In all the genuflections about the impact of the mass-murders inflicted in New York and Washington and the deaths of the passengers fighting against the hijackers on Flight 93, I thought these comments by Glenn Reynolds stood out. His blog, Instapundit, was one of those that saw a massive rise in traffic as people sought information outside the usual MSM gates at the time. And Samizdata, founded around that time, was part of that process too.
Prof Reynolds is unimpressed by US politics, overall, since that terrible day, and by the performance of parts of the security services and the like. Far too few people at the CIA and other places were fired. If there was any cleaning house, I missed it. A huge amount of taxpayers’ money was spent on new organisations (TSA) but I never got a sense of a general purge of incompetence and sloppiness that made it easier for the 19 hijackers and enablers to do what they did.
Of course, there have been some great exceptions, and let’s not forget that for every terrorist outrage that gets covered in the media, we often don’t hear about those plots that get disrupted or thwarted, and by people who cannot be named. Bear that in mind amidst the sombre atmosphere that such an anniversary causes.
To this day, I consider radical Islamism, in all its nihilistic fury and ugliness, the number one problem for humanity today. It is an attack on all the best features of human civilisation, if I may presume to use that word. Islamists hate ideas such as individual rights, free personal agency, human curiosity, a sense of adventure, production of material values, equality before the law – all of it.
Back to Prof. Reynolds:
We said “never forget.” Well, we haven’t forgotten the heroism of people like Rick Rescorla, the Flight 93 passengers, the firefighters who charged up the WTC stairs, or the volunteers who set up the American Dunkirk evacuation of lower Manhattan by boat.
But we have forgotten the criminal negligence of our political leaders and intelligence services that got us to that point. We should have purged the incompetents then. Instead, they’re still running the show. The country is still sound, but the people in charge of it have only gotten worse.
Bless America and its great Republic.
I always felt that the TSA was mostly ‘theatre’ to persuade the ordinary people that the nasty men had been discouraged. Especially when any bad actors could just walk across the southern border.
I dislike the recently invented term “islamism”. By “islamism” you really mean “islam”, but don’t like to say so. Unless you identify the problem, how can you deal with it? We don’t.
DiscoveredJoys – correct.
As for “Islamism”.
George Walker Bush, and the rest of the establishment – whether “conservative” or “liberal”, were coming out with the line that Islam was the religion of peace and that a few bad people had “distorted” or “twisted” it, before the ashes had even cooled.
This thinking led to both the Afghan and the Iraq wars (with all the loss of money and lives) – and it meant that nothing was done to prevent Islamic immigration into Western countries.
I can not say any more as it is against the law in the United Kingdom to communicate honestly about these matters.
“The country is still sound” – is it?
Has it not stopped being sound for a long time?
Even as far back as the 1930s most people did nothing when the government robbed them of all monetary gold and broke all contracts, public and private.
Most people in States that had “shelter in place” orders (Covid lockdowns) obeyed them.
Most people (a few people aside – some of whom are suffering terrible abuse in prison even as I type these words, and some of whom are dead) did nothing when an election was stolen in front of them.
Can a nation be sound when most people do nothing in the face of terrible wrongs committed by those in power – the people really in power.
“Is Britain any better?”
No – it is not.
No nation is sound where most people concentrate on “keeping their heads down” – trying not to draw the attention of the establishment, for fear of punishment.
And I include myself in this – I have terrible yellow streak (cowardice) of which I am deeply ashamed.
@JohnK
I dislike the recently invented term “islamism”. By “islamism” you really mean “islam”, but don’t like to say so. Unless you identify the problem, how can you deal with it? We don’t.
But you are doing exactly the same thing you complain about. The majority of muslims are not and would never blow up buildings or fly planes into city blocks. Go on down to your local mosque and see if they are advocating for that. If you go and are respectful, I assure you they will be quiet welcoming. I have done it a few times myself.
So for you to identify the problem as “Islam” is just as equally misleading. The focus needs to be the radical sects of Islam that do those kinds of thing rather than the majority of muslims who are far more concerned with the price of gas or getting their kid into a decent school than they are with wiping out the infidels.
I don’t care for the word Islamist either, “jihadi” seems a better choice.
I think muslims on average have somewhat different political views than I do, particularly around Israel, but I assure you, Kamala Harris is a far bigger danger to me personally than the whole muslim population of the US put together.
JohnK: “By `islamism’ you really mean `islam’, but don’t like to say so.”
