"Eurabia" and "German NeoNazis and the Taliban in Iraq"
Posted by Joerg Wolf in Transatlantic Relations on Wednesday, January 24. 2007
The Chicagoboyz' James McCormick has written a detailed book review with many quotes from the book, including this one:
Two forces are facing off on the European continent: on the one side, the modern social-democratic state that the American left thinks should be our model; on the other, the resurgent Islam that the American Left insists is just a scam cooked up by Karl Rove. We now have an excellent opportunity to test both propositions. How bad is it going to get in Europe? As bad as it can get — as in societal collapse, fascistic revivalism, and then the long Eurabian night, not over the entire Continent but over significant parts of it. And those countries that manage to escape the darkness will do so only after violent convulsions of their own.[p.104]The best-selling author Ralph Peters disagrees, but has a distorted view of Europe nonetheless: According to him, Islamic fundamentalists will not conquer Europe. Rather Europeans will practice genocide or ethnic cleansing. Muslims are an "endangered species," he opines:
A quote from his "The Eurabia Myth" article in The NY Post:
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. The endangered species isn't the "peace loving" European lolling in his or her welfare state, but the continent's Muslims immigrants - and their multi-generation descendents - who were foolish enough to imagine that Europeans would share their toys. In fact, Muslims are hardly welcome to pick up the trash on Europe's playgrounds. Don't let Europe's current round of playing pacifist dress-up fool you: This is the continent that perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing, the happy-go-lucky slice of humanity that brought us such recent hits as the Holocaust and Srebrenica.In an article titled "Europe's End: Not with Bang but a Whimper", the American Thinker writes about the "debate" between Steyn and Peters.
Related post in the Atlantic Review: "US Prophets of Europe's Doom are Half Wrong"
• Discovered via Google Alerts: ShelleyTheRepublican.com blogs about "Germany Today : A cry for help : Nazis on the rise (Gate to Hell / Seeking World Domination : Germany (Part 3))":
We must petition the US-government to include Germany in the war against terror. If you still don’t think that Germany is extremely dangerous, please watch this movie, it might open your eyes (careful it’s very graphic): Click here! There is not difference between German NeoNazis and the taliban in Iraq. We can not allow yourselves to stop before we finally get rid o the Nazi terror. Let’s finish the job, once and for all, for the good of mankind.The above mentioned movie is an old American newsreel about German concentration camps during the Holocaust and World War II. It is definitely worth watching. I just don't understand why this movie is supposed to suggest that today's Germany is "extremely dangerous" and why it indicates that there is not any "difference between German NeoNazis and the taliban in Iraq." (Actually, there are millions of "taliban" in Germany as well, but they are better known as "Studenten," which is the German word for "taliban." The English word for "taliban" is "students.")
I guess, this and parts of the debate on "Eurabia" are the equivalent of Anti-Americanism. How shall we call it? Anti-Europeanism, Eurobashing? Or do I just fail to understand the "humor"?
Shelley's blog has 1000-1800 visits per day according to Sitemeter, i.e. it is too insignificant to be taken seriously. What about the more popular myths regarding "Eurabia" and Peters' exaggerations? Shall I stop writing about it, because there is a lot of Anti-Americanism in Europe?
Let's end on a positive note: Sam Bauman writes in The Nevada Appeal about A Thanksgiving that had a surprising Germanic finale: "We all have memories of Thanksgivings past, and my favorite is of a Thanksgiving we celebrated in Germany in my wife's hometown of Darmstadt." (I had planned to post all this soon after Thanksgiving, but got distracted by more important stories.)
UPDATE: Our reader Wintermute proved that Shelley is a satirical site:
The (now removed) "meaning and purpose" page of Shelley:I need to get better in understanding humor.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060513220157/http://shelleytherepublican.com/meaning-and-purpose.html
Quote:
---ShelleyTheRepublican.com is a satirical entertainment web site. "Shelley"* and her friends are fictional characters (*created 1999). Shelley's opinions are an amalgam of many of the right-wing pundits who are frequently featured on conservative TV and talk-radio.---
Is the talk about "Eurabia" humor, as well? Are Steyn and Peters comedians?
Suddenly, I don't know anymore what is serious and what is satire... :-)
Welcome! You are reading the ATLANTIC REVIEW -- a Press Digest on Transatlantic Relations combined with commentary and analysis by four young professionals from Germany, the Netherlands and the United States. More about us.
The horizontal menu bar at the top helps to navigate this site.
Subscribe to one of our RSS-Feeds or to our newsletter, which is emailed twice per month.A few postscript thoughts:
1.) Some have said that harsh US reactions to Europe are just "payback" for Anti-Americanism. Well, I don't think the Eurabia articles and books are a direct response to European Anti-Americanism, but rather are an exploitation of a lack of knowledge about Europe in order to make money.
(Some European Anti-Americanism is the result of such a motivation as well.)
2.) While Steyn and Peters disagree about the outcome of this alleged "clash of civilizations," they both believe that such a clash is very bloody and happening in Europe. I guess, most Europeans disagree that any alleged clash would be a major problem.
"Of the 456m people of the EU, just 15m to 16m are Muslim."
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/452-Financial-Times-US-Prophets-of-Europes-Doom-are-Half-Wrong.html
So even if there were a militant clash (as Peters and Steyn assume), the numbers speak for themselves regarding the outcome. Though, there is no such clash; "clash" as in the sense of Peters and Steyn.
See Chicago Boyz: "The future doesn’t belong to Islam, thank you very much
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/004543.html
3.) Shelley The Republican writes in another post:
http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/2006/09/30/gate-to-hell-seeking-world-domination-germany-part-2.aspx
"Germany already started two world wars and they are the ones going to start the 3rd one, too! Germans have the “killer instinct”, they are what you call “Natural Born Killers”."
Okay, I guess, we should not invest more in our military, although the US government often tells us to do so. Rather we should become pacifists, so that folks like Shelley don't have to worry.
Or am I misreading Shelley The Republican? Is it a blog to demonize and ridicule Republicans?
Is the entire blog satire?
I did not have the time to read much on this blog.
The blog also displays the Rapture Index...
Well, millions (?) of Americans believe in rapture... Thus it is really difficult for a "humor impaired" guy like me to make sense of it.
