Because I prefer to listen to audio books, most of the books I read have been around awhile. Nonetheless, they still manage to be timely. Such, fortunately, is the case with America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It by Mark Steyn. Steyn’s subject is the threat posed by the Islamic Jihad.
In his estimation, we are engaged in a struggle with three possible resolutions.
- Submit to Islam
- Destroy Islam
- Reform Islam
Steyn’s concern is that “because most of us don’t take number one as a serious possibility, we’re equally unserious about being forced to choose between two and three.”
Steyn concerns arise from his perception of the implications the immigration of Muslims into the Christian areas of Europe and Asia. His book attracted my curiosity because I have observed the large movement of Hispanics into this nation, and I wondered what it might be like if a more hostile group were moving into the area. Steyn provided a scary scenario. For a sanity check, I decided to compare notes.
Daniel Pipes at the Jerusalem Post provides a fair summary of the book in A devastating thesis. As Pipes observes, the book focuses upon the threat to Europe.
He begins with the legacy of two totalitarianisms. Traumatized by the electoral appeal of fascism, post-World War II European states were constructed in a top-down manner “so as to insulate almost entirely the political class from populist pressures.” As a result, the establishment has “come to regard the electorate as children.”
Second, the Soviet menace during the Cold War prompted American leaders, impatient with Europe’s (and Canada’s) weak responses, effectively to take over their defense. This benign and farsighted policy led to victory by 1991, but it also had the unintended and less salutary side-effect of freeing up Europe’s funds to build a welfare state. This welfare state had several malign implications.
What are the malign implications? In an interview, Steyn provides a succinct summary.
Basically, 17 European countries have what demographers call lowest-load fertility, from which no society ever recovered. That means they are basically not having enough babies.
And the way Europe is set up, they have these unsustainable social programs and welfare. And they imported the babies that they didn’t have. They imported them essentially from the North Africa and the Middle East.
So we’re seeing one of the fastest population transformations in history, whereby an aging ethnic European population is being replaced by a Muslim population. And the Muslims understand that, in fact, Europe, as they see it, is the colony now. (from here)
In his review, The Tyranny of Numbers, Alan Caruba uses Steyn’s book as a springboard for a polemic. He observes that Steyn’s is a book about demographics made interesting. Here is an excerpt.
Meanwhile, most of us toiling away at our daily lives need to focus in on “what really did happen between 1970 and 2000”, says Steyn. “In that period, the developed world declined from just under 30 percent of the global population to just over 20 percent, and the Muslim nations increased from about 15 percent to 20 percent.”
Ask the French what that means. They are now into their second year of an all-out Intifada being fought by young Muslims (the press always calls them “youths”) who are burning cars and now buses with people still in them. There are areas in cities throughout Europe where no non-Muslim dares to go these days.
“The salient feature of Europe, Canada, Japan, and Russia,” says Steyn, “is that they are running out of babies.” It’s all about fertility rates and, in one developed nation after another the native-born population is not replacing itself as they continue to age and retire, living off the largess of the few young people left to do the work. This is what happens when you create a socialist system that pays for just about everything and promises to take care of you in your old age in case your kids will not.
Not every review, however, endorsed Steyn’s conclusions. Engin Akcay, writing for The Journal of Turkish Weekly, provided a soft spoken and almost sleepy counterpoint. In his review, he denies the existence of Islamism.
Asking what the West prepared to die for after 9/11, Steyn should actually be asked whether dying was the only alternative in the world for cherishing goodness and keeping a civilization alive. Is it not that possible to sustain it by living? Sometimes, interestingly, to live requires a much more brave heart than dying in today’s world… Each conscious individual has the responsibility for making the world better, not killing for but eliminating hatred. Describing Islamism as “militarily weak but ideologically confident” while “the West is militarily strong but ideologically insecure”, the author emphasizes that the West does not have any strategy to combat terrorism which has strong ideology. Although academic sources indicate when the “Encyclopaedia of Islam” was completed, the concept “Islamism” had virtually disappeared from the English usage, by 1938; it is hard to understand why Steyn insistently uses it to reflect an ideological characteristic via an additional “ism”. It is well known that there is no any Islam-related professional union gathering all Islamic countries under the frame of an ideological aim. In this case the only modern example is – including no ideology – the Organization of the Islamic Conference of which the Secretary General is from secular Turkey and is officially represented in the UN. (from here)
Johann Hari, clearly not a Conservative, noted what he called racism in Steyn’s book. He offered observations such as these.
