None other than Hillary Clinton has advised Western Europe "to do something to lessen the flow of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa."  

But don't jump to conclusions. Madam Hillary has not undergone an epiphany similar to the one Saul encountered on the way to Damascus. The reason Clinton said this is not because the massive influx of these migrants has strained Europe's welfare system, increased violent crime, and seriously degraded the culture and life-styles of the countries in which these immigrants reside. 

Rather it's because the introduction of over one million of these people from the Third World into Western Europe has given rise to populist parties across the continent. This is Clinton-speak for calling Europeans of a nationalist bent racist -- just as she doe to those of us in here in the States. The premise of Clinton's comments is that if the Europeans weren't backward in their thinking, so racist and xenophobic, she'd be jake with the immigration flow continuing.  

It is correct to say that immigrant has been a key factor in the rise populism in Europe. But populism is only a symptom. The disease causing it is allowing in so many people who can't be assimilated and who come from an alien culture that is orders of magnitude backward to that of the West. To acknowledge this is to admit that diversity is not the strength it is said to be. Populism is also fueled by the fact that nobody asked the average European if they wanted this mass immigration into their communities. It was mandated by the ruling elite.

Like Obama, Hillary Clinton does not have near the intellectual horsepower her cheerleaders in the media attribute to her. However, she is smart enough to see that the influx of immigrants into Europe is not going to abate anytime soon on its own. This is because of a combination of demographics and economics.

The populations of the Middle East and Africa are rapidly increasing. Together they are the fastest growing region in the world.

From an estimate 140 million in 1900, Africa grew to a billion by 2010. The United Nations projects this will increase to 2.5 billion in 2050 and 4 billion by 2100. "Today, one out of six people on Earth live in Africa. These same projections predict that the proportion will be one in four in 2050 and more than one in three by 2100."As for Europe, it's population is rapidly aging and is slated to actually start shrinking in a few decades. 

The demographic difference between Europe vs. the Middle East-African region is bad enough, but economics make it worse yet. The fact is that Africa and the Middle East are the poorest and least developed regions in the world. Apart from the pipe dreams of the likes of Bill Gates and bureaucrats in the European Union, there is no Marshall Plan that can raise the economic viability of Africa. Whatever economic gains that may happen will be over taken by a constant increase in the impoverished population. 

All this can only mean one thing: Wealthy Europe will continue to attract millions from Africa and the Arab lands. Without immigration restriction, Europe will literally be submerged by these foreigners. Some argue that Europe has already passed the tipping point, but this assumes no change in the behavior of the native Europeans. And someone who thinks a change can (and will) happen is Ralph Peters.

In an opinion piece in the New York Post in 2006, Peters wrote that 'Eurabia' is a myth:

The notion that continental Europeans, who are world champion haters, will let impoverished Muslims 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' Europeans lolling in his or her welfare state, but the continent's Muslim immigrants -- and their multi-generation decedents -- who were foolish enough to imagine that Europeans would share their toys.

The historical patterns are clear: When Europeans feel sufficiently threatened -- even when the threat is concocted nonsense -- they don't just react, they overreact with stunning ferocity. One of their more humane (and frequently employed) techniques is ethnic cleansing.

Peters also thinks that "Europe's Muslims are living on borrowed time,"' and "all predictions of Europe going gently into that good night are surreal." He even imagines a scenario where the U.S. will have "to go ashore in Brest, Bremerhaven or Bari to guarantee the safe evacuate Europe's Muslims," presumably back to the Middle East.

Is Peters correct? I don't know. But as the awakening of Hillary Clinton, a poster-child for diversity, shows, the current situation in Europe is unstable. 

Something has to give, and soon. Strict immigration controls imposed now is the mildest and most commonsense remedy. If not, the scenario outlined by Ralph Peters may prove correct.