No, I meant what I wrote. I used the term Islamism deliberately, because what we have at the moment is, in my mind, a lethal mix of Islam at its most militant, and without any of the spirituality, care for strangers and so on, plus – and this is key – relatively modern ideas that come from Marxism, and varieties of fascism, including the Nazi ideology. It explains, for me, why the hard Left finds it easy to break bread, so to speak, with the likes of Hamas and so on (Jeremy Corbyn’s political career being an example).
Why does this matter? Well, I could, say 600 years ago, have written as disobligingly about Christianity as you might hope I would about Islam: the Spanish Inquisition, the obsessions with witches, the endless searches for heresy and all the rest of it. Then something happened – the Renaissance and eventually, Enlightenment, all reinforced by massive changes in the realm of science and material progress. Islam was not left intact, either. After the high point of expansion under the Ottomans, it went into partial retreat. Exhibit A: Turkey under Ataturk.
For this reason, I use “Islamism”, just as I might use the term “Christianism” for those who, for example, want to reimpose Christianity, by force if need be, and co-opt Christian-sounding ideas in support of their rule, as Putin has done with the Russian Orthodox Church. “Islam” is too broad and woolly. I chose a different term because it focuses as much on how supposedly secular people are turned on by it as those who were already believers.
None of this has anything to do with being afraid of calling a spade a spade. Quite the opposite. Islamism refers to tens of millions of people, so it is hardly avoiding a problem.
This seems correct to me. At least looking at Britain, its striking how many perpetrators of Islamic terrorism have been allowed in as legal immigrants and/or refugees, or were the children or grandchildren of such immigrants. If we didn’t have any significant Islamic immigration, Islamic terrorism would be a marginal issue in Britain, no matter what was going on in the Middle East, Indian subcontinent, Africa, or the Balkans. See Japan – the Islamic population there is minute, and the ones there are much easier for the police to keep an eye on without having to seriously undermine everyone else’s liberties.
British governments of recent decades have had risible tendencies to at the same time encourage huge Islamic immigration while following America into almost all the conflicts America has got itself involved in Islamic countries. Doing one alone wasn’t that wise. Doing both things together was criminal.
I disagree; in fact, i strongly disagree.
Islamism would not be a problem, were it not that Anglo-American “progressivism” (AAP) is fostering it.
The same could be said by substituting Putin or Xi for Islamism; and therefore AAP would still be a Big Problem without Islamism.
— As for the distinction between Islam and Islamism.
In my immodest opinion, there is actually a 3-fold distinction between Islam, Islamism, and Muslim popular opinion — and even this is an over-simplification.
Islam is not a suicide cult, otherwise it would not have survived for over a millennium.
But modern Islamism seems to have all the symptoms of a suicide cult; and it is Islamism, not Islam, that is fostered by AAP.
As for ordinary Muslims, my understanding is that most of them have not actually read the Koran, and just want to get along, as most of us do.
You just described the government of my US state of Minnesota.
It’s not just an Islamic problem. It’s also a socialist problem.
Sorry, but “islamism” is a western construct. The people who commit acts of terror see themselves as muslims who follow the religion of islam. They are following their terror manual, a book called the koran. Obviously, not all muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are muslims. A muslim should want to live in a state governed by the sharia. If he does not, he is not a real muslim, so he’s liable to death along with the rest of us.
What Snorri Godhi said, more or less. My view is that the greatest problem is the massive infection of the West with suicidal levels of self-criticism in its the cultural organs. If that wasn’t happening, Islamism would be a footnote to history.
This trend predates Islamism and even Frankfurt School Marxism. Kipling’s 1909 poem “The City of Brass” summarizes it quite well.
As regards Islamism versus Islam: there are lots of reasonable Moslems. But (IMO) Islam is intrinsically vulnerable to politicization and extremism. The posture of GW Bush et al was an effort to “play the fish”: pull too hard on the line and it breaks, but that means letting the fish run some of the time.
“Nuke ‘em from orbit. Only way to be sure.”
Alex Station within the CIA knew pretty much what was going on in the months leading up to 9/11 but they were too wrapped up in the cloak and dagger aspect of the intelligence collection and too defensive in turning intelligence of 9/11 planning and US embedded terrorists over to actionable counterterrorism units.
Instead of being ground into fine dust for their failures, they got more funding and more manpower to go chasing after the ghost of Bin Laden .
Rewards, not for failure, but criminal levels of neglect of duty.
Then again, if we’d followed the evidence, we’d have invaded Saudi Arabia rather than Afghanistan and Iraq.