Steyn’s prose has a jangling musicality that may, for his less discerning Talk Radio-addicted readers, gloss over the outright distortions in his work. He is genuinely funny, at one point noting he would counsel his readers to run for the hills “except they’re full of terrorist training camps.” Every delusional statement is sweetened with such a screwball one-liner; like Ann Coulter, Steyn writes in a demonic demotic that makes you chuckle even as you retch.
But this cannot hide the gaping holes of logic and fact in his argument. To fulfil his headline predictions, Steyn needs to turn 20 million European Muslims into more than 200 million European Muslims – in just 13 years. Only Fallaci’s rats could reproduce so rapidly (Author’s note: This is apparently a reference to Oriana Fallaci and her book, The Rage & The Pride. See here.) Steyn even admits that the history of demographic predictions is hysterically inept, noting that “most twenty-year projections… are laughably speculative, and thus most doomsday scenarios are too” – before offering his own. (from here)
Truth be told, the Steyn’s book does leave the impression that Europe is being rapidly and irretrievably overrun with Muslims (Had the European Union admitted Turkey, that very well might be the case.). However, when I checked CIA World Factbook, I found out that in France, which seems to have the largest Muslim population in Western Europe, only between five and ten percent of the population is Muslim. So if we are talking about a Islamic Jihad based purely upon demographics, we are talking about a uncertain project.
What might shorten the time line? As Steyn suggests, the answer lies in fanaticism.
What more can be said? Look for a review of the Suicide of Reason by Lee Harris within the next couple of days.
CT: Check the numbers again. 25% of French under the age of 25 are Muslim. In 25 years that number will be more than 50%. Voila. Any demographic edge for non-Muslims will be in old people.
I wrote Why Europe Deserves to Die http://www.americancivilization.net/articles/2005/Why_Europe_Deserves_To_Die.pdf in 2005.
Evangelism to convert the Muslims in Europe, a war, or submission to the new Dark Darker Ages under Islam – are the choices for Europe. Socialist Human Secularism will only convert a handful of Mulsims. Because as much God that is borrowed from the Jews and Christians in Islam will beat no God, or the god of self, in secularism.
Islam is an identity and ideology that includes a religion. Yet, it can’t compete with Christianity in an open marketplace of ideas and actions.
–In his estimation, we are engaged in a struggle with three possible resolutions.
1. Submit to Islam
2. Destroy Islam
3. Reform Islam
I find this offensive and illogical on Steyn’s part because he seems to assume every Muslim is bent on destroying anything NOT Muslim. The Muslims that interpret Jihad as an excuse for terrorism are a minority. If they weren’t we’d be at war with how many tens of millions? We aren’t.
This is fearmongering at best.
Second, there are rarely three possibilities, and it is not our job to “reform” anyone’s religion. Considering destroying a religion is equally disgusting to me. Submitting isn’t an option.
Defending ourselves from terrorism should be our focus. It doesn’t matter who the terrorists are, what they wear or what they believe. What matters is they are terrorists.
If France is so concerned about population changes, they are free to limit their immigration influx, just as we are.
Should they begin persecuting Muslims, however, they are IMHO racist. Threats come from violence, crime etc. not racial groups.
JAB, I agree most Muslims probably wouldn’t go for Secular Humanism. However, I don’t think we should be “competing” with Christianity. If Christianity is viable, it will remain so through the example of good people.
JAB – Thanks for the link. Steyn addressed the youthful nature of Europe’s Islamic population. Nonetheless, Europe’s Islamic population is still, for the time being, relatively small. How well indoctrinated are Europe’s Islamic youth in Islam? I do not know.
kgotthardt – I do not trust much of what I read or hear in the news media. Is what Steyn wrote simply fear mongering? I do not think it safe to say so, not after so many have killed themselves killing others.
There are some religions that are simply intolerable as they are. That is why I think the whole idea of multiculturalism is rattlebrained nonsense.
Are all Muslims the same? No, but much of Islamic doctrine supports the concept of holy war to spread the faith. It is as foolish for us to ignore that element of Islam as it is to ignore the rite of human sacrifice once routinely practiced by the now bygone religions of the Aztecs and Canaanites. Do you approve of human sacrifice? If you knew that a religion required human sacrifice, what would you say about that religion? Would you wait until the priests of that religion were sacrificing your countrymen to decide that that religion might not be as good as your own?
