<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

The Mark Steyn - Ralph Peters cage match: so behind the curve 


I've been busy, so I have not written about the cage match going on between Mark "Europe is lost to Islam" Steyn and Ralph "Europeans are ultimately brutal" Peters. Three days ago, Power Line captured much of the give-and-take between these two very eloquent heralds of doom, and there were numerous follow-up links around the blogosphere. Follow the links if you are even later to the party than I am.

Actually, I'm not late to the party. I thought up the party. Back on October 27, in my review of Steyn's excellent book America Alone, I quoted Peters and raised precisely the point that has so engaged the righty 'sphere this week:

How will Europe reverse this decline? There are two possibilities, neither of which Steyn broached in the book, but both of which came up on today's conference call. First, Europeans might react to cultural pressure by breeding more. Perhaps today's small number of European children will give birth to many more children. Perhaps. Second, Europeans might turn violent. Ralph Peters suggested precisely that in his equally creative book, New Glory, recommended on this blog last year.
Yet Europe is likely to be good for a number of surprises - surprising not least to Europeans themselves. With our short historical memory (one American quality Germans welcome), we thoughtlessly accept that, since much of Europe appears to be pacifist now, so it shall remain. But no continent has exported as much misery and slaughter as Europe has done, and the chances are better than fair that Europe is only catching its breath after the calamities it inflicted upon itself in the last century.

We last saw widespread pacifism in Europe just before 1914 and again during the half-time break in that great European civil war that lasted until 1945 (or 1991 east of the Elbe).

Europe's current round of playing pacifist dress up was enabled by America's protection during the Cold War. We allowed our European wards to get away with a minimum number of chores. The United States did (and still does) the dirty work, seconded by our direct ancestor, Britain. Even the North Atlantic Treaty Organization merely obscured how little was asked of Europe. For almost a century the work of freedom and global security has been handled by the great Anglolateral alliance born of a struggle against the tyranny of continental European philosophies hatched on the Rhine and Danube. Our struggle continues today, against fanaticism and terror.

It is unlikely that Europe's present pacifism will last... Europe will rediscover its genius, reforming itself if necessary. There will be plenty of bitterness and recriminations along the way, but Europe will accept the need to change because change will be forced upon it. The trouble with European genius, of course, is that it has a dark side. If its racist populations feel sufficiently threatened by the Muslim millions within their divided societies and by terror exported from the Islamic heartlands, Europe may respond with a cruelty unimaginable to us today. After all, Europe is the continent that mastered ethnic cleansing and genocide after a thousand years of pactice. We Americans may find ourselves in the unexpected
position of confronting the Europe of tomorrow as we try to restrain its barbarities toward Muslims.

Read TigerHawk today to anticipate the intramural blogospheric struggles of tomorrow.

14 Comments:

By Blogger Assistant Village Idiot, at Wed Nov 29, 09:59:00 PM:

It has been a fascinating discussion. Peters' claim sounds ridiculous at first blush, of course, but he makes a good case.

I work in psychology, and the maxim is "the past is the best predictor of the future."  

By Anonymous Purple Avenger, at Wed Nov 29, 10:57:00 PM:

Why would these position necessarily be mutually exclusive?

After all, Rome fell. Having the ability to resist and control one's destiny, doesn't necessarily translate into desire and willingness.

Witness today's democrat party.  

By Blogger K. Pablo, at Wed Nov 29, 11:39:00 PM:

I think Steyn's claim of demographic jihad is a bit overblown. Poor people in general tend to reproduce at a higher rate than the socio-economically secure classes. I wonder if he's looked at birth statistics correcting for educational level?  

