Posted on 11/11/2006 6:54:31 AM PST by Mount Athos
In his compelling new book, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, conservative commentator extraordinaire Mark Steyn analyzes the current state of the “clash of civilizations” (in Samuel P. Huntington’s much-used phrase) between Islam and the West. Steyn focuses on the demographic, cultural, and political forces that are rapidly moving Europe towards an Islamified future, and the United States towards a lonely position as the only western country with the size and strength to withstand the Islamic onslaught.
It is a stark and sobering vision. Steyn’s writing, as the readers of his columns have come to expect, is informed, witty, and full of insight. I highly recommend America Alone.
Unfortunately, like so many other conservative commentators who take a hard line in the present “war on terror,” Steyn does not come out and say what he really means – which is that Islam itself is the enemy. Islam is the world’s second largest religion, and claims to be growing faster than Christianity, Hinduism, or Buddhism.
But Islam also is a totalitarian political ideology, akin to communism, that is fundamentally inconsistent with Western understandings of individual freedom, sexual equality, material prosperity, and representative government, not to mention our Judeo-Christian heritage. Since 9/11, just five short years ago, the conflict between the West and Islam (especially in Europe) has become much more pronounced, and much more violent.
Granted, most Muslims are not terrorists. Nevertheless, it is clear that many Muslims, including some portion of those living in the West, sympathize with terrorists and support the global jihad. As Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom, David Yerushalmi, and many others have explained, the jihadist impulse is found throughout Islamic theology, history, and culture.
Islam divides the world into the House of Islam (dar al-Islam), where Islamic law (sharia) reigns supreme, and the House of War (dar al-harb), where sharia does not yet prevail. Muslims are enjoined by Allah and Muhammad to wage war upon the House of War until it is brought within the House of Islam. This religious-political project – and not the P.C. troika of poverty, tyranny, and discrimination – is the root of jihad. (For an excellent introduction to the theology and history of Islam, see here.)
It should not be surprising, then, as Steyn emphasized in a recent column, that the vast majority of Muslims worldwide feel primary loyalty to their religion (“Pan-Islamism”), instead of to the particular nations in which they live. For example, according to a recent poll (cited by Steyn), only 8 percent of Muslims living in Great Britain consider themselves British first, whereas 81 percent consider themselves Muslim first. Given the stark differences between what it means to be British and what it means to be Muslim, these poll results portend a disastrous future for the British nation. Indeed, given the gulf that exists between Western culture and Islamic culture, the growing size and influence of the Muslim world portends a disastrous future for us all.
The main focus of Steyn’s book is on the underlying demographic trends, including low native birth rates and rising Muslim immigration, that are steadily transforming Europe into an Islamic stronghold (what Bat Ye’or calls “Eurabia”). In Steyn’s view,
“demography doesn’t explain everything, but it accounts for a good 90 percent.”
Steyn emphasizes that, with birth rates among native Europeans well below “replacement level” (2.1 children per woman), the Western populations in these countries will shrink with each new generation. At the same time, millions of Muslims are moving into Europe (naively welcomed by the existing governments as a source of labor to maintain their lavish welfare states), and are having many more children than their neighbors. Steyn reports that Western women in Europe have an average of 1.4 children, whereas Muslim women have an average of 3.5 children. The result is a “baby boom” among Muslims that, within our lifetimes, will completely change the European countries in which they live. Steyn’s analysis (though not original) strikes me as right on the mark (no pun intended).
Yet after spending page after page highlighting the demographic disaster that awaits Europe (and to a much lesser extent the United States), Steyn fails to state the logical conclusion, which is that Muslim immigration must be stopped. Period.
If one believes, as Steyn clearly does (with strong support from the evidence), that Muslims as a group not only are not assimilating into Western culture but are actively hostile toward the very principles upon which our societies are built, then it is “suicidal” (a term frequently used by Steyn) to permit millions of Muslims to take up residence within our countries.
Of course, such a blanket policy would be unfair towards the many individual Muslims who do not share the militant worldview of their co-religionists. Nevertheless, if 80 percent of Muslims cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the Western nations in which they live (to use the British poll numbers cited above), then the only rational policy is to exclude Muslims altogether. However, nowhere in America Alone does Steyn dare utter this obvious, if uncomfortable, truth.
The other principal focus of Steyn’s book is on the inability of contemporary multiculturalism to provide a meaningful, vigorous base on which to sustain and defend Western civilization. On the contrary, as Steyn sharply remarks,
“multiculturalism was conceived by the Western elites not to celebrate all cultures but to deny their own.”