CT: This link will show you the demographics –
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU
Except they are way off on Muslim population in the US.
Hey, I was going to write a response about the Aztecs – and Baal and the other North American Indian religions which required a boy to kill a man to be a man, etc!
JAB – I have some concerns about the validity of this evidence for an Islamic threat. For example, there are disagreements. The video paints an even more depressing portrait than that in Steyn’s book. Have you considered that Steyn was not especially upset about the birthrate in America?
The video also makes claims about cultural sustainability that I do not think are possible to substantiate. So long as each family is still having at least one child on the average, how does anyone know how many children is too few children? What is the historical evidence the video refers to?
However, I do take Steyn and the video seriously. I see the central concerns brought out in the video and Steyn’s book as concerns that should drive us to action. If (and that is a big if) current demographic trends continue, the West will be repopulated by people with a different belief, a belief system that historically has taught its adherents to be extremely intolerant of the beliefs of others. Yet as your paper makes clear, the real problem is not demographics. If we and the Europeans continue to abandon Christianity for the gods of self, we will have no ideological reason to defend ourselves from Islam as a united people. Further, we will have no wisdom to pass on to our children, and our children will likely lose the birthright of freedom they once might have had.
“If you knew that a religion required human sacrifice, what would you say about that religion?”
But I don’t think Islam requires making human sacrifices. There are many Muslims who will tell you so. I think some people elect to do so and justify it through religion, just like Christians have waged war in the name of Jesus. It’s a perversion of a belief, one that gives religions a bad name when factions engage in such practices.
Again, fight terrorism, not religion.
If we don’t take that stance, the likelihood that someone will fight our beliefs increases. No one wants to be attacked because of their beliefs.
Incidentally, Europeans killed off most of the Aztecs, so we needn’t worry about their religions.
kgotthardt – What people tell me is less important to me than what people do.
I do not claim much expertise with respect to Islam. I will even admit that much of what is said about Islam can be misrepresentations such as those some people make about the Bible. Nonetheless, I have read most of the Koran and much history. I pay attention to current events.
Jihad is holy war against unbelievers, and the Islamic faithful still practice it. Martyrdom such as the Islamic faithful seek is a twofold human sacrifice. The martyr seeks the death of both the unbelievers and the lost of his own life.
When the twin towers fell in New York, too many of the Islamic faithful celebrated the event, and too few repudiated it.
Do I think we should persecute or exterminate Muslims? No. It is useless to answer hatred with hatred.
So what do I think we should do?
1. Recognize that the hostility exists and that differences over religion provide much of the basis for the hostility.
2. Reduce the number of Muslims entering our country. As Europe is already discovering, large Muslim communities are clearly a security risk.
3. Do something dead serious about sending money for oil to Muslim nations. It is dumb to fund those who hate what you believe.
The story of the fall of the Aztec empire is a bit more complex than either of us know, but one thing we do know. The fall of the Aztecs began when they refused to recognize an enemy. That is one reason why the Europeans were able to take over the Aztec empire, a warrior people, with a pitiful number of soldiers.
See T.R. Fehernbach’s History of Mexico: Fire and Blood for the tale about the Aztecs.
Interestingly, central Mexico like the area around Israel depends on temperamental rains from the ocean to prodcue sufficient crops. Both areas developed and promoted human sacrifices to pagan gods.
The fundamtental worldviews between Islam and Christianity are different – and not equal. Judeo-Christian culture in America is the product of a Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, and 3 Great Awakenings. Islamic culture has had none of that.
Islamic civilizations are at least 800 years behind the West. They are more barbarian, relatively, than were the Visigoths and other barbarians who destroyed Rome.
Until Islam catches up or converts, the Muslim followers, in the majority, hold ideas anti-thetical to the West – our culture, civilization, government – consitution and laws, etc.
We need to become energy independent. Support Christian missionary work around the world. Restrict immigration from Muslim countries.
Tom, while I agree with your numbers 1 and 3, number two is out of the question. You can’t reduce the number of Muslims in our country without discriminating, causing witch-hunts and fostering scapegoating and hatred.
