I dedicate this post to Yitzhak.

This link is taken from Mark Steyn's website, www.steynonline.com

Don't forget to click on to the link: trenchant response on Powerline.

http://thesophist.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/you-and-what-army/

The book reviewer ends with the final paragraphs:

But what strikes you most about this magnificent book is the way it makes so much recent 'popular history' look puny.It's not a question of size so much as depth.Adamson has spent his entire career as a Cambridge don  working on England in the 17th Century,and his expertise is apparent in every sentence.

The Noble Revolt is a reminder that good history cannot be dashed out in a few months or even a few years in order to coincide with a television tie-in.It takes time to simmer,develop and mature if it is to have a chance of lasting.

And,I would ask,who could possibly argue with that?

@ KA

1) ...I better ignore this...

2) In history "Amerindian peoples" have experienced varying degrees of genocide and ethnic cleansing BEFORE and AFTER European exploration and settlement.  It is contradictory for you to claim that genocide is supposed to reflect "universal behavior" and then for you to focus only on such 'cleansing' AFTER European settlement among Amerindian peoples.   In any case, you have ignored my main point, which is that it is unfair to compare 'genocides' of centuries ago with those of 10 years ago or of today.   Genocide is certainly NOT "universal behavior" in a CONTEMPORARY sense. 

3)  Peters was definitely railing against naive "pacifism", but NOT against sensible "martialism".   If he did, you would have had a point.  His excessive anti-European comments have misled you to think that he would be against "martialism".  Indeed his disdain for "armchair generals" is at least as strong as yours.  But even you should be able to recognize that genocide, ethnic cleansing, and civil war, are not sensible forms of martialism.  The latter would be reflected in a willingness to fight external enemies IN TIME (before it is too late), and in enforcing a common civic culture consistently.

4) There is certainly room for some interpretation of difficult concepts as "freedom and democray".  But your description borders on absurd deconstructionism that makes all words virtually meaningless.  And certainly European muslims should be entitled to the "same freedoms" as any other Europeans, but this does NOT require any "alteration of European democracies", at least not in their basic political and constitutional structure.  Indeed, the essence of democracy is freedom of political speech, and that is currently being undermined in some European countries by 'white elites' (admittedly partially in response to pressure from muslims, but often in persuit of narrow political/sectarian interests of these 'elites').  But the ones making the "alteration" are the white 'elites'!   Peters certainly has a point about the lack of martial vigor of these elites (and he does extend his criticism in that regard to American elites as well).  You should read his views on current social science academia in some of his writings!

5) I repeat, yes the average man (and woman!) tends to be a "follower".  And yes, the defects of 'democracy' (compared with autocracy) are well known, at least since the times of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.    But, history has shown that the alternatives are worse...and that autocracy always reverts to tyranny (if not in the time of the 'leader', certainly in that of his 'sons' or 'grandsons').

6) If the ultimate goal is the preservation of individual freedom, then society MUST be based on a common (democratic) "civic culture", not on an a purely "ethnic culture".  Admittedly, in certain times and places a common civic culture may be TEMPORARILY easier to maintain in an ethnicly homogeneous society than in a 'balkanized' society.  But history provides major empirical counter examples.  Moreover, there is the 'theoretical' argument that democracy is perhaps not so much the result of the goodwill of many individuals, but rather the result of 'diversity' in the sense of many different interest groups and 'powers' keeping each other in check. So, ultimately, this all boils down to (A) whether one beliefs naively in the 'goodness' of human nature (i.e. of human individuals generally) or in the need for countervailing powers in society, and (B) whether one wants a society which preserves individual freedom or a society in which people look alike.   

Orwell had it correct when he surmised in Nineteen Eighty-Four, a mere vehicle for his Theory of Oligarchal Collectivization, that it was the middle class that led popular revolutions against the ruling one when it became discontented. Essentially, the lower class or masses were only a tool whereby the middle could usurp the high. Indeed, every successful revolution or 'peasant' rebellion has been led by members of a disgruntled middle class e.g. by unemployed but educated men, etc.

MarcFrans: "The history of change in western civilization shows clearly that change was largely instigated by 'elites'...

Kapitein Andre: "Is this then true freedom and democracy? If elites are responsible for implementing policies...".

Slightly off topic but potentially of interest and some relevance is the news that a new book has been written by John Adamson,entitled,"The Noble Revolt"( published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson).

Here is a quote lifted from a review of the book that appeared in The Mail on Sunday,July 22,2007.

What will get professional historians girding their loins...is the way Adamson plays down the role of ordinary people in the build-up to the [English] Civil War.Previous accounts,especially those written by Marxist historians,have given far more space to grass-roots discontent up and down the country,manifesting itself in spontaneous strikes and riots against the Crown.