Snorri: Islamism would not be a problem, were it not that Anglo-American “progressivism” (AAP) is fostering it. The same could be said by substituting Putin or Xi for Islamism; and therefore AAP would still be a Big Problem without Islamism.
You say you “strongly disagree”, Snorri, with my statement that I think Islamism is the number one problem for the world. That does not mean it cannot be confronted, and as you rightly stated, the role of so-called “progressives” (progressing towards what, exactly?) is part of it, as have parts of the fringe far right in the past (think of the Palestinian infatuation with the Nazis in the 1940s, a fact that some might prefer to forget).
Sorry, but “islamism” is a western construct. , writes JohnK.
But bear in mind that quite a few of these folk imbibed ideas that were also influenced by the worst elements of Western intellectual thought – communism, Nazism, etc. Yes, there are aspects of it that originate within parts of Islam as originally formed, but like so many other things, it is not a static entity, and has absorbed elements from other forms of thought. (I should not even think this is particularly controversial.)
Islam was explained by Muhammed – the life (deeds) and teachings of Muhammed are recorded in the central texts of Islam – Muhammed’s central point (made over and over again) was that his orders (what he did) came from God (Allah) and so did what he taught. Muhammed was not like Jesus – Muhammed was a political and military leader and laid down a system of law. All his commands came, he claimed, from God (Allah) and can not be challenged by any Earthly authority.
That puts to bed any idea of “Islamism”, “extreme sects”, or what-not.
As for people who say they are Muslims but do not follow the teachings that Muhammed explained – specifically in relation to expanding the area of the world under Islamic governance. Muhammed called such people “hypocrites” – the penalty for being one is severe.
Johnathan:
I can broadly agree with THIS:
My only slight disagreement is that, leaving aside the “far-right” label, there are common ideological roots to nazism and wokeness.
And both are, ultimately, suicide cults.
(WRT the label, you can call the nazis “far-right” or “far-left”: both labels are meaningless to me; with qualifications that i won’t go into here.)
Turning back to the United States – but really the rest of the dying West as well.
It is indeed true that the American government (as Professor Reynolds has often explained) is totally corrupt.
For example, they (and the vast Corporations allied to them – such as the Disney Corporation that owns ABC news) lie endlessly – about everything from historic temperature figures to inflation rates (so lying about the 2020 Presidential election was just an expansion of their normal practice of lying about most things).
However, it is also society that is rotten – both in the United States and other Western nations.
Especially since the 1960s non state (civil society) cultural institutions, including the family itself, have horribly declined – indeed they are heading for collapse.
To say that the country (society) is “strong” is absurd – society is clearly horribly decayed, and getting worse. Americans, and other Westerners, are not even having enough children to replace themselves – because they have so little hope, and many people are killing themselves (sadly, tragically, but understandably so).
To deal with a problem one must first accept that it exists – and not go on about how the Republic is strong or great, or other such.
The one great hope is that the evil is so obvious now – it is no longer masked, it is out in the open.
The vast Corporations, especially the financial entities, have openly allied themselves with the forces of evil (for example in the election campaign – but also in other things) and no one can now make the mistake of confusing these corporate entities with Free Enterprise.
They are not Free Enterprise – they are created and sustained by endless Credit Money (created from nothing) directed to them. In reality not only are they not Free Enterprise – they openly hate and despise Free Enterprise and campaign for Collectivism (not even drawing the line at persons such as K. Harris) – indeed Collectivism on an international bases.
The political philosophy of the international establishment, both government and corporate, can be summed up in one word.
Liberticide.
The desire to wipe out liberty – but economic liberty and civil liberties.
I think Snorri is correct about the term “far right” – it is used to cover people with political opinions that are totally opposed, for example, on the one hand, Prime Minister Mussolini of Italy and Chancellor Adolf Hitler of Germany – both of whom wanted the state to dominate everything (see Hayek “The Road to Serfdom” and Ludwig Von Mises “Omnipotent Government”), AND President Milei of Argentina – who wants to radically REDUCE the size and scope of government.
A term that covers a political position AND the opposite of that political position – is useless.
One could make the same point about the term “left” (although, I admit, I often use the term myself).
The socialists in the 19th century called themselves “left”, but the radical anti socialist economist Bastiat (who held the opposite political philosophy) also called himself “left”.
Again if a political term is held to describe a political position and the OPPOSITE of that political position – what use is that political term?
When the IRA were blowing up pubs and rememberance parades, did we describe it as Christian terrorism?
“catholicism”.