What we can do is limit immigration in general. That doesn’t mean we treat people who are here poorly. It doesn’t mean we break up families. And it doesn’t even mean “deport them all” if they don’t have their papers in order.
It DOES mean, though, that criminals must have background checks, and as in the case of 287g, this means everyone arrested must have immigration status as well as backgrounds checked. At the very least, we need to know who is in our country and what crimes they are committing. The same goes for any criminal. Most of our criminals are home-grown, in spite of what some people would like us to believe.
I am also a believer in the national identity card (though a fingerprint might be better in the event a physical card is stolen).
The Muslims I know help organize things like International Days of Prayer for Peace. They belong to interfaith groups trying to establish positive relationships with other religions. They aren’t out to convert. They perform community service as they practice their religion. This is happening right in our back yards.
I think it’s too bad more of us haven’t met these folks because they are the majority of Muslims in this country. They don’t want to die, and they certainly don’t want war. Do you think they want their families and children killed? Do you think they came here to start a war?
The violent ones get the press. These people never do.
Incidentally, your #2 would be considered ethnic cleansing. Recall WWII. Do we really want to return to that? I know I don’t.
Could LEAD to ethnic cleansing, that is.
JAB, when you say things like Christianity is the superior religion, it makes me (and probably many like me) feel you think you are better than we are because we believe different things.
It also makes me (and others I am sure) angry when you say others should convert. Why should people have to give up their beliefs?
No one wants to feel this way.
kgotthardt – Ethnic cleasing? You are going hyperbolic.
Would you go back and read Citizen Tom’s number 2 again? He did not say anything about making anybody leave the USA. He just proposed limiting the number of Muslims enter the country. Like it or not, the folks who destroyed the WTC were all Muslims.
Religious ideology makes a difference. What people say they believe makes a difference. When people believe better things, it does make them better. For example, what do you think of people who believe slavery is a good and necessary thing?
OFL, I then corrected myself by saying, “Could LEAD to ethnic cleansing, that is.” The reason I say this is if we announce limiting immigration of just one group of people (which is highly discriminatory anyway), it will lead to witch hunts and searches for “illegals” and terrorists which will lead to hatred which will lead to…do you see what I mean? Before you know it, we have forced emigration and murder which is ethnic cleansing.
Slavery and religion aren’t the same thing.
It’s actions that make the difference. It’s BEHAVIORS. I.E. terrorist actions aren’t good, and people who do these things aren’t good people for whatever reason–could be brainwashing, could be mental illness, could be they are just hateful, could be a variety of things besides ideology, but in the end, it’s their ACTIONS that count. That doesn’t mean they aren’t people–it means they are dangerous and need to be dealt with.
Saying, “let’s keep out the Muslims (or the Hispanics or the African Americans or the Chinese or the Italians etc.) is outright discrimination.
Limiting immigration across the board is not.
Just because I am not Christian doesn’t mean Christians are better than I am. And vice versa.
kgotthardt – With enough contorted logic, virtually anything can lead to ethnic cleansing.
Slavery and religion are not the same thing? If one’s religious beliefs permits slavery, why not? The folks in America’s Old South and in South Africa managed to find many strange things in the Bible. Do you think the holy documents of Islam are less pliable in this respect? Have you ever heard of the Janissaries? If you do not think education, religion, and cultural background makes a difference, you should read about those fellows.
Discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, most of us discriminate against certain foods and for other foods. Can you imagine why we might want to do that? Similarly, it makes sense to discriminate against certain people and for other people.
Unfortunately, our all wise and glorious leaders insist upon sticking their silly noses into everything. Those imperial nitwits want us to believe only they can tell good discrimination from bad discrimination. Such silliness must be hell for businessmen. What employer in his right mind wants a government bureaucrat telling him who he can hire?
But back to the subject. At one time the United States use to favor immigration to the USA from specific nations. Then we got complaints that that constituted discrimination, and discrimination is always bad — supposedly.
As a practical matter, if we wish to limit the immigration of Muslims, then to minimize arguments amongst ourselves and for diplomatic reasons, we would have to limit immigration in general. Our government has become so infernally inefficient that anything more complicated would be both politically unworkable and too byzantine to implement. In addition, such a non-discriminatory policy would probably cause less uproar in Islamic nations. That would probably result in fewer people being killed in idiotic demonstrations.