What do you think about all this?
What do I fail to understand?
Peters has "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. After all, we were the only ones to do anything about the slaughter of Muslims in the Balkans."
This guy is an ignorant dumbass. As much as Mark Steyn. Nothing less.
According to this site Shelley is indeed a satirical website:
http://www.blick.ch/sonntagsblick/medien/artikel36436
Also, the Internet Archive offers you the chance to find the (now removed) "meaning and purpose" page of Shelley:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060513220157/http://shelleytherepublican.com/meaning-and-purpose.html
Quote:
---ShelleyTheRepublican.com is a satirical entertainment web site. "Shelley"* and her friends are fictional characters (*created 1999). Shelley's opinions are an amalgam of many of the right-wing pundits who are frequently featured on conservative TV and talk-radio.---
Searching the Internet Archive was a great idea.
Thanks. I appreciate that.
I have written an update.
Mark Steyn, hmmm. I think Steyn and Peters aren't actually different views but different endings writting to the same tale. Steyn believes that Europeans are surrender-monkeys and will collapse when resurgent Islam gives them the push. Peters views Europeans as wolves in sheep's clothing who will respond carniverously when resurgent Islam gives them the push.
Personally I find Peter's vision more convincing because I remember that the pacifists of the 30's who turned into the WWII generation. Soft words are not the same as core values.
But..... There is another question the answer to which both Steyn and Peters assume without examining at much depth: Will a resurgent Islam try to give 'Europe' the push? Or wiil 'Europe' attempt (and succeed) in efforts to assimilate the Islamic immigrants - and in turn assimilate to Islamic values to some degree. What I'm talking about is not becoming 'dhimmi' but rather whether Europe will allow itself to learn from the strong moral values of Islam - and emerge the better for the experience?
I don't pretend to know the answer. It doesn't appear promising when one views the news, but let's remember that news is heavily tilted to the negative. We hear about the 4 young Muslims from Leeds who killed 50 Londoners on 7/7 and the trial of the 7/21 bombers, but not about the thousands of young Brit Muslims who looked at that vision and seem to have turned away.
Just a quick thought that popped up in my mind: It is often told that many Turkish immigrants go back to Turkey to find a "proper" wife for their son (actually, there´s one example for this I know from personal experience). The reason given is that Turkish women who´ve grown up in Germany are perceived as so "Westernized" that they wouldn´t make good wives any more...
This is often cited as an example for the unwillingness of Muslims to integrate, and for their contempt for "us".
To me, it seems to indicate that Western values are "contagious".
Or, I just thought of Jill Caroll´s story (the girl who was kidnapped in Iraq): Isn´t it a bad sign for radical Islam, when even your most loyal Jihadis are crazy about Tom&Jerry, and some of them secretly yearn for MTV? I mean, considering the alternative (the Koran channel, I kid you not), I´m not really surprised...
That´s why I´m very optimistic about this so-called "clash" of cultures. It´s just not an even match-up. Resistance is futile ;-)
Personally I expect the muslims to become assimilated. Not those that came here but the first and the second generation that was born here will slowly.
And by assimilation I don´t mean they are going to turn away from islam. It simply means they will adopt german virtues - and why is that? It is because if you want to be successful in a society, you have to adopt to its requirements. In the end, the majority of them will consider this country to be their home and will feel german, although it might take a few generations of melting with the natives until they are recognized as such by ordinary germans.
The vision of Ralph Peters seems too dark to me, although it would be a logical consequence if the muslims don´t adopt to our culture. It would only be imaginable if both cultures exist next to each other for decades until the pressure leads to an explosion.
I expect the majorities of our peoples to influence our politics in a way that it interferes a lot earlier. In bavaria for example, female muslim teachers are no longer allowed to wear headscarfes. Such symbolic interferences show that we are expecting them to become like us and we will proceed accordingly.
Ralph Peters, author of books like "New Glory: Expanding America’s Global Supremacy" or articles like "The Atlantic Century" and "Dude, Where's My Civil War?" - really a profound expert!
In 2003, the Franfurter Allgemeine Zeitung published a worth reading article of him dealing with Germany's and France's decision not to support the Iraq war. The title: "Hitler war wenigstens ehrlich. Ihr widert uns an: Die Amerikaner sind mit den Deutschen fertig." [Hitler was honest at least. You're nauseating. Americans are fed up with the Germans.]
You find the original English article here: http://tinyurl.com/ywdguk
I like especially the last paragraph:
"We are finished with your delight in weeping over past holocausts while you remain unwilling to act to prevent or interrupt new holocausts. Srebrenica is the European model. Baghdad is ours. President Bush is a Texan, as Europeans never fail to remind us. But the intelligence services of France and Germany seem to have failed to understand the character of Texans. They don't speak artfully, but they act resolutely. They aren't relativists. Texans believe there is a difference between right and wrong. And when you insult a Texan to his face while betraying his trust, he is not going to take it kindly. Confronting a Texan in public is always ill-advised, unless you intend to fight it out to the end--and have the means to do so. Texans don't even care where Europe is on the map. We Americans are all Texans now. You have left us no choice."
As a contrast to Peters' absurd idea of a future genocide in Europe, Henryk M. Broder, a typical "pro-American" German journalists, wrote about "The West and Islam "Hurray! We're Capitulating!": http://tinyurl.com/2dc3rn
He is representative for political views and ideas Germans are faced when it comes to "Anti-Americanism". So when you hear something like growing "Anti-Americanism" in Germany, especially German media, you're typically dealing with someone who doesn't subscribe to Broder's point of view. I guess more than half of the US blogosphere is "anti-American" according to this definition...
The likes of Ralph Peters are a sad reminder that anti-Europeism (and as part of it, anti-Germanism) is alive and kicking in the US, contrary to what some people try to tell us.
I'm always again surprised how many people who rightly claim that anti-Americansim is a problem and must be addressed merrily cheer on idiots like Peters. Why the desperate need to find excuses like "It's only a reaction..." ?
I don't give a damn what the reason is - whether his hatred is genuine, or he's just "reacting", or he's just plain retarded. Either way there's no reason to take this kind of bullshit.
He's no idiot Fuchur - and Europe has earned many Ralph Peter's and Mark Steyns with the actions of the past decade.
