Nidra Poller had a bit of technical difficulty getting this one to us, so it is a bit delayed, but I believe it is still a timely riposte to yet another display of courage against the errors of nobody in particular by the intrepid Ralph Peters:
Ralph Peters stepped down from his pedestal the other day to hit the blogosphere up ‘side the head and soar back up to the heights of the New York Post. He wanted us to know that he doesn’t have to stoop so low. Le Monde used the same technique recently to deride blog-revelations of fauxtography and Hizbullah-staged news during the July-August war against Israel. The material had already been circulating for over a month (except in the French media) when Le Monde squeezed out an article about one or two of the minor hoaxes only to shoot down the blogs that had done the footwork. Photo editors from reputable media and wire services were quoted as saying that the bloggers don’t understand anything about photos, war, media, camera angles, and smoke. It makes sense? The photo editor who didn’t notice the photoshopping is smarter than the blogger who did.By all rights the following rebuttal should be published in the New York Post but I’m offering it to Jihadwatch. Do I have to decline my pedigree before entering the ring?
Peters has a grudge against certain ideas that he doesn’t dare confront in honest debate, so he goes after them with journalistic jihad, shooting crude Qassams at anonymous targets--this time it’s “a rash of pop prophets”— and enlisting the battalions of History on his side.
“The historical patterns are clear: When Europeans feel sufficiently threatened—even when the threat’s concocted nonsense—they don’t just react, they over-react with stunning ferocity.”For example, the Shoah? Would that be the “concocted nonsense” threat? Then what exactly does it prove about Europe’s likely reaction to a real, supposed, or concocted Muslim threat? To Peters it’s obvious: Europeans felt threatened by the Jews, they tried to exterminate them; they feel threatened by Muslims, they will try to exterminate them!
Doesn’t recent history prove that when Nazism took the initiative Europeans followed suit and they all got together and exterminated Jews. Today, when Islam takes the initiative, Europeans follow suit, and they might all get together and try to exterminate the Jews again. When speculating on what might happen, history doesn’t prove anything…until after it has happened.
We who live in Europe and follow events closely day to day cannot be sure which way this wind is going to turn. Peters’ hyped up diatribes, arm-thrashing, nasty looks, and kicks under the table are useless and wearying. What we need is keen observation, close attention to concrete facts, less emotion and more rationality. It is not easy. The situation is dramatic. There is a temptation to adopt a style and impose it on a wide variety of facts and incidents, toning everything down to NY Times false sophistication or revving it up to constant fever pitch.
Peters wants to shout down a bunch of people he won’t name, who are not shouting at him; they are simply reporting what they observe. Infatuated with his own examples, he piles them up higher and higher, without noticing that the first block was placed on a bumpy slope. By the time the whole thing collapses, he has finished his article, filed, and patted himself on the back.
If you are going to speculate on what Europeans will do to or about Muslims, you have to remember that European Muslims are Europeans. Can you spend a week in Europe without noticing that there are no apartheid states? Keith Richburg claimed, in a Washington Post article published during the November 2005 uprising, that if you sat in a trendy bistrot in the Marais you wouldn’t know “those” populations even existed. This is simply, concretely, factually, statistically, obviously not true. Then why did he say it? To prove a point.
True, France is not a land of opportunity, France does not welcome and integrate foreigners the American way; it is not a kindly, friendly, open-hearted country and yet many Muslims do integrate, lead successful careers and normal lives, work, earn money, live in nice apartments. Others live in dismal neighborhoods, suffer from discrimination, and are handicapped by their own personal deficiencies, but that is not the whole story. Before dragging history into the picture, you have to look at the current reality, the concrete details.
Historical precedents cannot be mechanically applied to the demographic transformation that has occurred with massive Muslim immigration in the short period since 1970. European countries are confronted with an unprecedented inflow of a population whose culture and values are radically different from the host country and often hostile to the indigenous population.
It is naïve to keep talking about what the Europeans are going to do with “their’” Muslims: The Europeans who are eventually going to do something to, for, or about Muslims are, increasingly, Muslim. Loved or hated, integrated or excluded, they are French, Dutch, British, German, Belgian, etc. This is a reality that can not be ignored.
Peters has to imagine far-fetched scenarios of mass expulsion or mass murder of Europe’s Muslims because he claims they can’t become French or Dutch or Italian or German, and he denies that France, Holland, Italy, or Germany can be Islamized.
Everywhere in the world today Islam is in conflict with “infidels.” This conflict is not, as Peters suggests, exterior to Europe’s Muslims. Bin Laden, Nasrallah, and Ahmadinejad are not naughty outsiders who spoil things for the home boys; they are heroes to many European Muslims. And in the United States, Muslims with college degrees, dressed in expensive suits, running profitable businesses are also involved in that struggle, some on the side of jihad, some against it.