Adamson,by contrast,gives much more weight to the mutterings of clever and powerful men in the corners of a series of magnificent buildings including Whitehall and the Royal palaces themselves.What's more,you get the feeling that 'Noble' in the title has,for Adamson,a double meaning.These are aristocrats,yes,but they are also 'noble' in the sense of being honourable,disinterested,and acting for the public good... 

I haven't read the book myself,but I've placed an order for my personal copy this very morning.

MarcFrans: "But, then, Peters is concerned with the survival of democracy and freedom, whereas you are obsessed with race and 'whiteness'."
 

Freedom and democracy are subjective terms open to extensive scrutiny and interpretation. Secondly, these conceptions will change over time according to internal and external effects. Certainly Muslim conceptions of freedom and democracy are markedly different from Western ones. Given that for all intents and purposes European Muslims are part of European democracies and are entitled to the same freedoms as non-Muslims, it is impossible to prevent the alteration of European democracies and freedoms to reflect recent demographic changes. Freedom and democracy will survive; Western freedom and democracy may not. One cannot prevent Muslims from changing their host societies or force them to assimilate without impinging on their access to and enjoyment of freedom and democracy. Therefore, the struggle is less about abstract values than ethnicity, which involves culture, history, language, and yes, in this case race.
 

MarcFrans: "The history of change in western civilisation shows clearly that change was largely instigated by 'elites', and that the "average man" tends to be a follower. If you want change in society you will have to change the 'elite' first. It has been done many times before, and is perhaps slowly happening again (belatedly)."
 

Is this then true freedom and democracy? If elites are responsible for implementing policies and programmes associated with multiculturalism, mass immigration, etc., is this purely an ideological committment (e.g. "oikophobia"), or something more?
 

MarcFrans: "To answer your retorical question, there is no doubt that Peters recognizes Europeans' moral right "to defend themselves from...process of colonization/conquest". But like the 'good' American that he is, he will recognize that for "Europeans", not for "white people". Indeed, he will recognize it for all people in their respective cultures and countries."
 

Europeans are White. Period. While non-Whites residing in Europe may have a great deal in common with ethnic Europeans in terms of values, they can never be ethnic nationalists because nationalism is antithetical to their existence in Europe. Similarly, a White individual can learn Japanese, immigrate to Japan, eat their food, obey their laws and respect their customs, however, he or she can never be truly Japanese. Perhaps because Americans do not have a "set" ethnicity after the subjugation of the Amerindians, they are convinced that ethnic nationalism no longer applies. Unfortunately, history does not look fondly on such polyglot societies...

MarcFrans: "[Peters' comments] do, however, give an indication that (stupid) anti-Americanism in Europe is beginning to create a substantial 'residu' in the USA."

How so? And do you mean "residue"?

MarcFrans: "I agree with you that Peters calling Europe a "killer continent" is a good example of irrational bias, but I disagree with you that genocide and ethnic cleansing are "universal behavior". They certainly are not in a contemporary sense, but they did of course feature in everyplace's history if one goes far enough back in history. I do not think it is fair, on your part, to compare "treaties with Amerindian peoples" in past centuries with contemporary genocides (such as for instance in Sudan today or in Ruanda and the Balkans 10 years ago)."

Amerindian peoples throughout the Americas experienced varying degrees of ethnic cleansing and genocide during the exploration, conquest, settlement and economic exploitation or development of the continents by Western European powers. Though European settlers did not have either the manpower or resources to accomplish genocide of the magnitude seen in Rwanda or German-occupied Europe, genocide occurred through the introduction of European diseases. Naturally one can argue over whether this constitutes deliberate genocide, but given the official ethnic cleansing, etc., that did occur, this possibility cannot be discounted.

In any event there is a fine line between ethnic cleansing and genocide, which has less to do with intention than ability. It still amazes me that secondary school curriculum focuses more on the expansion of trade and commerce across Central Asia during the Mongols' rule, than it does on the millions that were massacred in Persia alone at the behest of Chingis Khan. Moreover, genocide seems to be more important than democide, as indicated by Hitler being "more evil" than Stalin, despite the latter's higher bodycount.

MarcFrans: "He [Peters] blames contemporary Europeans (and American 'intellectuals' too!) for "playing pacifist dress-up" or, if you will, for putting their heads in the sand about the reality of many nonwestern cultures."

Unfortunately, one cannot rail against both pacifism and martialism at the same time. Peters' tone when referring to ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc. (e.g. "killer" continent) indicates a healthy disdain for violence. However, peaceful co-existence with Muslims is not possible for Europeans unless they change their societies to better accommodate them, which would entail nothing short of capitulation to their every demand, no matter how ridiculous. Either Peters is prepared to back ethnic cleansing, civil war, apartheid-like policies or other acts that would infringe upon European Muslims' rights, or he is prepared to capitulate. Europe has no more need of armchair generals.