One last point. This statement misses the point.
Unless a religious belief improves us and makes us more acceptable to God, what is the point of it? Because I am a Christian and believe Jesus is God, I think I am a better person. If I did not think that, I would not bother.
In our era, most terrorism is being conducted by Muslims. Are all Muslim sects the same? No. Are all Muslims terrorists or terrorist sympathizers? No, and I know no way to judge if one individual is better than another. What I do know is that what people say they believe makes a difference. Unless we stupidly want to bring trouble upon ourselves, it makes no since to imitate Europe and to invite hordes of people from nations that want us all to live under Sharia law into the United States.
Is Sharia law bad? That depends on who you ask. For examples see here and here. Regardless of who you believe, Sharia law is based upon Islam. Its implementation would be entirely contrary with our belief in freedom of religion.
Well, Tom, it’s rather disappointing (and hurtful) that you think I am less of a person because I hold different religious beliefs.
I don’t think discrimination against people is ever right. I think actions can be wrong, not people.
kgotthardt – Got a question for you. Because Citizen Tom thinks being a Christian makes him a better person (not you a lesser), you are upset. Because Tom believes he is blessed by his faith, and you do not share his faith, you feel discriminated against. Does that mean that everyone who believes they are blessed by their religious faith is discriminating against nonbelievers? Should we prohibit religious belief?
OLE, this is a difficult question.
Is Tom saying his religion makes him personally a better person? Or is he saying it makes him better than anyone else? Perhaps I misunderstood.
I am glad that anyone would feel blessed by his/her faith, and I also believe that faith should help make someone a better person.
I am very much for religious freedom so long as it doesn’t infringe on my Constitutional rights. I don’t think people should be discriminated against because of their religion.
Does that make sense?
–Slavery and religion are not the same thing? If one’s religious beliefs permits slavery, why not? The folks in America’s Old South and in South Africa managed to find many strange things in the Bible. Do you think the holy documents of Islam are less pliable in this respect?–
Tom, I think anyone can distort anything if they want to justify evil actions. This doesn’t mean, however, that the intent of the belief or religion was evil to start with. The Crusades were justified via religion, and we all pretty much agree the Crusades were evil. Do you see the distinction?
I’m not going to get into the endless definitions that are needed to clarify the talking past each other above.
God bless CT and OFL for their patience.
But, I’ll say these two things. Hope they communicate.
1. All wars are evil. All. No such thing as a good war, just war, etc. There are necessary wars – only.
2. The Crusades – as wars like all wars were evil – but as a strategic counter-offensive to the invasions of Islam and the occupation of the Holy Land and trade routes, they were necessary. Too bad they weren’t more successful. If only they had pushed all the way to the Indus River successfully. World would be a much better place.
JAB, they must like it because they keep responding to me
Incidentally, the more we believe war is necessary, the more we will cease to look for alternatives, whatever those alternatives might be.
kgotthardt – I suggest you read Citizen Tom’s latest post. It seems he anticipated your response to JAB and your apparent unwillingness to defend the values the culture of the West.
OLE, what part exactly? I agree with much Tom has posted.
What exactly are the “values” of the culture of West? If you are referring to Democracy, then yes, I would say defend! However, I am suggesting we look for other ways to do so. We don’t have those ways now, but if we let this progress without question, we are rather doomed as a planet.
kgotthardt – What values? The fact you cannot even identify what makes the West unique and worth defending says a lot. And that is one of the major points of Lee Harris’book. If we do not have the will to defend ourselves, it does no good to look for “other ways” to defend ourselves.
Perhaps I should have said “which” values?
Who is saying we don’t have the will to defend ourselves?
kgotthardt – I think the point of Steyn’s book is that Europeans have lost track of their share Christian values. Europe is being swamped by people who are very likely to change the character of the place. For peace and prosperity now, they giving up their children’s future.
If the election of Obama says anything, it says we are becoming more European — which is what the Left wants. Without a revival, the West is in the twilight before the dark.
Ah! I understand now.
Not knowing anything except what I have read here about the French, I can’t comment much about the European change. It is something that warrants a closer look, whether I think Steyn is fear mongering or not. There are always reasons people say these things, and I believe in getting to the underlying reasons, the source of the problem.
Pingback: SO THAT NO ONE CAN BOAST « Citizen Tom