By Anonymous blogger, at Thu Nov 30, 07:52:00 AM:

Will Europe fight?
Good question.
The limits of tolerance may be stretched, but they aren’t yet snapped. It will take another massive act of multiple murder to maybe wake them up.
Political will, in the UK, to take action is not yet powerful enough.
One
or two members of parliament are beginning to ask questions, but the left/socialist government is about
as much use as a fart in a spacesuit.
They talk tough but ideologically are against building more prisons, ergo shorter prison terms, ealy release, more and more reoffending.
Other social/economic signs are not good either, and will lead to further crime.
Obscene practices are also imported and create problems for the NHS. These however are never reported.
Legal problems are just around the corner.
The influx of men in skirts is causing mass indigenous white emigration
“Already, we’re seeing the failure of the policy of multiculturalism, which — as Trevor Phillips, our race relations tsar has pointed out — has come down to separate development; in other words, apartheid. We have a dangerous mixture of people who do have colonial resentments; who have fundamentalist beliefs; and who have absolutely no desire to integrate.”
As far as motivation of the population at large is concerned, the major problem is the left/multicultural, Islam appeasing BBC. Other than their incessant bias, the accuracy of their reports is frequently
laughable.

Of course behind ALL these problems, and the cause of most of them, is the EU, and its ambitions, which I have linked to many times. The EU now sets the immigration policies of the member states.
and the asylum policy, which together with Home Office crass incompetence, causes so many problems, and will likely cause the fall of the socialists at the next general election.
I think I have linked to this article before. Here again if my memory is wrong. A tale of total corruption.
And I reject any criticism when I say you caused it, and sought to inflict it on the rest of us. Tough.
Will Europe Fight?
Not yet!
Will Europe fight eventually?
Maybe!
If there are enough people with the inclination and ability remaining!
I do notice the wealthy hedge-fund/finance/legal population rapidly acquiring real estate in nice locations. Some are, strangely, moving to locations that will decline more rapidly.
And finally  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Nov 30, 01:04:00 PM:

Steyn's argument is that Muslims constitute the majority of the younger population, the longer the conflict is deferred the more powerful they are. Ten twenty year olds versus 100 80 year olds is an easy victory for the young.

However, if the fight is today, middle aged men fighting for their lives and property can be very effective. Witness the Committees of Vigilance in 1856 in San Francisco. The Irish gangs threatened to take their hard won money and their lives, the mostly ex-military men in their thirties and forties fought back by organizing themselves, seizing the National Guard armory, and hanging most of the gang leaders they could get their hands on after the murder of James King of William (a prominent newspaper publisher/editor).

The average French or Italian or German or even Brit who owns property of some sort or a business and has their lives and property threatened can be quite ruthless. None of them fancy life in poverty stricken exile in America or Canada or living as what amounts to slavery by Muslim overlords. The more Muslims push this early, and overplay their hands, the more likely this is to occur.

The tipping country is likely France. The leadership is inept and cowardly (where has that been seen before), there are 751 no-go areas where Sharia and Muslims only are allowed, and threats to commerical and residential property are rising from rampaging Muslim mobs directed by criminal/jihadist alliances.

The question becomes, do I fight for what I own or flee in poverty?

Since most will fight (and fight for their money not some grand cause) we will see neighborhood groups likely soccer clubs grow out as expressions of French identity & mutual protection groups.

This doesn't imply genocide but does imply vigilantism and a solution akin to the SF Committees of Vigilance: lynch the worst gang offenders, drive the rest out, repeat as needed. As Gov't looks on in impotence.

Abdication of State responsibility simply means that vacuum will be filled by mutual defense associations. Because anyone will fight for their money. When it comes down to that.  

By Anonymous blogger, at Thu Nov 30, 04:07:00 PM:

"Abdication of State responsibility simply means that vacuum will be filled by mutual defense associations"
Good point Anon.
However, as much as we consider the State to be abdicating reponsibility currently, they are doing it through "multiculturalism" and "political correctness". The state is not yet helpless, it perceives itself to be upholding the law when it strikes with publicly perceived stupidity at the home-grown defenders of their rights/customs/property, etc.
I would personally not like the situation to degenerate to the conditions of a no-go area before the state would be perceived to be helpless and before I could commence "corrective" action. Therefor an element of risk is involved for the "early movers", both from the State, and the enemy.
Given that scenario, mutual defense associations would need to be functional and agreed, before any tippng pont is reached. That may be difficult in that a local concensus may not be reached.
However, a state publicly perceived to be striking at the wrong sector of the population risks being voted out, in favour of a strong response from political alternatives. Erosion of freedoms then follows, as is now being witnessed.
Demographics then comes in as you so rightly point out.
As in the 1930s, those that get out early stand the best chance of survival at the other end, get out with their assets liquidated and intact. Before the doors slam shut.  

