After 9/11, you may recall, the United States was going to bring democracy to the Islamic world. Nine years later, we have Sharia Constitutions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. A Shi'ite client of the Iranian mullahs rules shakily in Iraq, while in Afghanistan the U.S.-backed president is increasingly hostile to America and even threatens to join the Taliban that he was supposed to be fighting against.
But that isn't even the worst of it. Paradoxically, instead of bringing democracy to the Islamic world, the years since 9/11 have seen only success after success in Islamic supremacist efforts to undermine democracy in the West. Bending over backwards not to appear "anti-Muslim" in their anti-terror efforts, the U.S. and Western Europe have allowed in large numbers of Muslim immigrants who hold to a radically undemocratic political ideology, one that is rooted in Islamic texts and teachings and thus is not susceptible to negotiation, compromise, or the gentle pressure of "assimilation."
It has all happened quite quickly, and yet gradually enough to have generally escaped the notice of those who have been living through it. Nonetheless, life in Western societies has already been utterly transformed, and more changes - for the worse - are certain to come. In the elegiac, insightful and sweeping new book Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy In the West, the American expatriate Abigail R. Esman, who now lives in the Netherlands, surveys the damage.
It's a profoundly moving, personal account of how the stealth jihad has advanced in the Netherlands over the last decade and more, written by someone who was in the center of it all. Esman knew Theo van Gogh, murdered by Islamic jihadist Mohammed Bouyeri in 2004 for his film Submission about the plight of Muslim women, and was close friends with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the outspoken Somali ex-Muslim who served for a time in the Dutch Parliament and who collaborated with van Gogh on Submission, before death threats led her to flee the country. She watched as Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn rose to international prominence for his opposition to unrestricted Muslim immigration and the Islamization of the Netherlands - and then was murdered by a Dutchman who said he did it out of sympathy for the nation's Muslims. Esman recalls: "There were those - and I was one of them - who thought Fortuyn was little more than a pretender, a narcissist with a big mouth and glib tongue who would quickly be exposed and then forgotten. We were the most wrong of all."
Esman details the horror of the murder of van Gogh, the bloody triumphalist Islamic boasts of his murderer, the supine reaction of Dutch authorities, and the indifference of self-proclaimed moderate Muslims. Noting their absence at a November 2005 memorial for van Gogh attended the Dutch prime minister and the mayor of Amsterdam, she writes: "Muslim moderates are part of 'us,' not 'them.'" Yet when they should have been there, just to make that simple statement, to present that one gesture of solidarity, they were not. And that they weren't makes me consider, on second thought, that maybe they aren't quite with us, after all."
But America has managed to assimilate its Muslim population much more successfully, hasn't it? After surveying a number of jihad terror plots perpetrated by both Muslim immigrants and homegrown converts to Islam, Esman concludes that that bit of conventional wisdom, like so much else in the popular understanding of the jihad terror threat, is simply wrong. Our freedoms are being eroded here no less unmistakably than they are being eroded in Europe. The consequences of the folly of our government and law enforcement officials may be less obvious to the general public than it is in Europe, but in the age of Obama that is rapidly changing.
So what is to be done? Must we choose between becoming an Islamic state or a totalitarian state imposed in the name of "security"? Esman contends that it is not too late to save our free societies, if we firmly reject the suicidal philosophy of multiculturalism and take other steps she outlines in Radical State (including a few offered by me). Radical State is a unique and powerful book because it brings to vivid life the human cost of the ongoing Islamization of Europe. Already the massive importation of Islamic supremacists with nothing but contempt for European civilization and an intention to replace it with Sharia at the earliest opportunity has been a catastrophe of incalculable proportions for European societies.
Abigail Esman has lived through the worst of it, or the worst so far, and shows all the large and small ways in which our lives, our joys, our freedoms, are diminished. If she is heeded now, it may not be too late to salvage at least some of what has made us so free and so alive for so long.
But that is a big "if."
Damn, I wish I could get paid to just sit around and read this stuff! I'm just finishing Brigitte Gabriel's "They Must be Stopped" which is yet another powerful, inspiring survey of the battlefield and call to arms. Figuratively-speaking of course. Once you've read a few of these books, you get the picture. Still, there's so much data, so many vignettes, various points of focus and personal voices -- point being that there's something worthwhile reading all of them!
The more I read, though, the more I begin to think that the prime, essential conflict is with the media. Somehow their general and deeply entrenched bias against the truth here has to be effectively challenged and broken. And it's all so ironic when one considers that most reporters -- yes, I'll say this. I think it's true -- become journalists with noble ambitions and a sincere dedication to truth. They're not beyond redemption in other words. They just need help. We need to find a way to persuade them to brace for a sea-change and reconsider a few things. Hm ....
