Steyn, in 180 degree switch (which he does not admit to), now says that Islamic reform and assimilation are impossible

Reader Alex K. informs me that in the new introduction to the paperback edition of America Alone Mark Steyn writes:

As for those who pin their hopes on assimilation and some unspecified but inevitable Islamic ‘reform,” they’re overlooking two things: first, the reform has already taken place, and second, as a consequence, we have reverse assimilation.

Alex continues:

Steyn then tells an anecdote about a modern Muslim woman who was chastised by a “moderate Muslim” woman (Steyn’s quotes) who said that “authentic women” (S.’s quotes) were only those who wore hijabs. Our modern non-hijab-wearing modern Muslim woman didn’t like that. Steyn’s point is that she is on the wrong side of Islamic reform. The actual Islam reform going on in the world today is the move toward the more hardcore form of Islam, as stated in that Gregory Davis passage from “Islam 101” you posted.

So the reform that Steyn says has already happened is reform toward radicalism, and the “assimilation” is happening in that direction. And he separates himself from and dismisses those who “pin their hopes on assimilation and some unspecified but inevitable reform.”

Based on his dismissal of reform, did he revise the conclusion to his original text, where he urged reform? No he did not. That part of the book is exactly the same.

As VFR reader Robert in Nashville wrote last October, Steyn in the final chapter of his book discussed three options for dealing with Islam: submit to it, destroy it, or reform it (Steyn of course didn’t deign to mention the option of stopping Muslim immigration). Of those three options Steyn said we must go after reform. He said that such reform could only be carried by the Muslims, not by us. But then he said that we must establish the conditions that will make Islamic reform more likely. As Robert pointed out, if the Muslims themselves don’t have the will and ability to set up the conditions in which Islamic reform can take place, but we must set up these conditions, isn’t that the same as saying that we must reform Islam?

In any case, whether it is to be done by the Muslims or by us, Steyn said in his book that Islamic reform, i.e., the transformation of traditional or radical Islam into moderate Islam, is the only answer. And now, less than two years after his book was published and was received so enthusiastically by conservatives, he says that such transformation is out of the question. But not only does he not change the text of his book to reflect this 180 degree reversal from his previous position, he does not even inform his readers that he himself, in the very book he is introducing, is among the people who have been so wrongheaded as to “pin their hopes on assimilation and some unspecified but inevitable Islamic ‘reform.’”

What now? Since Islamic reform was the only possible answer to the Islam problem that he presented in America Alone, and since he now says that Islamic reform is off the table, and since he doesn’t present any other answer, what is left of America Alone? What approach to Islam can Steyn advocate now, other than destroying Islam, or surrendering to it? The latter seems more likely, since Steyn once wrote that we must be nice to the Muslims, so that once they’ve taken us over, they will be nice to us. In an earlier piece, in 2003, Steyn said we should “cherish the absurdities” as we allow ourselves to be taken over by Islam. And in late 2005, less than a year before America Alone was published, he wrote off Europe and suggested that an Islamized Europe would be preferable to the corrupt Europe we have now.

Thus his call in America Alone for Islamic reform to save the West was a departure from his usual approach, probably sparked by the realization that if his book was like his articles, the dhimmi-like nature of his position would become so obvious that even his fans would notice. Now that he’s given up on reform, he will likely return to his familiar note of post-modern irony on the impending death of our civilization, even as he continues to be worshipped as a great conservative.

- end of initial entry -

LA writes to Alex K.:

In the new intro, where he dismisses the people who “pin their hopes on assimilation and some unspecified but inevitable reform,” does he mention that in the very book he is introducing, he was pinning his hopes on reform?

Alex K. replies:

No he doesn’t. It’s quite amazing. Other than what I quoted, the entire preface, the new paperback material, is the usual stories about Muslim encroachment and liberals not getting it. That reference to reform being something foolish to pin one’s hopes on is the closest he gets to any substantive new ground.

LA replies:

Yes, amazing. Neocons have taken mental onanism to undreamed of heights.

Thanks for this.

Alex K. continues:

I made a point to flip to the back to check the original section again and read from it (his submit-destroy-reform options) to the end of the book. It’s as I remembered it, and anyway there’s certainly no acknowledgment of any change in his own thinking or in the text itself.

And again, the preface does not acknowledge this change in his thinking. He just drops that line about the only reform that’s happening going in the wrong direction and in no way shows any cognizance of this contradiction with his own fundamental prescription—really the whole point of his book—still in the original text.

LA replies:

Simply amazing. A total absence of intellectual integrity.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 24, 2008 01:30 PM | Send