Jgd, no, because the IRA didn’t do so. Today’s Islamists are quite open about their religious ideology. The IRA was and is a primarily nationalist group, and overwhelmingly associated with part of the Catholic side of NI, although many Catholics explicitly repudiated it, at personal cost. Many kept their heads down: a common outcome when terrorists are on the rampage.
I largely agree with Snorri on this. Wokeism is AIDS. Islamism is pneumonia.
As for Islam, Islamism, whatever. There are clearly many good and decent people who consider themselves Muslim. But there are also an substantial proportion of Muslims who believe things antithetical to any kind of modern democracy, and who derive those beliefs from their understanding of the tenets of Islam and belief they are commanded to that position by their religion.
And within this group there are those who are prepared to commit horrific violent acts in support of those beliefs. That group is a very small proportion of the 1 billion Muslims in the world, but nonetheless represents quite a significant number in absolute terms. Moreover, alarmingly, a much larger proportion of the total are prepared to condone, justify and potentially provide political and financial support for those who commit such acts.
But none of this would pose such a direct threat to those of “safely” in the UK if the radical Left didn’t welcome huge number of Muslims into the UK, and teach them to hate their host country and remain apart from its traditional culture, instead of teaching them to integrate into it and adopt its culture.
I assure you they will be quiet welcoming. . . . the majority of muslims [are] far more concerned with the price of gas or getting their kid into a decent school than they are with wiping out the infidels.
Oh, sure. And I have found the same to be true of the leftists I know and have known.
I wish to reciprocate the appreciation from Rich Rostrom and Mary Contrary (wonderful nom d’internet!).
My first comment did not take a position on Islam, other than noting that it is not a suicide cult; but i agree with them, and others, that it has had a negative impact on its adherents.
The Fertile Crescent and Egypt were the sites of the earliest civilizations. Would they have fallen so far back, were it not for Islam?
Having written this, can i ever visit the UK again?
Snorri, if you want to visit the UK again, we can provide fighter escort.
Thank you, Johnathan. I appreciate that.
I’ll let you know when the time comes.
I’m surprised no one here (sorry if I missed it…somewhat skimmed all the comments), pointed out the other impact of 9/11/2001 in the US: the relaxing of prohibitions against the US intelligence community and law enforcement spying on Americans, monitoring our phones, emails (this blog!), etc.
The Patriot Act is long overdue to be repealed or at least drastically updated. I mean, it’s not like it’s resulted in a secure America what with with 10 million plus pouring in across the Southern border in just the last few years. I’m not sure I buy the claims by Trump and others that a significant percentage (5%? 10%? not sure what they say) are terrorists, criminally insane, etc. But even if it’s just 0.1%, that’s a lot.
This post is all about what 19 bad guys could do, so imagine what 10,000 might do? [For those of you in Rio Lindo, 0.1% of 10,000,000 is 10,000]
I’m surprised no one here (sorry if I missed it…somewhat skimmed all the comments), pointed out the other impact of 9/11/2001 in the US: the relaxing of prohibitions against the US intelligence community and law enforcement spying on Americans, monitoring our phones, emails (this blog!), etc.
Thinking about it, I am a bit surprised too, and I suppose it is a sign of how desensitized folk have become that this was not brought up. Wars and scares (justified and unjustified) invariably lead to extensions of state power: worries about terrorism, or catastrophic global warming, plagues/obesity/other health issues, to give a few, have all been used in this regard. The trouble is that terrorism is real enough: Expecting the public to adopt some sort of cool, cost-benefit analysis of risk/reward over security was always going to be a stretch. However, the Ed Snowden/other various revelations and episodes have surely put a dent in the “precautionary principle” approach that arose very fast as the smoke was still coming from the Twin Towers.
I might write a longer essay on this, but there’s little doubt that liberty, as classical liberals understand it, has been in retreat for the past 23 years, whether economic, social, or political. “Cancel culture”, radical environmentalism and Green fearmongering, rising regulation of business and commerce, restrictions on internet use and the clampdowns in China, Hong Kong, Venezuela, the Putin nightmare, nanny state developments in places such as the UK.
There is a lot of work that needs to be done. And at the philosophical level, in the real of ideas, there is a need to focus once more on humans’ need for autonomy, liberty and a realisation that life involves an element of risk. Otherwise, we might as well be dead.
Rahm Emmanuel, paraph. Saul Alinsky.
“TSA”?
Thousand Standing Around?
An actual survivor of the strike on the Pentagon has a few words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLQT7JE63v8&t=1s