Hence, “the governing principle of multicultural society” is that “Western man demonstrates his cultural sensitivity by pre-emptively surrendering.” This already is happening in Europe, which Steyn thoroughly documents. But it even is happening in the United States – see the craven response by our political and media establishment to last year’s Cartoon Intifada, and the continued refusal by our law enforcement agencies to engage in “racial profiling” as part of a sensible anti-terrorism strategy. Steyn surely is correct that multiculturalism, and its philosophical twin internationalism, cannot provide the ideological meat needed to maintain a healthy body politic.
What can? Steyn doesn’t really say (a weakness in his analysis), although he strongly suggests that we need to take greater pride in our Anglo-American traditions and show greater respect for the Christian religion. Indeed, in the context of our conflict with Islam, it is difficult to conceive of anything less than a full-blown resurgence of American and European nationalism being sufficient to hold off the Islamification (or dhimmification) of much of the West.
With any significant resurgence of nationalism, however, will come, inevitably, ethnic and religious chauvinism. While such chauvinism does not have to devolve into murderous fascism, it will result in a less tolerant and accommodating attitude towards foreigners. For many Americans and Europeans, schooled for decades in the self-denying pieties of multiculturalism, this will be seen as something very bad, worse even than Islamic domination.
But ethnic and religious chauvinism is at the heart of the “civilizational confidence” that Steyn rightly ascribes to the Muslim world. Recall the Muslim protesters in London last year boldly holding signs that read “Behead Those Who Insult Islam” and “Europe You Will Pay” (all because of a few “blasphemous” cartoons in a Dutch newspaper). Without a similar sense of “civilizational confidence,” the West – including the United States – will be unable to preserve its distinctive way of life. It’s as simple as that.
After spending nearly 200 pages describing the dire threat to the West posed by Islam, Steyn begins the final chapter of America Alone by assuring his readers that his book
“isn’t an argument for more war, more bombing, or more killing, but for more will.”
This statement is either naïve or disingenuous. Because Steyn is a very smart fellow, I opt for the latter interpretation. After all, Steyn then goes on to recount his favorite anecdote about a British general in colonial India who, when faced with the traditional Hindu practice of “suttee” – the burning of widows on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands – told his Indian subjects:
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
For Steyn, this is the quintessential example of Western “will” that we need to emulate today. But if this isn’t a call for more killing in the service of Western values, I don’t know what it is.
Whether we like it or not, large parts of the Islamic world have declared war on the West. Because Muslim countries, to date, have lacked the military and economic capability to wage conventional warfare against us, they have engaged in vicious acts of terrorism designed to intimidate and undermine Western society. They may soon be in position, through developments in Iran and, perhaps, Pakistan, to commit acts of nuclear blackmail or actual nuclear warfare. (And just imagine if, a few decades from now, a Muslim majority took control of France or England’s nuclear arsenal, with the capability to destroy large parts of the United States.) The West can either submit to this violence and intimidation, or we can fight back.
But what does “fighting back” mean? On this vital question, Steyn’s book, quite frankly, is disappointing. Steyn offers an ambitious 10-point list of options, but he does not explain what they would entail in practice.
Steyn’s list includes:
(1) supporting women’s rights in the Muslim world;
(2) “roll[ing] back Wahhabi, Iranian, and other ideological exports that have radicalized Muslims on every continent”;
(3) supporting economic and political liberty in the Muslim world;
(4) ensuring that Muslim nations that persecute non-Muslims are “denied international legitimacy and excluded and marginalized in international bodies”;
(5) “throttl[ing] the funding of mosques, madrassas, think tanks, and other activities in America and elsewhere by Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others”;
(6) creating a “civil corps” for “countering Islamism on the ideological front”;
(7) “marginaliz[ing] and euthaniz[ing]” the United Nations, the European Union, NATO, and similar “transnational organizations”;
(8) “transform[ing]” our domestic energy industry to reduce America’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil;
(9) “end[ing] the Iranian regime”; and
(10) “strik[ing] militarily when the opportunity presents itself.”
Steyn’s list leaves many questions unanswered. Consider options 1 and 3. How are we supposed to promote freedom and equality in the Muslim world? What political, economic, and military policies should we pursue to achieve these ends? And why would these policies be any more successful in the future than they have been in the past? Steyn doesn’t say.
Or consider option 6, Steyn’s call for the creation of a “civil corps.” This sounds an awful lot like the Peace Corps, only with an emphasis on ideological rather than economic development in the Third World. How would this work exactly? What ideology would we be exporting? Christianity? Capitalism? Secular humanism? Again, Steyn does not say.