Robert
complete essay reproduced on the Infidel Task Force....hope you don't mind.
I totally disagree with you about journalists. Most modern journalists have absolutely no commitment to truth. I think they become journalists to make a difference, to bring a change "for the better" (in their view), and most of them are too lazy to study in depth any subject they supposedly report about, and have no commitment whatsoever to journalistic ethics or to real journalistic standards. They've published pure hoaxes - whether created by them or ones they bought without checking enough or without checking at all - too many times on too many topics for me to believe modern journalism has any uncorrupted bone still left in its body.
All journalism this days is advocate journalism. And in that I include both traditional journalism, aka the MSM, and alternative journalism, such as Internet magazines, news sites and blogs. All are political, all have an agenda and push certain policies and certain candidates. Except a website like Jihad Watch overtly calls itself "Jihad Watch", so the subject is known, the political position is known, the policies supported by the owner are known, it's explicitly an advocacy site, whereas the MSM still pretends to be neutral.
80-90% of MSM journalists are leftists. It's a political party in all but name. It uses its enormous power for disseminating political propagnada and "educating" the public under the false pretence of providing information. The same way the academia is used for leftist indoctrination. The opposition is allowed to voice itself only in very specific corners of the token right wing column and the token right wing op-ed. At least the US has Fox and the radio as powerful oppsition. Most of Europe doesn't.
What happens in a situation like this - and it doesn't matter if it's the left or the right that has a monopoly on the academia and the media, in short on information - is that people are seriously and sufficiently exposed only to arguments that support one political side. Therefor it becomes more and more radical and degenerates intellectually for lack of real challenge and lack of real critical thinking and also lack of information. It's like a dictator that will only listen to the advisers who agree with him and to the news that please him and will kill anyone who disagrees or brings bad news. While he might be initially successful, his willful ignorance will eventually lead him and his kingdom to demise.
In the current situation I don't believe any information source anymore since all are too political and I've seen too many lies. It must be a lot like how the Soviet citizens used to feel, knowing that Pravda is lying to them, but not knowing where to get the truth.
Until people in the media and government read the damned Koran and understand that Islam is not just a variant "Abrahamic religion", but is an out and out deathcult, built on sanctified Terror and spread by the sacrosanct Sword, and that its originator Mohammad was a thieving, deceiving, mass-murdering, slaveholding, megalomaniacal pedophile warlord, there can be no honest discussion in the media of Islam's self-declared character or grim totalitarian intentions. Nor will they have any grasp of the scope of its threat to human freedom and all our futures.
Islam is just Jom Jones' killer kool-aid cult times 1 billion.
But the mere fact that so many more have been duped and intimidated by this maniac's sect does not change its basically vile character.
1000 fools in a jungle or a billion spread acroos the Earth - the core luncacy is the same: fealty to a fixation backed up with murder.
Doom-and-gloom, your strong reply really took me aback and made me think. Of course I get your point and am constantly disappointed and angered by the ideological blinders of the MSM. So what was I saying then? Was I just being stupid?
Hm, maybe. Wouldn't be the first time. :)
However, I think perhaps not. What I should have said, what I believe, is that I think that most journalists think that they're committed to finding and reporting the truth. I think they're stuck in a deep, broad cultural morass of cognitive dissonance and their compass points are completely off but, for what it's worth -- nothing, really, in the abstract -- they sincerely believe that that's what they're doing. Some, I'm sure, would say otherwise and might argue that their role is one of social engineering, retooling facts and stories always with an eye towards advancing their political agenda. But the majority, I think, while caught up in this game, don't see themselves that way. And I take some comfort in the belief that they're deluded that way because it makes me think they're not entirely beyond reach. How to reach them's the real challenge but I don't think it's impossible. I don't know, maybe it is. But I don't think so.
Such is the danger of Nazi-like ideology of Islam, especially to the Jews & Israel - Hitler loved Islam; we must ask why? Was he inspired or advised by Islam. After all, the Arabs including the Palestinian Mufti of Jerusalem, Muslim Brotherhood founder, Hassan al-banna and the Turkish Ottomans were among or main Hitler/Nazi’s biggest collaborators or advisers! - new urgent investigation needs to be reopened: At - http://europenews.dk/en: In - http://www.investigativeproject.org/2315/moderate-qaradawi-defends-hitler-and-nuclear\
"Moderate" Qaradawi Defends Hitler and Nuclear Terror
IPT News
November 9, 2010
....According to excerpts of a speech that aired on Al-Jazeera in January 2009, Qaradawi called on Muslims to put Jews in "their place" as Hitler had done, in revenge for Israeli military operations in Gaza several weeks earlier. "Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption," he said. "The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them - even though they exaggerated this issue - he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers." At a January 2009 "Gaza Victory Rally" in Doha, Qatar, Qaradawi prayed for the opportunity to kill a Jew before his death. "The only thing that I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah's enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus, I will seal my life with martyrdom. Praise be to Allah."......
