam has it exactly wrong.

Now obviously Peters is referring to Steyn, and obviously Peters is correctly describing Steyn’s thesis. So what made Steyn, for the first time ever, take note of a critic and reply? I don’t get it.

Also, I wrote to Alex K., who had sent me the Steyn response to Peters:

Thanks, I’ve added something on this.

I’m telling you, it’s really discouraging, that we have to follow the “debate” of these two fools, while rational views on the subject are only found in blogs.

Alex wrote back in commiseration:

Seriously.

N. writes:

Why Steyn replied to Peters.

Seems obvious to me. Peters has a column in a major New York newspaper, and thus is visible to the newspaper editor community; the people who decide whether to run Steyn’s column or not. If enough people decide Peters is right and Steyn wrong, it could affect his income.

Web loggers obviously aren’t commonly read by editors. Thus criticism on the Net, which the old guard of the Main $tream Media “know” is full of kooks and nuts, is of no real significance to Steyn.

Turning to Peters, leaving aside his obvious prejudices, it seems to me that he suffers from the problem of historical short-sightedness.

By focusing only on the last 100 to 150 years, he ignores the over 1,000 years of history that preceded it, and thus fails to consider what happened in times past to weak European nations threatened by militant Islam. I think he just takes as given that somehow, European culture deep down is the same as it was back when Dreyfus was in jail. This is so incredibly stupid as to boggle the mind, because it ignores the effects of the slaughter of WW I and WW II upon the mindset of Europeans, from elite to common laborer. It should be obvious that the European of 1890 wouldn’t even recognize Europeans of 1990 in a variety of ways, starting with their passivity.

Peters, in short, selects the data that will support his pro-Moslem and anti-Christian prejudices. He’s therefore of no real significance in any factual debate. Ironically, by attacking Steyn, he’s managed to highlight just how out of touch with history and reality he is.

Alan Levine writes:

Ralph Peters “you ain’t got nothing to worry about” reminds of some similar things said in the past …. Notably, how it was ridiculous to worry about a silly fringe group like the Nazis taking power in a civilized country in Germany; of how the Soviet regime wouldn’t last, or would soon moderate itself, of how the Soviets couldn’t get an A-bomb before 1960… Let’s not forget all those people who thought war was impossible in 1914!

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 26, 2006 04:12 PM | Send