Or consider option 8. How are we to achieve energy independence? Through higher taxes? more regulations? the nationalization of the energy industry? Steyn offers no blueprint for action in this important area (which should be a much easier nut to crack than “reforming” the Middle East). And so on.
I am not suggesting that Steyn’s list of options is wrong, only that it needs much more explanation and justification than he offers in America Alone. Of course, there is only so much one can do in one highly readable book.
My most serious criticism of Steyn, however, is that he refuses to acknowledge the dramatic implications of his own analysis. Take another look at items 2, 5, 9, and 10, on Steyn’s list of options. Together these would amount to a declaration of war against Islam. Obviously, the Muslim world will not take kindly to our “throttling” their funding of Islamic institutions in the United States and Europe, let alone our “rolling back” such institutions in other parts of the world. Nor will the Muslim world perceive our “ending” the Iranian regime or our “opportunistic” use of military power against other Muslim targets in benign terms.
We can be sure that any escalation of this conflict by the West (however necessary for our own security) will be met with an intensification of the global jihad.
Thus, contrary to Steyn’s earlier denial, his book plainly is “an argument for more war, more bombing, [and] more killing.” Only Steyn won’t admit it, probably because he wants to retain some “mainstream” credibility. This may be an understandable concern for a professional commentator, but it undermines the power and coherence of his book.
Tragically, unless the Muslim world suddenly reforms itself – an unlikely prospect given the nature of Islam – I am afraid that civilizational war is where we are headed in the coming decades, as the Muslim world gains even greater strength and confidence. While Mark Steyn’s America Alone helps open our eyes to certain aspects of this conflict, it does little to prepare us for the full scope of what lies ahead. For if the West decides to fight this war, rather than accept Islamic domination as the price of peace (an open question), the bombing and killing are going to be on a scale that makes the current war on terror look like a preliminary skirmish.
Not yet, but coming, nonetheless.
Yet.
Retaining 'mainsream' credibility also explains why Steyn refuses to make the logical conclusion with regards to Muslim immigration to Europe; i.e. that it must be stopped, or at least severely curtailed. Few things will turn the elite conservative establishment against a person like being an immigration restrictionist, and while the immigration problems of Europe and the United States are not identical, pro-mass immigration conservatives here don't want to see restrictionist/reductionist policies succeed in Europe because they fear they may spread across the pond to America.
Should have read;
"Few things will turn the elite conservative establishment against a person like being an immigration restrictionist (or in other words, holding conservative views on immigration)...
We're already on the fast track of letting it happen.
However, in the long term, Islam only poses a strategic threat if it is able to conquer & retain peoples with higher IQs than the peoples who now submit to its will.
The IQs of the arab & persian races are too low for regimes run by them [in and of themselves] to pose a strategic threat to the United States. [They can pose a threat when they purchase technology from higher-IQ races, such as the Chinese or the North Koreans, but they cannot develop the technology natively.]
Similarly, when the Muslims take control of Europe, the nuclear stockpiles of Britain, France, and Russia will quickly degenerate into worthless garbage, absent a human infrastructure of sufficiently well-educated, well-trained, high-IQ caucasians to maintain and service them.
So the challenge for Islam is to retain the high-IQ caucasians of Europe and to force them into some sort of dhimmitude wherein they design, build, and maintain these weapons systems in the service of Islam.
But if you want to see what happens when low-IQ third worlders take over a once vibrant, beautiful, thriving first world city, then I highly recommend you spend an hour or so following all the links at this fascinating website:
The Fabulous Ruins of DetroitTFRoD gives you a real good idea of what London, Paris, Moscow, Rome, et al will look like in 50 to 100 years, if present trends continue unabated.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Islam has always destroyed any society it has taken over. Spain was, at a very bleak period during the barbarian invasions from the North, the heir to Rome and had a great scholarly tradition, particularly in Southern Spain, which had been the birthplace of many Roman thinkers, writers and even emperors. Then the Muslims invaded; of course, they took credit for the all of the intellectual activity of Spain, and then bit by bit they stifled it. Because Islam was still in its very earliest phases at that point, it was not consolidated and probably more intellectual activity was allowed than would later be the norm - furthermore, the original Islamic conquerors had only themselves been recently conquered, and were from the intellectually advanced parts of the ME (such as Baghdad and Persia). However, these Muslims themselves were later conquered by more orthodox Arab Muslims, which is the constant story of Islamic countries.
