"If all that liberals can do in response is continue to lie about the causes of terrorism and lock arms with Islamists, we have some very rough times ahead," writes Sam Harris.
Sam Harris espouses liberal politics, yet he’s received his share of criticism from the left for his views on Islam. He has long warned of the dangers of embracing the Muslim religion without caveats. While he’s sometimes labeled Islamophobic, his concerns are not without merit.
In Harris's reply to Trump’s executive order on immigrants, the neuroscientist and philosopher argues the so-called Muslim ban is terrible policy. It is unethical to refugees and green card holders and will do little to staunch the slow bleed of terrorist activity; in fact, it might hasten it.
Yet Harris is duly concerned with the left’s reaction to the ban, which he writes is “contaminated by identity politics and liberal delusion.” He continues:
The Left seems determined to empower the Right by continuing to lie about the problem of Islamism. As David Frum recently wrote, “When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won’t do.” I have been saying as much for more than a decade—and am vilified by my fellow liberals whenever I do.
An inability to think critically about complex subjects knows no party. The majority of Muslims will live peacefully and never incite violence while remaining opposed to terrorist organizations. Most religions confine punishment and retribution to personal faith. If they follow what they deem to be a righteous path, that is enough.
Yet outliers exist across the board. The very first fracture in Islam at the time of Muhammad’s death has kept the religion battling ever since, with the Judeo-Christian lineage as much as internally. Today many more Muslims are victims of terrorism than Westerners. In America you’re much more likely to die at the hands of a texting driver. Since that’s a predominantly sanctioned (or at least under-policed) activity it does not strike fear in our hearts the way a terrorist hidden in the shadows does.
To Trump’s advantage, he called out Islamic terrorism by name — something President Obama and Hillary Clinton largely avoided. In their focus on the more progressive and unifying aspects of Islam they consistently missed opportunities to address the real problem. Trump observed that opportunity and exploited it, and continues to exploit it now that he’s in power.
This is dangerous not only in regards to immigrants and social tension, but in what it hides as well. Cautionary tales abound. As I warned last June, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s ascension to power eerily mimics Trump’s own. In 1998 Orbán was the youngest PM ever voted into power in Hungary. He lost the following election, vowing to return, which he did in 2010. He plans on remaining there indefinitely.
Formerly liberal, Orbán noticed populist sentiments beyond Budapest. He lead an anti-Communist charge in the eighties, but by the time of his re-election he started using that party’s tactics. When his Fidesz party won two-thirds of parliamentary seats in 2010, Orbán cut the number of seats in half and gerrymandered the entire country all at once. In the next election his support dwindled from 53 percent to 44 percent. Thanks to redistricting he, along with every official in his party, remained in power.
Orbán punishes journalists and media institutions critical of him while rewarding those that sing his praises. He’s arrested opposition party members and fired judges he doesn’t care for. Most inspiring to his fans, he constructed a 110-mile long, thirteen-foot high fence on the Serbian border to keep Syrian refugees from entering the country.
The parallels are striking, especially as Orbán and Putin recently met to share their disdain for American sanctions on Russia. With Rex Tillerson in place as Secretary of State those sanctions are threatened. Terrorism is a convenient carrot to dangle in front of everyone’s eyes, as real a problem as it is.
Nationalism always makes for a convenient myth when distractions are needed—the dream of racial and ethnic purity that once existed, even if only in the social imagination. Naomi Klein understood this when writing in The Shock Doctrine:
The ideologies that long for that impossible clean slate, which can be reached only through some kind of cataclysm, are the dangerous ones.
Liberals, as Harris argues, are guilty of clean-slate fetishism when lashing out at any criticism of Islam. David Frum offers similar criticism:
Trump’s executive order has unleashed chaos, harmed lawful U.S. residents, and alienated potential friends in the Islamic world. Yet without the dreamy liberal refusal to recognize the reality of nationhood, the meaning of citizenship, and the differences between cultures, Trump would never have gained the power to issue that order.
As Orbán is proving, nationalism pays dividends. The swamp might not be drained, but the melting pot certainly is. If you don’t note which ingredients are being added you’ll never know what the outcome will be. This is what Harris has been warning of for years: blind allegiance to an illusion comes with its own perils.
Derek's next book, Whole Motion: Training Your Brain and Body For Optimal Health, will be published on 7/4/17 by Carrel/Skyhorse Publishing. He is based in Los Angeles. Stay in touch on Facebook and Twitter.
A ban on fast food would save multitudes more than the travel ban ever could.
My heart sank over the weekend when I heard the travel ban go into effect, barring people from seven predominantly Muslim countries, initially including green card holders. My wife is one. I wasn’t paying attention when I switched on the radio, which is why when the reporter said those three words, green card holders, they ripped through my heart like a knife. It was a visceral response. She’s from Flanders, the Dutch-speaking province of Belgium, which wasn’t included in the moratorium. The report soon informed me that we were okay. But it got me thinking.
A lot has been said about the impact to the economy, to science (a good number of scientists in the US are foreign born), how the ban will break up families, and increase the ranks of ISIS and other jihadi terrorist groups. Protests broke out across the nation and several judges blocked the travel ban in key cities, while a slew of organizations filed suit. Several State Department personnel even circulated a memo condemning the order.