Yes, European welfare states are stagnating and would do well to take some lessons in economics from the United States. But the Europeans who cling to their generous welfare benefits include Muslim immigrants, legal and illegal. Unskilled workers earning subsistence wages cannot provide for large families; the welfare system takes up the slack. It is illogical to argue at one and the same time that immigrants are being lured into Europe to do the dirty work and that they suffer from catastrophic levels of unemployment—40% in some French banlieues. Besides the fact that Europe doesn’t have enough jobs to offer, children of those who were willing to do the dirty work want more and better but don’t necessarily make any effort to obtain it. And many of them become resentful and violent.
Whether non-Muslim Europeans turn vicious or cave in, whether Europe’s Muslims take over or ship out, none of this proves that Eurabia is a myth. Eurabia is not the end point, it is neither the conquest nor the destruction of European Muslims, it is the policy that led to this geopolitical dilemma. Serious scholars have described and documented that policy, reliable observers report on its countless ramifications in everyday life here in Europe. Those who claim that the massive influx of Muslims into Europe occurred by chance, or as a natural flow of population have to support their argument with facts. They cannot make it come true by slapping together, as Peters does, a grotesque heap of misconstrued historical examples and lurid predictions and throwing it at those who have helped us understand the mechanisms of Eurabia.
In his opening salvo, Peters accused the “pop prophets” of telling us “before you know it, the continent will be come ‘Eurabia,’ with all those topless gals on the Riviera wearing veils.” The topless are still in the majority, but we do see French women-- 2nd and 3rd generation “immigrants”-- sitting demurely on the beach in hijab while husbands and children frolic in Mediterranean waters. You don’t have to be a prophet to see them, just an honest observer.
One of the wonderful things about the internet is the impact that it has had on traditional media sources and "experts". These folks can no longer expect to keep the lid on things. Their lies will be found out and broadcast around the world. We need to continue to erode their influence with truth and humor.
Ralph Peters---pathetic @#$%^&.
Chance would be a fine thing!
obviously written by a non european who doesn't understand the depth and breadth of this cancerous dimmification which is endemic throughout Eurabia.
Why does employment with the MSM either create or attract arrogant little _______. I know the difference between an f-stop and focal lenght and ASA 100 and ASA 400.
For these sons of mongrel dogs to denegrate serious photographers or experienced amateurs is the height of arrogance. The infamous altered photo with the cloned smoke was super obvious. Any MSM photo editor who claims that the bloggers know nothing about photography is lying to maintain his self-delusion or his credibility.
I'm so PO-ed that I can't think straight.
Candidate Definition of "Religion of War"
It is sufficient, under this candidate definition, for a religion to be a religion of war if the following condition is satisfied.
It itself says that it had to be written down to avoid loss of its sayings in one or more battles it itself says it initiated.
This is proposed for discussion purposes only as a hypothesis.
Ralph Peters is an idiot.
They used to make fun of the NY Post back in the 1980's-too much sensationalism, too tabloid, etc. If this is the kind of "journalist" they have nowadays then that paper needs to fold. Founder Alexander Hamilton is probably spinning in his grave at the likes of this mental midget.
"When Shakespeare wrote "The Merchant of Venice," it's a safe bet he'd never met a Jew."
If A. L. Rowse's theory that Emilia Bassano was the dark lady of the sonnets is correct, Shakespeare had done more than just meet a Jew.
It is sufficient, under this alternative candidate definition, for a religion to be a religion of war if the following condition is satisfied.
That religion designates some areas as House of War.
Alternative to this:
That religion designates some areas not controlled by it in some way as House of War,
and some areas controlled by itself in some way as House of Peace.
This is proposed for discussion purposes only as a hypothesis.
This definition can be used in conjunction with the prior candidate definition.
Ralph’s on the record arguing against shooting into Mosques, saying that the Iraqis welcome our presence (2006), and saying that the Civil War is a myth (2006). His criticism of the Iraq Study Group was that it didn’t contain ‘senior’ military officers, hinting that his presence (mid-grade intelligence officer) would have given the document more relevance. Crack up underway.
I’ll make a prediction that Ralph will ‘Quit the Fight’ and be off the cocktail circuit by July, 2007. I hope he’s sold some books in the interim.
A proud member of the rotten core of American extremists (a gun-totin' one too);
"When Shakespeare wrote "The Merchant of Venice," it's a safe bet he'd never met a Jew."
-- from Ralph Peters
A poster above mentions A. L. Rowse's identification of the Dark Lady of the Sonnets with Emilia Bassano, supposedly an Italian Jew. But no such recourse to Rowse's candidate for the Dark Lady is needed to show how silly Ralph Peters is.