Whenever Muslims are "infected" by the intellectual advances of the countries they conquer, their more orthodox brethren come along and remind them of the meaning of True Islam. Which, in short, brings death, intellectual death, and decay to any culture it subjugates.
I don't think it would have been possible to dominate the whole world, prior to the development of modern communications and travel. This is a two-edged sword, of course, because theoretically it would also make resistance more possible. We shall see, I guess.
There are muslim groups in Canada that are "Islamizing" Inuit (Eskimo) groups in Canada's North. There is a guy on TV that has adopted an evangelical syle of preaching Islam--and he does a quite amazing imitation all the while re-interpreting the Bible from a Quranic point of view--and I have heard him give reports on them doing this. How successful they have been I don't know but they are trying.
The world is watching to see if Islam is compatible with any other type of government other than an Islamic state.
If Iraq fails and the Islamics in Western societies fail to assimilate, the only recourse left will be to declare Islam, as taught by the Koran, to be a political party intent on overthrowing sovereign governments.
If this incompatibility is found to be true, there will be push to create laws to ban the doctrines of the Koran and those who follow it. With no infiltration of Muslims in non-Islamic countries, the plan for the soft take over of the West will then be cut off at it's knees and the only recourse left to Islam will be to let the Islamofascists spread the caliphate with an all out militarily front.
Terrorism will be defeated one way or another.
Thanks for posting. Interesting.
We are witnessing the greatest anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-individual, anti-life collective in the history of civilization.
It's all in Daniel 8. The Ram and the He-Goat. The Ram conquers at first, but then the He-Goat takes back what was lost and smashes the Ram.
I also think we should begin the transfer of all European historical, cultural and archaeological artifacts to the US for protection. This sounds harsh...but, just look at the birth/death numbers, it's all over for Europe.
No, I don't see Muslims moving in on the Chinese. So, they're safe.
For now. If the West goes..they are of course, next.
"No one ideology, religious or political has ever dominated the worldwide population." - Man50D
Technological growth empowers those possessing will.
I think that what will happen is that the Islamists will take over some parts of Europe, will introduce Sharia Law, eliminate feminism and sexual 'freedom', beat up on European women and recalcitrants, and generally go too far. THEN the rest of the world will see the light and respond accordingly (and fiercely).
Just finished the book. I am ordering 10 copies to give to away and would encourage others to do the same. The West needs to return to Christianity. Where there is a spiritual void all manner of evil comes in (just look around) starting with a false religion that seeks to enslave its followers. Jesus came to set the captives free... Mohammad came to kill, steal and destroy. If we think it cannot happen here, we are only fooling ourselves.
"THEN the rest of the world will see the light and respond accordingly (and fiercely)."
What "rest of the world" will be left...the West run by spineless and neutered males who only want to pacify the enemy in the name of peace? Good grief, we can't even name the enemy now (Islam, not "terror"). We had better wake up long before then.
I'm not sure what you mean.
The Russians, Chinese, and East Germans/Czechs/Hungarians have [or had] some of the highest IQs of the species.
Indeed, you could argue that the reason even more people didn't starve under communism was because it was being visited upon some of the most intelligent races on the face of the earth.
When you visit communism upon low IQ peoples, the immediate result is mass famine, starvation, and genocide. Remember this song?
We are the worldThat entire famine relief project was necessitated because the "Derg" regime imposed Marxist-Leninism upon a low-IQ people who were unable to withstand the ideology, hence quickly starved to death.
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let's start giving
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day
Just you and me
Frankly, it's quite a testament to the underlying intelligence of the Russian people that any of them were able to emerge from 70+ years of Marxist rule [although what few Russians survive to this day do now seem hell bent on cultural suicide].
A real issue for "debate" being which will be the better master, the Mexican or the Muslim? After the plunder and rapine settles down the Muslim will give a purer life i.e. suppression of the sodomite etc. However, both govern by bribery and corruption. It is a hard choice.
I'll bite...
What will an 'Anglomuslim' value in the continent of 'Eurabia' in the year 2050?
Conversely, what will an 'Anglomexican' value in the continent of 'Mexicanada' during the same time period?
Hint..it's a trick question.
Well, let's allow that both Mark & Steve are correct, because they are NOT mutually exclusive.
It would require between 3 and 10 books to fully address Mark's 10 points, to start outlining an energy policiy is easy:
Focus on nuclear power with common, primary designs and erase the 7 years of upfront paperwork.
Drill in ANWR and offshore.