I even agree with Peters on this partuicular question, although I'm far more hopeful than he seems to be that it won't come to that.
I fail to see how saying that if in the European situation push comes to shove the Europeans will win and win big is anti-European? Clue me in on that please?
Ummm - one more thing. This assimilation thing? Time to get to work. There is little visible sign of it in France or Germany unless you count car-b-ques in France and lack of Turkish advances in Germany as progress.
"There is little visible sign of it in France or Germany unless you count car-b-ques in France and lack of Turkish advances in Germany as progress."
I guess, "car-b-ques in France" stands for inner-city youth rioting.
First, have a look at Fuchur's comment about your understanding of Europe.
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/563-How-Widespread-is-Anti-Americanism.html#c6352
Second, Paris is just one city in Europe. Wanna compare the number of riots in Europe with those in the US?
Wanna compare the number of car-b-ques in Paris with those in Los Angeles?
Or in general the amount of crime?
Give me some numbers, if you want to have a serious discussion.
Regarding "assimilation" (or rather "integration") and your allegations of "lack of Turkish advances in Germany":
It seems you read too much Davids Medienkritik.
They wrote:
"Quick: name any three top politicians in Germany with an immigration background*! Or: name any Muslim top politician in Germany!
Anyone? Hello??
Where's the victory against apartheid, racism and religious discrimination in Germany?
(* Of course, immigration from the Netherlands, France, and other Western European countries doesn't count here.)"
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2007/01/welt_detects_ap.html
Don, do you notice the Medienkritik propaganda?
Eleven members of the German parliament have an immigrant background.
There are currently three Muslims in the German Bundestag.
http://www.bundestag.de/mdb/mdb_zahlen/religion.html
Nobody made a big deal out of it.
The Republican representative from Virginia Virgil Goode made a huge fuss, when Americans elected the first Muslim to the House of Representatives.
While there is only one Muslim in the entire US Congress, there are at least three Muslims in the German Bundestag.
Besides, nearly a third of the Bundestag's members have not stated their religion (if they have any), since it is a private affair.
I had a quick look at the names of the Bundestag members. Four names sounded Turkish and indeed all of them were born in Turkey:
Dr. Lale Akgün, SPD
http://www.bundestag.de/mdb/bio/A/akguela0.html
She was even elected directly (Direktmandat) rather than via Landesliste.
Ekin Deligöz, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN
http://www.bundestag.de/mdb/bio/D/deligek0.html
Prof. Dr. Hakki Keskin, DIE LINKE.
http://www.bundestag.de/mdb/bio/K/keskiha0.html
Hüseyin-Kenan Aydin, DIE LINKE.
http://www.bundestag.de/mdb/bio/A/aydinhu0.html
And one parliamentarian was born in Tehran:
Omid Nouripour, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN
http://www.bundestag.de/mdb/bio/N/nouriom0.html
Was just a quick look based on the names. I have probably missed some parliamentarians with an immigrant background.
Ah, a commentator at Medienkritik linked to Das Parlament, Nr. 03 2007, 15.01.2007 - Was ist an mir exotisch?
"Nouripour ist einer von elf Abgeordneten mit Migrationshintergrund im Deutschen Bundestag. In den Reihen der Grünen im Parlament sitzen neben Nouripour die türkischstämmige Ekin Deligöz, die im Herbst muslimische Frauen in Deutschland zum Ablegen des Kopftuchs aufgefordert hatte, und der migrationspolitische Sprecher der Fraktion, Josef Philip Winkler. Winklers Mutter stammt aus dem indischen Bundesstaat Kerala. Er selbst ist Katholik und wurde 1974 in Koblenz geboren. Ebenfalls zu den Migranten zählen muss man Jerzy Montag, der als Zehnjähriger mit seinen Eltern 1957 seine polnische Heimatstadt Kattowitz verließ und dann in Mannheim zur Schule ging. Er ist rechtspolitischer Sprecher der grünen Fraktion."
http://www.das-parlament.de/2007/03/Thema/005.html
The article says that there are eleven members of parliament with an immigrant background, incl.
Josef Philip Winkler with an Indian mother,
Jerzy Montag, who was born in Poland
Josip Juratovic, wo moved from Croatia to Germany in 1974
Sebastian Edathy with some Indian background (Don't know what that means exactly)
Michaela Noll has an Iranian father and is the only member of the Christian Democrats with a migrant background.
Sevim Dağdelen has Turkish parents.
Significant Muslim populations have been living in the United States for about a hundred years, i.e. much longer than in Germany, where the first large wave of Muslim immigrants arrived in the 60s or 70s. Yet, only two weeks ago, the first Muslim was elected to the House of Representatives. And he was greeted by a bigot like Virgil Goode.
Besides, Representative Keith Ellison is not even an immigrant, but a convert to Islam. Would Americans elect a a Muslim immigrant into the House or the Senate?
In the US Congress: The "Covenant Alliances" has a reception for Christian and Jewish Leaders in the Rayburn House Office Building on February 14, 2007 to celebrate the newly established "Congressional Israel Allies Caucus of the United States Congress" and to "discuss the future direction of this body in cooperation with the Knesset Christian Allies Caucus of the Israeli Parliament.""
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001898.php
In the business field, however, I think you are right, it's very difficult for immigrants to advance in Germany.
Though, social mobility is declining in the US as well.
There were 21,000+ cases of arson of vehicles in the US last year according to the United States Firemen's Association. Which resulted in $644 million+ in costs. Now France is interesting because there doesn't seem to be any publicly available source from vehicle arson other than unsourced or quotes from various governemt functinaries in publicly available news sources. Over 8,000+ cars were torched during the 30+ days of rioting in France in 2005, obviously an outlier.
However the office of the Mayor of Paris, when asking for calm on the streets in late December, 2005, claimed that the normal toll was 80-90 a night. Which if one takes into account the whole year would result in some 29,000+ cars being deliberately burned in Paris alone. The population discrepancies between the two countries would indicate that vehicle arson in France is some 5 1/2 times greater.
If someone can point me toward different statistics it would be greatly appreciated.
"He's no idiot"
Well, he's giving a really good impression.