Has he forgotten, or did he never know, that Queen Elizabeth's own physician was Dr. Rodrigo Lopes, the same Dr. Rodrigo Lopes, a New Christian from Spain, whom many have said Shakespeare may have in mind when he limned Shylock, and possibly borrowed ways of speaking. Shakespeare could not possibly not have known all about Rodrigo Lopes (who was later charged, falsely it seems, with being involved in a supposed Spanish plot; the charge made no sense, and though Elizabeth delayed his execution, she finally permitted him to be drawn and quartered; he died affirming that he remained as loyal to the Queen as he did to Jesus, which evoked, apparently, mordant laughter from some who assumed he must have been lying about both matters. Shakespeare may or may not have met Rodrigo Lopes, but he certainly knew all about him and if he did, indeed, model Shylock's verbal mannerisms on him, he would have had to have met him to do so. And there are others of recent Jewish descent, if not practicing Jews, whom Shakespeare might have met. For example, John (Giovanni) Florio, the translator of Montaigne and author of assorted dictionaries and word-books, was a Protestant but believed to have had a Jewish father (Michelangelo Florio). This too remains unknown to Peters.
Imagine someone who claimed to know about the Elizabethen stage but began speaking about the great "actresses" of that stage. One's antennae would be up. If Ralph Peters can write a statement about Shakespeare that is so obviously wrong, with such glib self-assurance, then one is entitled to raise an eyebrow about his other remarks, which become stranger, and stranger, with each passing day.
Ralph Peters is a moron. I remember the first time I saw him on the O'Reilly Factor... well I got the impression he was an idiot after he claimed that Jyllands Posten was to blame for the Mohammed Cartoons rioting because get this: they didn't take their "responsibility."
What a moron.
This is the sort of thing which leaves one somewhat speechless. Peters states that the threat that European citizens will one day live in Eurabia (and we know that means under some variant of Sharia law, by simple Muslim majority) is "concocted nonsense" and the only proof he offers that this is impossible is that the Europeans are despicable and vicious human beings who would think nothing of murdering the Muslims in their midst long before this could ever come to pass. But by implication, that means that if the Europeans are to avoid being the vicious human beings that they are, then they will demonstrate it by succumbing to the Islamic invasion of their countries and agree to live in Eurabia, under Sharia law. (Again, Peters offers no evidence that in the absence of Europeans killing or expelling their Muslims this wouldn't be the end result. He even admits that after merely one generation, Muslims no longer want to be assimilated and this is the fault of those despicable Europeans). So either Europeans deserve to be subjugated under Sharia law or they somehow escape that fate by being the vicious, despicable human beings that they have always proved themselves to be. Why do I get the feeling that Peters detests Europeans? He's got them damned either way. The man is simply incapable of understanding that there are rational steps which could be taken which could prevent either scenario (such as halting Muslim immigration to the west) but that summoning the political will to take those steps requires precisely what the "pop prophets" are doing - as Ms Poller points out - observing what is actually happening, understanding why it is happening and rationally addressing the most humane way of dealing with what is actually happening. Instead, Peters just freaks out. That seems a bit odd for a military officer. (I actually don't know anything about his military career but its hard to imgine the guy remaining cool under fire). As I've stated before, Peters really does appear to suffer from some variant of a moral hubris problem. Poller's description of him "stepping down from his pedestal" is right on.
It is illogical to argue at one and the same time that immigrants are being lured into Europe to do the dirty work and that they suffer from catastrophic levels of unemployment—40% in some French banlieues. Besides the fact that Europe doesn’t have enough jobs to offer, children of those who were willing to do the dirty work want more and better but don’t necessarily make any effort to obtain it. And many of them become resentful and violent.
Is it not possible that instead of being lured the "immigrants" were "sent"?
That some far sighted and more intelligent minds were at work?
the soviets tried revising history & failed at it. but their effort was mainly to convince that trotsky never existed
i take history as it comes off the presses in the press of events rather than as a later expression of the psychosis of those whose pet beliefs are negated by the original history
The point that this man argues both sides of the issue equally poorly has already been made and I agree.
I would guess that his grades in logic class (if he ever took one) were not so hot.
I can only hope that the increased furor from journalists about the web is a good sign of the effectiveness of it. Keep up the good work everyone.
This is the only reason I feel that Time hit the mark with their person of the year cop-out.
I watched a movie yesterday about the rise of Nazi Germany that Hollywood (gasp) made in the 80's. One of the points of the movie was the unwillingness of those Germans who saw problems with what was going on to rock the boat and speak up before it was too late to speak up. My German Mother-in-law is always telling me to shut up.
If I were a person with serious political ambitions, I would find a way to use this forum so much better than it is being used.