@ KA

1) Ralph Peters often makes sensible comments, and has written quite a few interesting books.  But, in this interview he has gone way 'over the top' in some of his comments.  They do, however, give an indication that (stupid) anti-Americanism in Europe is beginning to create a substantial 'residu' in the USA. 

2) I agree with you that Peters calling Europe a "killer continent" is a good example of irrational bias, but I disagree with you that genocide and ethnic cleansing are "universal behavior".  They certainly are not in a contemporary sense, but they did of course feature in everyplace's history if one goes far enough back in history.  I do not think it is fair, on your part, to compare "treaties with Amerindian peoples" in past centuries with contemporary genocides (such as for instance in Sudan today or in Ruanda and the Balkans 10 years ago).

3) It is not clear what you mean by Peters' attitudes being reponsible for helping to undermine "White societies".   He blames contemporary Europeans (and American 'intellectuals' too!) for "playing pacifist dress-up" or, if you will, for putting their heads in the sand about the reality of many nonwestern cultures. He certainly also blames them for a lack of martial spirit, and for having forgotten the "warrior's wisdom" (long story).  He no doubt agrees with one of Robert Kaplan's central theses that people who don't believe in anything wil not fight for anything, and therefore decadent societies 'disappear'.  He also no doubt recognises that so-called "universal values", (like 'caring for suffering' for instance) CAN or MAY pose an existential threat to national security WHEN accompanied by a loss of faith in one's own political values and projects.   Your charge, therefore, seems absurd at first sight.  But, then, Peters is concerned with the survival of democracy and freedom, whereas you are obsessed with race and 'whiteness'.

4) I doubt that the average man on the street's "model" is very different from that of the 'elites'.  The history of change in western civilisation shows clearly that change was largely instigated by 'elites', and that the "average man" tends to be a follower.  If you want change in society you will have to change the 'elite' first.   It has been done many times before, and is perhaps slowly happening again (belatedly).  

5) To answer your retorical question, there is no doubt that Peters recognizes Europeans' moral right "to defend themselves from...process of colonization/conquest".  But like the 'good' American that he is, he will recognize that for "Europeans", not for "white people".  Indeed, he will recognize it for all people in their respective cultures and countries.       

Ralph Peters: "...sufficiently threatened, they'll [Europeans] revert to their historical pattern – which is to over-react."

This is not a specifically European tendency. Rarely do groups deliberately change course incrementally over time and in a reasonable manner; rather, groups are fickle, as indeed are individuals.

Ralph Peters: "Europe's Muslims may prove to be the real endangered species; after all, Europe's history of dealing with rejected minorities veers between genocide and, for the lucky, ethnic cleansing."

I agree with the first part. The second again is virtually universal behavior.

Ralph Peters: "For me, the question isn't whether Muslims will take over Europe, but whether Europe will simply expel them or kill any number of them first. Sound far-fetched? How would the Holocaust have sounded to an educated German (or Brit, or American) in 1932? Europe is a killer continent. When the chips are down, it will kill again."

Again, I fail to understand why Europe is a "killer continent." I suppose Africans resolve their ethnic, racial, national and cultural differences through dialogue and White North Americans resorted to ironclad legal treaties to outline their relationship with the Amerindian peoples. Nor is any continent "killer." If Europe is anything, it has traditionally been "fit" in the Social Darwinian sense. Attitudes like Peters' towards "fitness" or "self-defense" or "breaking a few eggs to make an omelette" are in part responsible for the contemporary weakness of White societies to compete in any manner other than economically.

Ralph Peters: "Meanwhile, Europe's Muslims are behaving so stupidly that their folly can't be measured with any tools at our disposal. Even as British pols pander to radical clerics, the average Brit has had enough of coddling mullahs who preach the destruction of all non-Muslims (and closing the pubs). In mid-July, in Germany, the major organizations representing the millions of Turkish residents refused to come to a conference held by the chancellor to address integration. The Turkish leaders demanded – demanded – that the German parliament first rescind a new immigration law that would have prevented Turks from importing child-brides, isolating them as virtual prisoners and beating them to death. Oh, and the Germans also wanted new immigrants to have a vocabulary of 300 German words upon arrival – just enough to say, "Help, husband killing me." No self-respecting Turk was going to stand for that."

Agreed.

Ralph Peters: "You get the point. Europe has never had a model for integrating non-white immigrants, and they don't really want one. Meanwhile, from Denmark to Marseilles, Muslim residents make outrageous demands that only anger the average voter. Eurabia? You have a better chance of finding honest lobbyists in Washington than you do of seeing the crescent over the spires of Notre Dame."

Some of the European elite does want such a model; fortunately, the average man-on-the-street has other ideas. It would be interesting to know Mr. Peters' stance on whether Europeans morally have the right to defend themselves from this process of colonization/conquest.