"Europe has earned many Ralph Peter's"
As I said: I fail to see your point. Maybe I'm not being nuanced enough, but in my unsophisticated black-and-white world view a lie is a lie. Your logic is like this:
"2+2=3." "But that's wrong?!" "So what. You deserved it."
Apart from that, I don't quite see what exactly I have done to have supposedly "earned" it to be smeared as a Nazi by Mr Peters.
"I fail to see how saying that if in the European situation push comes to shove the Europeans will win and win big is anti-European?"
Let's keep this above kindergarten level, please. We are both able to read, so what's the point of this nonsense? You know as well as I that what he really writes is that sooner or later, Europeans will tick out again, and commit a huge genocide amongst European muslims.
Frankly, if you're not willing to admit that this notion has a somewhat anti-European touch to it, then I don't see much point in a discussion.
Bottom line is: Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Whatever we do, we'll either be spineless dhimmis, or genocidal Nazis.
Fuckur,
I have only read the reviews and the discussion these two books have created. I have not read either book. What I have read I do not consider either to be anti- anything.
I viewed them no different than the rash of books which were published a few years ago about how Europe would eclipse the US in the 21st Century by the likes of Reid, Rifkin and Ash. I did not view Reid, Rifkin and Ash books as being anti-American but only their opinions. Their books were even less supported by fact than what Styen and Peters have written. I am not sure if you have an opinion on these books or not.
Steyn and Peters thesis is built on two premises. The first is the declining birth rate of Western Europeans. The second is the inability of muslins to integrate and assimilate into the current dominates European culture. Both of these are observed facts.
The only area of disagreement is what the likely outcome is if these trends continue. As Don pointed out there are really only two – to surrender or to fight. I personally would hope you would fight for I would think for many Europeans their culture is worth fighting for. Equally if you were to choose to fight, I do not believe your actions would be related to the Nazis. You would be repelling an attacker even if that attacker was home grown. In fact, I would say these actions would be viewed more as resistance to an ideology which is being imposed on the population than some genocide undertaking.
Yet in one sense there is little difference between what Steyn and Peters have written, Steyn being the more analytical of the two. Steyn sees native Europeans being divided into 3 groups – those who will leave, those who will care less and either convert to Islam or find a way to get along and finally those who will fight. These groups are forming now. The Dutch and others are leaving. Many Europeans are converting to Islam and there are more calls from the elites to embrace multiculturalism. Finally there are those who are calling for resistance such as Le Pen in france. Where Steyn and Peters differ is Peters thinks you will win and Steyn is not sure.
Two observations. Don and I differ as he thinks Peters outcome is more likely than Steyn’s. I view Steyn to be more correct if either one is.
The other observation is the one you posted about returning to Turkey to get a proper wife. Using your point of view it would seem Turkish women are more willing to assimilate than Turkish males. You view that as positive and a rejection of the belief that Turks are not assimilating and integrating into German culture. I would differ with you on that assessment.
My own personal experience with two first generation Turkish males is they both married American Protestants. Their wives have not converted to Islam and neither have any of their children. I realize this is not significant but what does occur is the majority of second generation immigrants in the US marry native Americans and not other immigrants. This does not seem to be true in Germany.
"The first is the declining birth rate of Western Europeans. The second is the inability of muslins to integrate and assimilate into the current dominates European culture."
Climate change theories are built on similar premises and yet you do not believe in them, if I am not mistaken.
I do not believe I stated whether I thought if either Steyn or Peters were correct in the premises they used. To be honest I am ambivlant as to whether they are correct or not.
It would appear by your comment you do not believe Steyn and Peters premises either. At this point, I am not sure if it matters or is even important if they are correct or not.
And no I do not happen to believe the models being used to predict climate change.
joe, if you want to engage in a debate, learn some manners first...
"The other observation is the one you posted about returning to Turkey to get a proper wife. Using your point of view it would seem Turkish women are more willing to assimilate than Turkish males. You view that as positive and a rejection of the belief that Turks are not assimilating and integrating into German culture. I would differ with you on that assessment."
Not necessarily, joe. The 'traditional' Turkish males may be exceptions rather than the rule, or they may have other problems which interfere with romance. Perhaps the second-generation Turkish f=women are marrying Germans.
There is an occasional story in the UK about muslim women raised in the UK forced to go back to the old country (Pakistan often) and marry a cousin or something. Sometimes the goal seems to be to get another family member into the UK, sometimes it is to 'save' the woman from leaving the community. It's a fairly rare happening or so I gather.
Fuchur,
There is a strong element of payback in what Peters writes, but I doubt if many of his readers takes it as a prediction of the future.
A lot of what Peters writes is simple fact. For all the ragging the US gets about the fate of the American Indian and the negro slave - it's nothing compared to things we can clearly see in European history. Recent European history at that.
Post 1945 Europe tried to change history - and succeeded to some degree. I doubt the Holocaust could happen in today's Europe. What Steyn and Peters write about is something different - a potential religious civil war across much of Europe.
I think the next big challenge for Europe is not deeper union - it is integrating the Muslims into European life. Now they are mostly outsiders. Partially by their own choice but much more by the choice of the society in many countries.
Yet - I don't see that realisation across Europe - not even from the (so-called) best and brightest. They are still blaming the US for their troubles. All their troubles, often enough. Keep this up and you may well prove Messiers Steyn or Peters correct after all.
(Sorry, my internet provider was down... Hm, this thread is getting rather chaotic...)
I'd like to point out that I don't consider Steyn anti-German, although I'm not a particular fan of him. In any case, I don't know much of his writings.
The reason why I characterize Peters as anti-German/European is not so much his theory. In fact, if history teaches us anything, then it is that humans are capable of unbelievable cruelty. So, clearly, we cannot rule out the possibility of a future genocide in Europe (or anywhere else in this world).
My characterization of Peters is based upon the old WaPo article that Axel linked to above (basically saying that Germans opposing to the Iraq war reveals that they're still Nazis), and the phony argumentation he uses in the NY Post article. I don't want to start fisking it (because it would become way too long), but there are so many factual errors that I don't know where to start. For example, Le Pen is right wing, but to even liken him to the KKK is just idiotic (how many Muslims have been lynched recently in France?).