By Blogger mledeen, at Thu Nov 30, 06:22:00 PM:

if there's going to be a revival of European vitality, there must be leaders. Is Sarkozy one such? I don't really know...  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Nov 30, 10:15:00 PM:

"Europe is the continent that mastered ethnic cleansing and genocide after a thousand years of practice." But they ethnic cleansed a relatively small group of pacifist people, a total of 6 million scattered all over Europe. Now they are facing at least 6 million aggressive young people. Most likely, the French will surrender without a fight. They will tell themselves, Islam is superior to Christianity, there is no reason not to "revert" to the superior religion.  

By Anonymous blogger, at Fri Dec 01, 04:04:00 AM:

And to prove my point about Getting out first riding out of the sunset comes
White Flight is a fact of British Life Time to Emigrate, by George Walden.
The fact that Londons Mullah, Lvingstone, boycotted the conference speaks volumes.  

By Blogger Tom, at Fri Dec 01, 08:22:00 AM:

I think Europe will wake up and fight, but that it'll be too late.

Steyn predicts that fascist parties will rise to meet the Islamic threat, and I think he's right. This is unfortunate, because that's trading one evil for another. Further, I think we'll adopt a neutral stance because of our adversion to fascism.

I'm with Steyn on this one. I think that multiculturalism and modern left-wing policital correctness have neutered Europe beyond the point of no return.  

By Anonymous blogger, at Fri Dec 01, 01:10:00 PM:

President Kennedy’s National Security Memorandum 52, “The Presidential Program for Vietnam,” reads:

"U.S. objectives and concept of operations [are] to prevent communist domination of South Vietnam; to create in that country a viable and increasingly democratic society, and to initiate, on an accelerated basis, a series of mutually supporting actions of a military, political, economic, psychological, and covert character designed to achieve this objective."

In January of 1973, then President Richard Nixon, pressured by the growing ugliness of the anti-war movement, announced an end to offensive military action in Vietnam. This was to be followed by a unilateral withdrawal of US military forces. In order to persuade South Vietnamese President Thieu to sign on to the Paris Peace Accords, Nixon had to offer assurances that the US would provide financial and limited military support. But in December of 1974, Congress, controlled by the Democrats, passed the Foreign Assistance Act, which cut off all military funding to the South Vietnamese government, effectively terminating the US involvement and setting the stage for one of the most horrific cases of genocide the world has ever witnessed.

In 1976, the United States’ bi-centennial year, the two Vietnams were replaced by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Saigon was officially renamed Ho Chi Minh City and tens, if not hundreds of thousands of those who had supported the South Vietnamese government and the ideals of the West were rounded up and sent to “re-education camps,” where they were tortured into confessing “pre-revolutionary lifestyles and crimes” and summarily executed, most often with hammers, axe handles, spades or sharpened bamboo sticks.

In Cambodia the pre-mature American exodus reaped even more extreme consequences. Congress’s financial castration of the South Vietnamese government facilitated The Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge. Under the rule of Pol Pot the Khmer Rouge slaughtered an estimated 3 million people including anyone who had contact with governments of the West, professionals and intellectuals, ethnic Vietnamese, Muslims, Christians and Buddhists. They were buried in unmarked mass graves.

In the end, the pre-mature withdrawal of American troops and Congress’s politically motivated and culturally impulsive termination of financial support for South Vietnam enabled the actions of murderous dictators that took millions of lives.