It is ridiculous to preclude U.S. companied from drilling while foreign companies drill within 50 miles and steal our oil.
ANWR can be done cleanly and is NOT the green pastures portrayed in the ads. Further, the claims about the limits of the reserves there are fatuous, because the clowns have prohibited any measuring.
DO NOT waste money on low ROI alternatives like wind and solar, at least until they're proven more efficient on a smaller scale.
Through the envrio's a bone by raising CAFE standards.
Toyota & Honda have proven it's possible.
It will. Probably sooner than we would like. But it's coming.
"What "rest of the world" will be left...the West run by spineless and neutered males who only want to pacify the enemy in the name of peace? Good grief, we can't even name the enemy now (Islam, not "terror"). We had better wake up long before then."
At the point where people's comfortable, decadent western lifestyle starts to be impacted, then there will be a backlash. When one's whole reason for existence is to consume and be entertained, it's easy to ignore the wolf crouching at one's door. But when the ongoing party starts to suffer, people will sit up and take notice. Then it will get interesting...
Right, and my point is that, if left to their own devices, the northern African peoples, who will perform most of the "enslaving" of Europe*, are utterly incapable of managing a society, much less doing the kind of technical work required to design, build, and maintain nuclear weapons systems.
For that, Islam needs either high IQ caucasian converts, or high IQ caucasian dhimmis.
*Spengler, over at the Asia Times, has a different theory about the question of conquest & enslavement:
Why nations dieI.e. it could very well be that the native caucasian Europeans will do such an effective job of murdering their children in the wombs of their mothers [via chemical or surgical means], or after their children are born, or will practice sodomy so efficiently that the children are never born in the first place**, that eventually there will be no Europeans remaining for the Muslims to conquer - the Muslims will have simply entered into a ghost continent and claimed it as their own....Nonetheless, it seems clear that the Romans did not so much conquer Greece as to occupy its shell; that the Germanic tribes did not so much conquer Rome so much as to move into what remained of it; and that the Arabs did not so much conquer the Byzantine hinterland as migrate into it...
**I also believe that internet pornography has [and will have] a profound effect in the un-making of babies, to the extent that masturbation in the privacy of his home deprives a man [and to maybe a lesser extent, a woman] of the urge to procreate that he [or she] would retain otherwise.
"Past performance is no guarantee of future results."
We've never had cars, Kalashnikovs, instant global communication, air travel or nuclear weapons before the last few generations, either.
The world has become a LOT smaller in the past 150 years. And even with the technologies of long ago, Genghis Khan ruled the biggest empire in history.
Meant to say: or will practice sodomy so efficiently that the children are never created in the first place
I also believe that internet pornography has [and will have] a profound effect in the un-making of babies
Again, I probably should have said: I also believe that internet pornography has [and will have] a profound effect in the un-creating of babies
The point being that because of things like sodomy & internet pornography, the semen will never get deposited in the birth canal, hence the babies will never be created, hence even the abortionists won't been needed because there won't be any babies to murder in the first place.
Steyn fails to state the logical conclusion, which is that Muslim immigration must be stopped. Period.
But he is quite clear that the reason Europe can't stop the influx is BECAUSE of the Demographics. They litterally have not created enough kids to keep the wheels on the trains.
He also points out, at length, that this is made worse by the cradle to grave socialism that voters there expect. Stopping immigration would mean a huge cut in benefits to the coddled French and German citizens.
They have built a trap from which they can no longer escape.
I don't see where he calls Steyn a liar, per se. I just read it last weekend. He just says that Steyn doesn't carry the argument all the way to any exact conclusion.
All true, inasmuch as Stein stops short of writing a full prescription for his diagnosis. Which he does, mostly. He only gives a glimpse there at the end of what sorts of things the prescription may need to do. But yes, it stops there.
I think it was intentional. I think the book was intended to get people to more honestly think about the diagnosis first, before getting lost in the decidedlly un-PC talk like "Steyn declares war on all of Islam"-- which is exactly what all the fuss would have been about had he done so. The strength of the diagnosis would have gotten lost in the hysteria over the conclusions.
That the conclusions are obvious serves the point without having to go around on the book tour getting distracted by them. You got it, and I got it, and this reviewer got it. Steyn hits on it here and there. I was struck by a quote that really hung with me... something like: "There may indeed be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam". Slam. Dunk. Undeniable.
It also lets Mark write a second follow-up book on the topic and go on another book tour, so... there's that.
Quite so. They're in a trap. It may be that there is no fix for them. It's too late for Europe.
Hence the title: "America Alone".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.