What's just as bad: he constantly presents opinions and assumptions as facts, without providing even a shred of evidence. Actually, the only instances where he relies on facts are his history musings. But I guess we agree that anybody who cites Jerusalem 1099 and Spain 1492 as sure signs for an upcoming genocide against Muslims simply is not eligible for serious debate?!
And the gall to present Yugoslavija as "proof" for the barbarous nature of "Europeans"! Conveniently ignoring the fact that to this day, also German and other European soldiers are down there, PREVENTING a new genocide.
To sum it up: If somebody claims that he sees the danger of an upcoming genocide in Europe, then I have no problem with that, and I'll listen to his arguments very interestedly. HOWEVER: If somebody, as Peters does, merely claims that there will be a genocide, because that's just European nature - than that reveals a degree of vileness and prejudice that I haven't witnessed in a long time.
"For example, Le Pen is right wing, but to even liken him to the KKK is just idiotic (how many Muslims have been lynched recently in France?)."
How many anyones have been lynched recently in the US? None since 1945 I believe - or perhaps the early 50's. I'm not quite sure.
Comparing Le Pen to David Duke (ex KKK I believe) is closer to the mark.
Don, there have been very few lynchings since WW II, but they have happened. James Byrd, Jr. comes to mind, or Michael Donald.
"Don, there have been very few lynchings since WW II, but they have happened. James Byrd, Jr. comes to mind, or Michael Donald."
If you count James Byrd as a lynching then Europe has them also. There were two 'lynchings' of that kind in Telford in the UK earlier this decade. Literal lynchings, not a dragging like James Byrd was. An Uncle and a nephew were the victims about a year apart. The case still isn't resolved, BTW. Seems to me I've heard about a case or two in France over the past 15 years, not counting the occasional kidnap/torture/murder of a jew....
"If you count James Byrd as a lynching then Europe has them also."
Sure, who claimed that Europe doesn't have problems with racists?
Don, your whole point is off the mark. The Klan is dead. The few weirdos that attempt to revive it today are irrelevant.
So, when Peters claims that Le Pen's party "makes the Ku Klux Klan seem like Human Rights Watch", then it's obvious that he refers to the original Klan. And I stand by what I've said: Comparing Le Pen's party with the Klan is ludicrous. One is a political party that's still within the bounds of the democratic process - the other one was a murderous criminal association.
Which original Klan, Fuchur? There actually have been two organisations calling themselves the Ku Klux Klan, if not three. The fist was founded in 1867 as a reaction to the loss of political power among the South's former elites after the Civil War. It was disbanded by it's founder in 1871 or 72. The second organisation was founded during the 1920's as a nativist organisation more reminescent of the Know-Nothings than the original Klan. T%at organisation has a kind of continuity with the present.
I think that Le Pen can legitimately compared with David Duke - save that Le Pen seems a lot more dangerous than Duke does.
Mhm, you're right of course, but again: I think that's not really the point.
My statement "the Klan is dead" was based on this statistic of estimated members (from Wikipedia):
year membership
1920 4,000,000
1924 6,000,000
1930 30,000
1970 2,000
2000 3,000
I would argue that there is no real continuity. Ever since the 30s, the Klan simply isn't any more what it once was.
Anyway, my point is: If you mention the KKK, then people think of guys in white with funny masks who harass and kill black people, i.e. they think of the first or second Klan, a powerful and dangerous organization that's responsible for all kinds of disgusting crimes up to murder. That's what "the KKK" stands for.
You cannot wiggle out by saying: Oh, Peters surely didn't mean that - he probably was talking about people like David Duke. I agree: a comparison between Duke and Le Pen I deem adequate. But this is NOT what Peters did, and actually this is exemplary for his dishonest and misleading style.
By that standard, one could also say something like "Le Pen's party makes the Nazis seem like Humans' Rights Watch" - and then claim: "No, no, I didn't mean the Holocaust and WWII - I was just talking about people like Horst Mahler..."
I'm sort of torn between things, Fuchur. I think Europe has it's bright side and it's dark side. Actually humanity has it's bright side and it's dark side, but we're talking about Ralph Peters essays here - so Europe it is.
I sorta agree with him in that I think the dark side hasn't been completely banished. It could happen. But economic and social conditions would have to change so much for it to become possible.... Can conditions change that much? Clearly yes. WWI provided those conditions once already. Was the situation in (say) 1934 a reasonable extrapolation from the situation viewed in 1880 or 1900? I would strongly argue not. Yet it happened.
Again we come to the element of payback however. I've heard and read any number of strongly-phrased essays from European (particularly German) sources arguing that George Bush's America is the next incarnation of the Third Reich (or is liekly to develop into such). Ralph Peters has obviously read those same essays and taken them even more to heart than I have - and responded in kind. I'd say that his essay was and is better-reasoned than most such idiocies. But (in my view) no more likely to come to fruition.
It was in fact an attack aimed particularly at Germany I would agree. But understand that it is return fire. Peters isn't anti-German in the same way that many Germans seem to be anti-American.
No. Peters is exasperated and what we call 'pissed-off'.
As I said before, I'm pretty much with you: I don't think that the possibility of a future genodice in Europe can be completely ruled out, and I don't think that discussing the possibility is "out of bounds".
What I criticize about Peters is that the premise of his article basically is that Europeans are a particularly mean breed of human beings that will turn into genocidal monsters when they would have to share their toys. If you do not consider that notion anti-European, then I guess we'll just have to disagree ;-) ...
Concerning "payback", I've already said above that I don't really understand the whole idea. When somebody writes nonsense, then I'll call him an idiot - regardless of any possible underlying reasons that might have compelled him to do so.
Apart from that, it shows a strange monolithic view of Europe: The amount of vicious criticism and "anti-Americanism" coming from Europe is hardly worse than the one coming from America itself - but somehow, America is granted the "right" to have a loony left. On the other hand, all of Europe seems to be responsible whenever one deranged article appears.
And it's always "payback" for something. Isn't much of the anti-Americanism just a "response" to Bush's "terrible" politics? Don't these people have the same right as Peters to be "pissed off"? These kind of chicken-egg discussions lead nowhere.
In any case, I don't feel any moral responsibility at all to simply accept to be called a Nazi by Peters. I regularly speak up against anti-Americanism - and when I myself am attacked, I should just sit back and think "Oh, poor guy, he's probably just angry"? I don't think so.