They say that those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

America is dying. America has lost its conviction of greatness and destiny. The Statue of Liberty is no longer a symbol, but an artifact. No, worse, Western Civilization is dying. Western Civilization has lost its conviction of greatness and destiny. It has been seduced by the uncritical mantras of multiculturalism and diversity, the seductive but malicious myth that all cultures are equal, and good, and none are morally or existentially better than others, an embrace of anti-discrimination ideologies so complete that it has become indiscriminate and indiscriminating, unwilling and unable to differentiate between that which will nurture and strengthen it, and that which will bleed and destroy it. I see the unwitting confession of this dying written all over the mad frantic scramble for Peace in the Middle East. The half-hearted efforts to win a war against an ambitious and puritanical Islamic Imperialism that is fundamentally totalitarian, a religious totalitarianism absolutely incompatible with the First Amendment of America's Constitution and the Western, Judeo-Christian ideal of religious freedom that is also embodied in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 18). I do not think America's "national leadership" sees it, not clearly, neither Democrat nor Republican, but that is because they do not want to, they do not want to face the truth of their own words and acts and omissions. Many of America's Republicans support the war against Islamic Imperialism timidly, unwilling even to name its true name, afraid to offend the enemy's fine sensibilities, calling it by its euphemism, "the war on terror;" and many of America's Democrats openly oppose it. They do not want to admit that in some dark place in their hearts they do not quite really believe that America should win the war that Islam is bringing to its door.

They just want peace. But Islamic Imperialism does not want peace. It wants victory.

And so we extend the hands of diplomacy, and Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, and George W Bush, President of the USA, and Commander in Chief of the mightiest State on this planet shuttles around the world asking for peace. Begging for peace? Groveling for peace? We execute the first rule of diplomacy with great aplomb: Look Busy. Maintain the appearance of Doing Something Important. President Ahmadinejad of Hezbollah's state sponsor, Iran, truthfully tells the world that he believes the solution to the problem is the abolition of Israel and the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from the Lands of Islam. He says the US should leave the Iraqi people to decide their fate. He requires freedom for his proxies in Iraq, and that includes al Qaeda, to commit mass murder, acquire nuclear arms, intimidate the entire Middle East, rid the world of Jews, use oil to intimidate the West, and extend his power to a Global Caliphate. He says it openly, honestly, infront of, and heard by, millions.

But the world does not want to see or hear or understand or admit the obvious. And neither does America. It is too ugly.

America is dying, under a death mask of Democratic multiculturalism. So is Europe. Putin is smiling - for the moment.

The American Dream is dying. Those that lose this conviction and the will to advance and defend it lose the wars that inevitably come to them at the hands of those in whom the flaming conviction of cultural superiority and a great destiny burns. They are killed, they die, they shrink and shrivel, they wither, they fade into geopolitical irrelevance, first, and then into the history books, and then into the obscurity of old stories that only historians remember.

If President Kennedy has a ghost, it is stalking the corridors of power right now. It remembers the anti-war campaigns the brought the GIs home, and branded America a coward.

Don't re-brand this Great Nation a second time.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Dec 01, 01:47:00 PM:

"The average French or Italian or German or even Brit who owns property of some sort or a business and has their lives and property threatened can be quite ruthless."

Without guns, how? In the few cases I've read of homeowners defending themselves and their property, they--not the thieves--were charged with crimes.  

By Anonymous blogger, at Sat Dec 02, 06:07:00 AM:

Exactly my earlier point, Anon, Fri Dec 01.
Given the abdication by the "state", perhaps perceived by a relative few, the defense of society "norms" is seen by the PC state as being a crime. Also bear in mind that the defenders of property/business/family, etc, tend to be static, ie, an easy target for a basically disenfranchised and lazy police force.

The "state" and its enforcers then become the enemy of the "early adopters"
In a dis-armed, democratic, trusting state, the function of defense has been trustingly delegated, and the police function courtesy of unspoken agreements with the public.

However, the Police are, given that their leaders in todays PC society are political appointments, ultimately, politically controlled.

Politicians break the trust, therefore all arms of the "state" break the trust.

EU politicians have sought to hide their breaking of the trust for the last 40 years.

The break-down of EU democratic society is hastened  

By Blogger Reagan's Ranger, at Sat Dec 02, 08:40:00 PM:

Read Steyn closely. He said that Europe could very well turn violent. Peters dismisses him too quickly on that point.

Steyn said, however, that he thinks it is already too late for Europe to salvage anything even if it started to fight back today.  

Post a Comment


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?