First, my heartfelt thanks to Robert for such a flattering and generous review of my book. I am truly honored.
But I actually wanted to post in response to the discussion about the media, because as a journalist myself, this is a matter I have raised often. It is indeed true that many of my colleagues back away from discussing these issues, and editors are reluctant to allow some "inconvenient truths" into their pages. I discuss this, in fact, in Radical State, and point out that our future freedoms depend on the free press, and the willingness of editorial boards to permit investigative reporting that may reveal uncomfortable realities.
Doom-and-gloom, while I agree with many of your points, I think you need to take a step back and look at the facts as well. "90 percent"? On what do you base this? Do you have actual statistical evidence?
Answer: no. You don't. And you know it. So can we all try to be a little less hysterical and deal with what is actually out there -- in order to preserve our credibility and, more, effectively make a difference?
It's clear that the wrong policies were pursued in Afghanistan and Iraq. There was desire to do it "on the cheap" and a naive refusal to acknowledge that progress towards democracy faced huge cultural obstacles.
A much more revolutionary policy should have been followed, similar to the Denazification policy after WW2.
1. The male population under 50 should have been brought under control and screened.
2. The Imams and Mosques should have been brought under control.
3. We should have licensed the media and political parties ensuring that only those committed to the democratic path would be licensed.
4. We should have invested heavily in job creation, so that millions of jobs could allocated to our supporters. In Afghanistan, we should have bought up the whole of the opium crop.
5. There should be land reform and social reform - in particular female emancipation.
Thank you Robert! Once again you have outdone yourself in eloquently describing & analyzing the predicament of the West during the past 9 years, in just 8 paragraphs! Ms Esman's book is at the top of my wish list & will be added to my library soon {& I am humbled by are's presence!}.
Yup & D&g: The conflict spinning the media is only partly due to its propensity to inform in terms of 'Black & White - Left or Right'. We are not getting the 'story-behind-the-story' {in fond memory of the late great Larry Glick} regarding the shades of gray in between.
The help that journalists thirst for is much greater than persuasion & reconsideration per their readers. It casts a shadow longer than their editor's, advertiser's or boards of director's combined influence.
Many journalists know their reporting boundaries. They write not for us, but to please their editors who want to please their editorial boards who want to please their advertisers whose money pleases media outlet owners. It is these behemoths, circles of vulturous friends, & all their beliefs & desires that control today's world of information. It has been so for decades.
G&d, you 'Lefted' out the Right along with socialist, communist engines fed by progressive rocket fuel. 'There are statistics & then there are damned statistics.'
Katharina, you are so right about the Nazi's nihilistic, ideological connection to today's 'Jihadist Question'. It was treated lightly in Holocaust tomes until only recently.
Hitler admired the fanatical Empire of Japan, especially its Kamikazes. He was impressed with Mussolini's fascist power over the masses & he absolutely suckled, thrived & developed upon Islam's murderous hatred of Jews. Hitler equally despised Gypsies, Slavic peoples, blacks, malcontents & other 'Useless Eaters'. However, it was the Jews alone that were targeted for total destruction. How long will the world stand idly by today as humanity prepares to consume itself once again?
G&d: Jihad Watch is 'explicitly an advocacy site' shining light & focus upon uncolored yet eerily absent facts many {not most} people hunger after. Robert Spencer & other selfless individuals around the world today are not 'getting paid to just sit around & read this stuff!'. I'm sure there is not enough time in a day for them to distribute the antidote of truth against the subjugation of humanity, & the end of life as we know it...
Meeeooooow!
"knowing that Pravda is lying to them, but not knowing where to get the truth."
There was underground press in USSR and there was radio. Today we have internet...
After 9/11 Bush took the fight abroad when there was much to do at home. What an opportunity missed!
Many counter-arguments to the "Islamic threat" I hear people raising are along the lines of:
"but what effect will it have? I can still live here peacefully, raise my kids and drink in the pub if I don't offend them.", or "How have you actually been affected by Islam, personally?"
For answering these questions, sounds like this book is just the deal.