Joerg,
This fellow doesn't count? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Abourezk
Before there can be a discussion some terms need to be defined.
I see Jorg used the term “significant”. My definition of “significant” in the context being used would be “fairly large”.
Jorg before commenting I would like for you to define what you mean when you use the word “significant”.
I don't know how many Muslim immigrants there are in the US.
I thought many Muslims from the Arab world and from Turkey moved to the US many decades before the "guestworkers" moved to Germany.
Since the US being the land of immigration and does a much better job of integrating immigrants than Germany, I thought a Muslim would have made it into Congress a bit earlier.
Besides, many Black Americans have converted to Islam in recent decades...
Apparently nobody really knows how many Muslims are int he US.
I was surprised to hear a member of the US Congress (Virgil Goode) say:
"When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran."
Apparently Virgil Goode and his supporters are concerned about America's capabilities to integrate Muslims.
I wonder how many illegal Muslim immigrants there are... Latin America does not seem to have a large Muslim population...
Are Steyn, Peters and the other nutcases, who talk about "Eurabia," also concerned that the US could turn into "Amerirabia"???
Virgil Goode seems to worry a lot about that, when he fearmongers: "there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran."
Representative "Keith Ellison has criticized Goode for this letter, stating that he is not an immigrant and that Goode does not understand Islam."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_Goode
Interesting you use the term “significant” and then admit you have no idea how many muslins are in the US.
Estimates range from about 3 to 9 million. Even The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) places the number at less than 6 million. Using the highest estimate of 9 million I would question your use of the word “significant” since that would be 3% of the population
You seem to enjoy quoting Virgil Goode so I would ask you which part of his position on immigration you think is objectionable? Or do you object that he is not being political correct.
If you want to jump into Minnesota politics I think that is great. While Ellison is the first muslin elected to Congress what is probably more significant is he is the first black elected to Congress from Minnesota.
The 5th District has been a democrat district for decades. It is considered to be the most democrat district in the state. The real race was in the primary. This district is 23% minority or 141,000 of the district population. Ellison won the primary with 41% of the vote or 29,003 votes. And yes, he worked very hard to get the minority vote.
As to his religion, he is a muslin from the US home grown Nation of Islam. This particular sect, if that is the correct way to refer to them, is extremely anti-Semitic. I can understand Goode’s concern about having anti-Semitics in Congress.
It is interesting that you now classify Peters and Steyn as nutcases. Would you share with us why you believe that other than you might disagree with their theory? Did you consider Ried, Rifkin, and Ash to also be nut cases?
"Using the highest estimate of 9 million I would question your use of the word “significant” since that would be 3% of the population"
That is a significant number. The percentage of Muslims in Germany is about the same.
"I would ask you which part of his position on immigration you think is objectionable?"
Which part of Virgil Goode's statement makes sense to you?
"When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran."
What does immigration have to do with Keith Ellison using the Koran?
As I asked earlier: How many Muslims immigrate to the US?
Why is he concerned that Muslims will be elected to office?
It took more than 200 years for the first Muslim to make it into Congress.
Why is Muslim immigration a problem?
I thought the US is so much better than Europe in integrating immigrants?
Are Steyn, Peters etc. concerned that the US could turn into "Amerirabia"???
@ Joe
"It is interesting that you now classify Peters and Steyn as nutcases. Would you share with us why you believe that other than you might disagree with their theory? Did you consider Ried, Rifkin, and Ash to also be nut cases?"
I don't understand your second sentence. There seems to be a grammatical mistake in your question and I can't guess what you mean.
I don't understand why you ask this question about Ried, Rifkin and Ash.
Confront me with some statements from them and will give you my opinion.
That is interesting that you consider 3% to be significant. I do not.
Since you chose not to answer my question about the part of Goode’s immigration policy you find objectionable, I have to assume you do not know what his policy is. If you did you would not have answered my question to you by asking a question but would have stated your objections.
As to integration of immigrants, I would agree with you about the US doing a better job since it is a nation made up of immigrants. But to answer your question, no I do not have fears of muslins immigrating to the US and failing to integrate into society. I do not think Peters or Steyn do either but I cannot speak for them. You might ask Don, David, Pat and Pinko what they think.
As to how many muslins have immigrated to the US the question does not have an answer. First, because the U.S. Constitution mandates a separation of church and state that is reflected in American law, U.S. Census Bureau survey forms do not ask recipients about their religion. Neither does the U.S. Immigration Service collect information on the religion of immigrants
As to the use of the Koran, islam demands dominance over all other religions and sociopolitical structures, and is incompatible with a western, Judeo-Christian constitutional republic. Someone who swears on the koran -- and follows islam -- cannot uphold and defend the consitution of the United States.
And I don’t think there is a muslin immigration problem. I think there is an immigration problem.
Jorg,
You are correct about the sentence structure. Let me try again.
Why do you consider Peters and Steyn to be nutcases?
The second question, which I think you understood. Did you consider Reid, Rifkin and Ash to be nutcases also?
Since you did a threat on these three authors, go back and search your comments.
"Why do you consider Peters and Steyn to be nutcases?"
See second point here:
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/501-Eurabia-and-German-NeoNazis-and-the-Taliban-in-Iraq.html#c6344
"Did you consider Reid, Rifkin and Ash to be nutcases also?"
What do they have to do with Peters and Steyn?
"Since you did a threat on these three authors, go back and search your comments."
Then you will find my answer to your questions there as well.
Jorg,
Do you actually consider that to be a response? If you do that is fine.
The common percentage thrown around about the number of muslins in france is 12% and over 6% in the Netherlands. This is much greater than 3% which you consider to be significant. How would you describe these percentages?
And while you might look at Europe as whole, I do not think you will get a unified response. I believe you are seeing pockets of immigration both within European nations and within regions within individual nations. Because how fragmented Europe is I do not see collective action. You seem to think there will be.
What happens in france is a french problem. What happens in Denmark is a problem for the Danes, etc. with the general attitude of being glad that it is not happening here. The eastern Europeans do not seem to be as affected as much at this time.