You appear to have some knowledge about the forthcoming conflagration in Europe that most lesser mortals clearly lack.Kindly elucidate:

1) Why will the next war in Europe be about territory?

2)Why will it affect Britain and Holland in particular?

3) Where (in your opinion) are these 'safe havens' of which you speak?

(Sorry,forgot to include this).

It's true that you have guns and we don't.But you,the American people,have something just as potent in your arsenal.And that something is,believe it or not,the Mexican Constitution.

http://www.vdare.com/awall/070516_memo.htm

USE IT !!!

Here are a couple of links you might find of interest.

www.vdare.com/awall/raoul.htm

and

www.vdare.com/awall/060216_admission.htm

Remember the Alamo! (Battle lost,war won).

I don't know why people keep talking about the necessity of having guns, or of rounding up Muslims and deporting them. I think the next war in Europe (and it will be about territory - especially in Britain and Holland) will be fought by non-uniformed Europeans the same way Muslims fight - with home-made bombs, rope and knife guerilla tactics, kidnappings, and people just disappearing in the night. Most of the people just disappearing into the night will be the European elite hurrying away from the horror which they have caused - hurrying to the safe havens which they, even now, have set up for themselves.

I've been thinking along the same lines as Mr. Green. Europe will react historically and hysterically and end up either rounding up Muslims to kill them or deport them. I can just hear the umbrage of the American Left, reacting to this with demands for special government protection for Muslims in America, making our own measures to combat Islam here more difficult. Does this also mean that there will be a huge influx of Muslim refugees wanting to escape to America? Joy. Depending on who is elected President we may just end up with Europe's problems.

If Europe ends up in a civil war (and yes, how will they do so since the people are not armed?) does that mean America will be smuggling weapons to them? Again, depends on who is elected President.

Just musing.

This is indeed the price the occident has to pay for his permissiveness. Although one can understand that they have some moral guilt caused by their last 2 wars (amongst other reasons), the excess of permissiveness is killing democracy.
On the other hand, it's hard to understand why the UN and other international groups like f.i. Amnesty and other Human Rights Watch are not reacting on those who are using innocent people as living shields or, worse,  forcing minor youngsters to combat or commit suicide bombings. Why are the responsible political and/or religious leaders, well known by everyone, not prosecuted  and brought to the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court ?.
Whether it involves politics or religion, it does in no way justify the killing of the innocent.
If you hear the president of Turkmenistan claiming officially that he got direct advice from his God to behave like he does, then it's more than time to put such fools in asylums.

Any way you think about it, Europe will end up in a war for Western (Christian) territory - beit initialised by a woken up Europe, beit by an America threatened by an Islamised Europe. In both cases the US may be involved, since it is very likely that a woken up Europe will need the US for assistance.

The US, now maybe thinking "never" will however not (much) hesitate in this assistance. They should however, in both cases, demand that Europe be involved in an renewed transatlantic Treaty in which the US's influence be far bigger than now.

I expect war on this issue in the second half of the 21st century.

I don't think Mr. Belien has changed his mind so much as he may have recognised Mr. Peters rant for what it is:

It an old fashioned 'kick in the pants' to wake Europe up by pissing them off.

I'm perplexed.

http://politicscentral.com/2006/11/28/eurabia_is_real_enough_unfortu.php

Has Paul changed his mind?

I think Peters is right that Europe will have civil war(s).  While many Europeans (especially the politicians) are williingly and submissively allowing their countries to become Islamic, there are indeed many who will not be so obliging.  He believes that Europe will win.  Me?  I am not so sure.

@Atlanticist911 you are quite right about America's illegal Mexican problem.  As I sit here in the thick of it here in Texas, I can tell you that this issue more than any other, has the potential of creating our own civil war. 

All I can say is...we have a better chance of winning ours rather than you winning yours.  Why?

We have guns. 

Peter Robinson put it best (see: "Mr Steyn,Meets Mr Peters"- corner.nationalreview.com - Sunday,November 26,2006),when he wrote:

...I incline very heavily toward the view of Mark Steyn,for a couple of reasons: 1)When Europe roused itself in centuries past,it did so as a continent of BELIEF.What we have before us now is post-Christian Europe,and for that matter,a post-pagan Europe,a Europe that doesn't believe much of anything except its own comfort.Can Europe find its way back to belief? That's certainly the question Benedict XVI is asking.I'm just not sure - and in the meantime,Europe lacks the sustaining convictions it would need to reassert itself. 2) If there is such a thing as a civilizational tipping point,then at least certain countries have already passed it.The French population is already ten percent Muslim.Does Peters - does anyone - actually think that the French are about to expel or otherwise reject some six million people who are,in law if not in culture or outlook,Frenchmen? ...

And I would add that if Peters thinks they are,then he needs to take a serious look at the reasons why his own government is failing to adopt a similar policy with regard to the ILLEGAL Mexican immigrants in his own country.