I usually respect Ralph Peters point of view on military affairs, I quoted verbatim the great series of articles he did reporting from Israel during the Lebanon war. He does however come with some agendas and lately he's been on the Anti-Islamophobia bandwagon. And that's not a good bandwagon to be on.
His article, 'The Eurabia Myth' is an attempt to attack the prediction of an Islamic takeover of Europe. He doesn't argue that the Muslims don't want to do it, because obviously they do. What Peters argues is that the Europeans won't allow them based on centuries ancient history like the Spanish expulsion of the Moors. It's not exactly credible Realpolitik analysis.
Three pages of arguments come down to the oft repeated premise that since Europeans have frequently committed atrocities throughout their history, that they're not about to allow themselves to be taken over; all evidence to the contrary. The problem of course is that they are allowing themselves to be taken over. Arguing from history is no substitute for arguing from reality. Peters makes no attempt to address the rising Muslim birth rate versus the falling European one, rising Muslim immigration, rising tide of conversions to Islam and the continued obeisances by European officials towards Muslims.
It's all very well to point to the expulsion of the Moors, but it's a good deal more relevant to point to the daily riots in France and Belgium and the takeover of entire cities in England. Peters pins a lot of his argument on European antisemitism against Jews but antisemitism towards Jews is inherently a unique example. Antisemitism endures now simultaneously with the transformation into a EU Vichy state at the beck and call of the Caliphate. Europeans continue hating Jews while kowtowing to Muslims. They can maintain their legacy of Jew hatred while abandoning their legacy of protecting their own countries.
"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," Peters says.
Yet the bombings in England and Spain have produced no such response, instead they've produced the opposite reaction of enabling those politicians who preach appeasement to strengthen their political ascendancy. France has seen decades of Muslim terrorism and yet Muslims are better positioned in France than ever.
What is sufficient provocation anyway? Are the outrageous rape statistics sufficient provocation? Obviously not. What about Imams who proclaim that Western Women are unattended meat. Doesn't seem to have done it either. What about nationwide riots? Worldwide boycotts? Still nothing.
Peters Europe is apparently some sort of slow patient fellow who repeatedly takes beating after beating and then when the last straw is bent, leaps up out of his cafe, gripping his briefcase filled with union regulations and begins chasing the armed Lebanese gangsters down the street screaming bloody murder.
"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."
Again Peters researches proves rather poor since LePen's National Front is high on antisemitism but rather low on actually doing anything about Muslims. Its latest incarnation is actually surprisingly pro-muslim. Further it's actually the KKK that makes the National Front look like Human Rights Watch, since the KKK has a long history of terrorism and assaults. The National Front is little more than another wannabe bunch of European fascists torn between their adoration of Muslim brutality and attempts to appeal to the working class by being anti-immigration, a cause that doesn't move them nearly as much as Antisemitism, in which they're allies with the Muslims.
"I have no difficulty imagining a scenario in which U.S. Navy ships are at anchor and U.S. Marines have gone ashore at Brest, Bremerhaven or Bari to guarantee the safe evacuation of Europe's Muslims."
The far more likely scenario involves U.S. Navy ships rescuing the last remaining French, Swedes and Belgians to then be taken to refugee camps in the midwest while the new Islamic regimes transform the Louvre into a Mosque. Peters may want to take a better look at history and ask himself the simple question, how many Islamic lands have become Christian vs how many Christian lands have become Islamicised.
Hint: Byzantine Empire
"AND we're lucky. The United States attracts the quality. American Muslims have a higher income level than our national average. We hear about the handful of rabble-rousers, but more of our fellow Americans who happen to be Muslims are doctors, professors and entrepreneurs."
Not to mention pilots and engineers. Most of the Muslim terrorists we've dealt with domestically had a college education and were professionals in one field or another. That made them more dangerous, not less. Peters seems to be buying into the silly liberal idea here that it's the economically disadvantaged or the working class who are the terrorists. The reality is your Muslim college student is far more likely to be a terrorist than your Muslim taxi driver.
"And the American dream is still alive and well, thanks: Even the newest taxi driver stumbling over his English grammar knows he can truly become an American. But European Muslims can't become French or Dutch or Italian or German. Even if they qualify for a passport, they remain second-class citizens. On a good day. And they're supposed to take over the continent that's exported more death than any other?"
Amusingly enough Peters wallows deeper in the same liberal European fallacy that is precisely the reason that Europe is being taken over by Muslims. He presumes that the problem is that Muslims aren't being allowed to become Europeans, he doesn't seem to grasp that the problem is that Muslims DON'T WANT to become Europeans or Americans for that matter. If integration was the problem, then why has America had major terrorist attacks on its soil with virtually no support or cooperation from its domestic Muslims, except to bewail their own victimization at airports.
Muslims want to be part of Europe and America on their terms not on ours, and their terms are the supremacy of Islam. They have no interest in integrating into secular European states or into America where women have equal rights, gays have their own parades and every practice and idea abhorrent to Islam is a virtue.
By shifting the onus onto the Europeans for lack of integration, Peters falls for the old multicultural victimization fallacy that allows the Muslims to slap Europe around like a dog while the Europeans try to figure out how they can appease the Muslims better. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so damned tragic.
"The jobless and hopeless kids in the suburbs may burn a couple of cars, but we'll always have Paris."
Where have we heard that before? Right. "The Germans may be on the other side of the border but all is lights and gaiety in Paris. What's to worry about?"
Granted it's actually tens of thousands of cars burned (slightly more than a couple) and people have been burned with them as well. Granted the 'kids' burning them are members of well organized gangs. Granted there are thousands of police casualties as a result of the riots over just the last two years.
But we'll always have Paris, right?
The population of France is 10 percent Muslim. 37 percent of all immigrants in France live in Paris and its suburbs. We'll always have Paris? Not for long.