When a nation wants to address the influx of immigrates it cannot because its actions conflict with the positions of the EU. And when individuals or groups want to they are immediately labeled as fascists.
But since you have deemed both Steyn and Peters to be nutcases, then this thread has been a lot of bandwidth about nothing. A very much wasted morning.
Joerg, Muslims are about 1% of the US population. One percent minorities typically do not elect many representatives anywhere. Jews are about 2% of the population and there are fairly few Jews elected to high office in the US either.
ANother quirk of the US is the nature of the Muslim population. I think they are mostly so-called 'Black Muslims'. Followers of the late Elijah Mohammed, who was fond of raving about 'white devils' in his communications. Under his sons things have calmed down, although Loius Farrakhan is (was?) a Black Muslim in the old style. Another notable Black Muslim was Malcolm X, who was assasinated.
What exactly are you accusing the Muslim population of?
Accusing? Moi?
I'm 'accusing' them of nothing more damning than being a very small part of the US population. And those that are Muslims are mostly from a variant sect which emerged more or less spontaneously within US negros bitterly rejecting christianity because it condoned slavery and Jim Crow.
It wasn't until Malcolm X that Black Muslims seem to have really studied what Islam is.
"Jews are about 2% of the population and there are fairly few Jews elected to high office in the US either."
You are wrong: there are 13 Jewish US senators in Congress at the moment.
David,
Since you keep up with those type things. How many of the 13 are democrats and how many are republicans?
Joe,
Only one -Arlen Specter - is a Republican. But then there is also one Neo-con: Joe Lieberman.
BTW, I noted your plug earlier for Jean Marie Le Pen, one of the worst racists in Europe. Can't say I was in the least surprised.
David,
I believe the republicans actually have a second one Senator Coleman (Mn).
But really David your demos are the party of diversity. You have 85% of the Jewish Senators, all the black members of Congress, the only open homosexual, the only muslin, the only Grand Wizard of the KKK, the only impeached judge and the only socialist.
The poor republicans can only claim a Mormon and a Cuban. They also probably have a homosexual or two who lack the courage of Barney.
As for the Le Pen reference it was not a plug but to illustrate the third group with someone people might actually know or have heard of before.
Do you happen to know another European political leader who has the same stance on immigration as he does and the National Front.? I did not. Who would you have used?
Today his party is polling 13%. You might not consider that worrisome but since Jorg considers 3% to be significant then this seems to be something to watch. It would also seem to add some creditability to the third group Steyn was referencing.
BTW did you notice I gave Ellison a plug too.
@ Don
"One percent minorities typically do not elect many representatives anywhere."
In a perfect world a candidate's religion should not influence his chances to get elected. I know, nobody lives in a perfect world.
"Jews are about 2% of the population and there are fairly few Jews elected to high office in the US either."
According to Wikipedia, 13 of the 100 Senators are Jewish.
And 30 of the 435 members of the House of Representatives are Jewish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_110th_United_States_Congress_by_religion
With all due respect, I think these numbers contradict your statement: "Muslims are about 1% of the US population. One percent minorities typically do not elect many representatives anywhere. Jews are about 2% of the population and there are fairly few Jews elected to high office in the US either."
Yes, I do realize that ethnic background plays a role. There are not many white Muslim Americans.
Keith Ellison was the first Muslim who got elected into the House in 2006. No Muslim yet in the Senate. And only one black American in the Senate currently.
If Wikipedia is correct: "The first Jewish person in the House was Lewis Charles Levin, elected in 1844. The first Jewish person in the Senate was David Levy Yulee, elected in 1845."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States_Congress#See_also
I am not saying that Germany is doing any better.
I am just wondering why it is so difficult for Muslims to get elected in the US.
This post was about "Eurabia" and the frequent accusations by some Americans that Europeans fail to integrate their Muslim immigrants and that the Muslims don't assimilate/integrate and that this is leading to a conflict. Therefore I think it is worthwhile to look how well America integrates Muslims and to ask why it is difficult for Muslims to get elected. And how well Muslims integrate themselves. What you write about Muslim Americans suggests that you see some problems in that regard...
As I said, I think in the business world, Muslim have much better chances to advance in the US than in Germany.
Moreover, are the same folks, who write gloomy articles about "Eurabia," concerned about "Americrabia"? Virgil Goode is afraid of Muslim immigration for some reason. Don has some concern about the "nature of the Muslim population."
Thus, is there a US debate about "Americrabia" or just about "Eurabia"?
"Moreover, are the same folks, who write gloomy articles about "Eurabia," concerned about "Americrabia"? Virgil Goode is afraid of Muslim immigration for some reason. Don has some concern about the "nature of the Muslim population."
Thus, is there a US debate about "Americrabia" or just about "Eurabia"?"
I think there is some concern in the US, but not as much as in Europe. As I wrote earlier muslims are only about 1% of the US population, and the makeup of that population differs. I'm not actually 'concerned' about that makeup, Jorg, just explaining it.
'Muslim' in the US context is decidedly not the same as Americarbia, because so many of US muslims are the before mentioned Black Muslims, who mostly come from the same roots as the rest of the US black population and thus aren't arabs at all. Or Persians, Indonesian, or from any other kind of middle eastern muslim background.
In a sense we in the US have already had that debate about Black Muslims back in the 50's and 60's when Malcolm X was such a central and provocative figure. Louis Farrakan is a pale modern version of Malcolm X in some ways, although Farrakan has been accused of having something to do with X's assasination.
There is a seperate debate about immigrant and near-immigrant muslim populations in the US, but they appear to be much smaller in proportion to their numbers in many European countries. And (to date) much less troublesome.
Rep. Goode may be an idiot but what he mainly objected to was Rep. Ellison's attempt to violate protocol. Ellison wanted to use the Koran at the official swearing in on the House floor where by tradition no Bibles, Korans, etc., are used as the congressmen simply raise their right hand and swear to uphold the Constitution.
Rep. Ellison, also not being too swift, didn't realize that the members take a mock the oath in the Rotunda, using Bibles, Korans, or DIY books for public consumption, ie., photos, interviews, balloons etc. Rep. Ellison also didn't realize that Jefferson's Koran was a translation and thus not a "real" Koran. When asked why he picked the book of a slave owner and the first president to attack a Muslim nation the new representative was painfully tongue-tied.
The US uses the primary system where any eligible candidate can self-identify himself a member of a party. Often there is an official candidate endorsed not picked by the local party group but no guarantee of election. The candidate must represent local issues or to often the local race, ethnicity or religion. An example here could be the reelection of Sen. Lieberman because he was not the official Democratic Party candidate yet is still considered a Democrat for purposes of determing who controls Congress.
Rep. Ellison was elected from an inner-city area in Minnesota that was primarily black and with a large Muslim immigrant community. My understanding of the Parliamentary system it is the party that determines the local candidate, without the free-for-all of a local primary and can make a percentage of seats available to different minorities or none at all.
If the parties, in Germany, want more Muslims then they can simply make more eligible and also can use their seats via proportionality to appoint some candidates whereas in the US that candidate will probably be from a district with like-minded people in it where he can only be elected directly. Safe seats come about because of the uniformity of the electorate.
As an aside just look to see how hard it was for Republicans in Louisiana to expel David Duke from the party after he ran in the primaries and general election as a Republican. Even though the Party endorsed and supported the Democratic candidate. This could simply never happen in a parliamentary system.
Gen. Colin Powell was asked what were the consequences of his father not using his Commonwealth passport to easily immigate to Great Britain vs. waiting for years to immigrate legally to the US. His paraphrased reply was that if his family had gone to England this son of a Jamaican immigrant might have risen to the rank of a senior NCO but in the US he became the Chair of the Joint Chiefs and a possible candidate for President.
Just a proposal...
if you are really interested in the situation of immigrants in Europe, especially Germany, why don't you directly confront German politicians of immigrant origin with the ideas of Mark Steyn and Ralph Peters?
Take for example Cem Özdemir, former Member of the Bundestag and actually Member of the European Parliament for Alliance '90/The Greens. He is competent at first hand when it comes to German and European migration and integration policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cem_%C3%96zdemir
Or... how about Daniel Cohn-Bendit? He's a well-known European politician and was a leader of the student protesters during the May 1968 riots in France (Dany le Rouge). Cohn-Bendit was born in France to German-Jewish parents who had fled from Nazi Germany in 1933 and lived both in France and Germany. Just ask him about the significance of the French riots for immigration policy and the idea of a future Muslim genocide in Europe!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Cohn-Bendit
Thanks for the great comments
Please note that by default the comments in this blog are threaded rather than linear, i.e. some of the latest responses to comments are not at the bottom, but in the middle of the thread right behind the comment they respond to.
At the top of the comments section you have the option to change the view from threaded to linear (=chronological), which enables you to see the latest comments at the end of the thread.
Honestly, I think you guys are being too short-sited here. The increasing tide of concern about muslim immigration is less about any host nation as it is about what motivates these populations.
We can all agree that the threat of islamic terror is a difficult problem. Its enemy is ostensibly the west. It is unbridled by any sense of morality or sanctity of life. Murdering innocents is encouraged. It carries a mission of conquest far beyond the communist threat of the cold war. A mission well documented in its religious texts. Its fanatics are not subject to reason in any sense of the word. Negotiation is out of the question with the unbeliever. It has the potential to be far more widespread than any national movement could ever hope to be. Potential recruits can hail from an astounding one third of the worlds population in dozens of countries. Surely, our new muslim citizens can offer us insight and leadership in our struggle to avert future disaster in this increasingly dangerous world.
However, the silence from the muslim community, particularly in the west has been deafening. And if that isn't enough, enterprising investigative journalists of late have uncovered evidence of complicity amid many in this silent minority boldly on display for all to see.
At the same time, the west appears to be in denial. Historical guilt about past injustices have paralized us. Rationally, what does german national socialism or american institutionalized racism in the last century have to do with today. I understand and commend the need to remind our young people about the dangers of hate; but historical guilt threatens to destroy us.
We have been exceedingly polite and patient over the past half dozen years. My motivation is simple. I encourage westerners to be more curious and critical about the compatibility of islam with western republicanism. Read the Qu'ran. Learn about what the mission of local muslim groups in your community. Dialog is sorely needed to resolve this critical paradox. I fear that the increasing isolatation of these groups, coupled with our newfound "hear no evil, see no evil" attitude are a recipe of disaster. Honestly, we could really benefit from the contribution of americans and european muslims in this struggle. We need to understand how the countless references to the unbeliever in the Qu'ran do not legitimize terrorism. We need conclude whether or not "western muslim" is an oxymoron.
Thanks for your comment, James.
It seems that the picture is from a demonstration in London, which was crashed by some extremists.
The big question is: How many Muslims share these views? It might just be a vocal minority...
Extremists of all political walks of life are always more vocal and get more media coverage than the moderates.
You write:
"enterprising investigative journalists of late have uncovered evidence of complicity amid many in this silent minority boldly on display for all to see."
If you got some interesting links on these matters, please post them.
You write:
"However, the silence from the muslim community, particularly in the west has been deafening."
Really?
A friend has just emailed me these links that tell a different story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4676524.stm
http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4/1351/103/
http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2006/02/03/extremists_crash_the_party_aga
http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/1467/39/
http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/1454/39/
Would you like to read more?
Have a look at our directory of Atlantic Review posts.
Or check out the constantly updated reading recommendations from our readers in the sidebar: "Tips From Our Readers."
More information on this project in this post. Feel free to comment on any article recommended in the sidebar.
BBCode format allowed. You can make a clickable link with this code:
If you write "[url=http://america-germany.atlanticreview.org]Carnival of US-German Relations[/url]", then this will be displayed: "Carnival of US-German Relations".
And if you write "[url]http://atlanticreview.org/mustreads.html[/url]", then this will be displayed: "http://atlanticreview.org/mustreads.html"
British writer Johann Hari reviews Mark Steyn's latest book about the "Eurabia" prediction. Andrew Hammel points out the popularity of the "Eurabia" prediction among American Europe-bashers and ends his post in German Joys with Hari's
Tracked: Mar 10, 14:25
The New York Times' Germany correspondent Mark Landler often exaggerates and is sometimes just wrong. The latest example is his July 11 article "Debate on Terror Threat Stirs Germany," which starts with While the British public reacted to the la
Tracked: Jul 13, 11:35