Criticism flew in from conservative and liberal politicians in Congress, as well as many foreign heads of state. There were assuredly those who praised the move as well. The media however, pointed out inconsistencies including that Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE were not included, which were where the 9/11 terrorists came from.
Bloomberg News reported that these very countries are ones President Trump has business interests in. Pakistan wasn’t added to the list, even though this is where Osama bin Laden was found, and where Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters have been holed up. They are under pressure from the Pakistani army and Western forces. Plus, their power and influence has died down in recent years.
Protests broke out at airports and several other locations across the US after the travel ban was announced.
So how big is the threat really and how effective will the ban be? Years of watching 9/11 footage, that of the Boston Marathon bombings, and other atrocities, from every angle, has solidified jihadi terrorism as the number-one fear of a segment of the populace. But according to research by the New American Foundation, only 94 Americans were killed in such acts between 2005 and 2015, while 301,797 succumbed to gun violence. In fact, the biggest killers in the US aren’t terrorists but heart disease, cancer, car crashes, and gunshot wounds.
610,000 die each year on average from heart disease alone. A ban on fast food would save multitudes more than the travel ban ever could. 37,000 die in car crashes and almost 13,000 from gun violence. Meanwhile, the chances of being killed by an immigrant are one in 3.6 million, by a refugee terrorist one in 3.64 billion, and by an illegal immigrant one in 10.9 billion –all exponentially low.
Media saturation of such acts has altered our perception of the actual risk, giving those rare but poignant events more weight to secure viewership, but skewing our perception of reality. Perhaps now, the pendulum has swung back to center. Though one in two Americans, roughly, back the ban, a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll shows that only one-third feel safer because of it. 26% said they felt less safe.
However unlikely such an attack is, Trump’s travel ban could make America more vulnerable to such an attack, though in a statistical sense, albeit marginally so. One reason is that the majority of the attacks in Europe in recent years (and many in America) were by nationals inspired by ISIS. Such a ban may send some ISIS sympathizers over the edge. But that isn’t the only reason.
After the Brussel’s bombings last year, I learned that more foreign fighters who joined ISIS to fight in Syria came from Belgium than any other Western country. A whole generation of disaffected Muslim youth live there and in other parts of Europe. They are marginalized, discriminated against, and have few opportunities to better their lives. They are mostly second and third generation. As naturalized citizens, they would not be subject to the ban.
The Brussels attacks of 2016 revealed that integration difficulties in Europe may make some there vulnerable to radicalization.
I interviewed my wife’s good friend Tom last year after the Brussels event, who is a teacher at what is known as a “concentration school.” Though the majority of students from these areas are respectful, upstanding citizens, he’d had three students thus far run off and join ISIS, by the time the Brussel’s attacks occurred. Integration there is very difficult. Immigrant communities have a 50% youth unemployment rate. In Belgium, they are mostly of Moroccan and Turkish descent, not countries covered in the ban.
These second- and third-generation youth and young adults feel at home neither in their adopted homeland nor where their parents emigrated from. Yet, an ISIS-inspired, radicalized young man from one of these areas would not be subject to the travel ban, as long as he could get past screenings and hadn’t posted such beliefs online. Meanwhile, a middle-aged PhD student with pacifist tendencies from Iraq would be subject to it.
Another important point, Westy Egmont, director of the Immigrant Integration Lab at Boston College, told Reuters that the number of immigrants coming from these seven countries are relatively small. But it isn’t only about numbers. Hundreds of asylum seekers, students, employees, scientists, parents, business people, and many others are being inconvenienced at best, if not having their lives totally upended. Some have lost everything. Others may find their lives in jeopardy, and all over a ban that won’t work, that is bringing international and domestic condemnation, and is liable to make things worse.
So how do we stop ISIS-inspired attacks? To find out, click here:
A new risk analysis shows how the danger of terrorist attacks compares to other causes of American deaths.
Terrorism is a destabilizing scourge on the world. It disrupts societies and steals lives. It is also something less likely to kill an American than much more ordinary dangers.
According to risk analysis research from 2016 by the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, since 9/11, an average of 9 people per year were killed by Muslim extremists in the U.S. By comparison - 37,000 people die ever year from traffic accidents and 12,843 are killed by guns. Any person killed is terrible but if you are talking statistics, it’s easy to conclude that the American fear of terrorist attacks does not match the possible danger.
What about being killed in an attack involving immigrants? The probability of that is very negligible - 1 in 3.6 million. The chances of being killed by a refugee are 1000 times more negligible at 1 in 3.64 billion. That's 0.000000028%. It’s just not likely to happen.
How many total refugee terrorists have their been? According to the report, out of 3,252,493 refugees that came to the U.S. from 1975 till 2015, there were 20 terrorists. Is that a large number? It’s about 0.00062% of the total number. 3 of these confirmed terrorists carried out attacks that killed a total of 3 people.
What about unauthorized immigrants killing Americans? Out of 26.5 million “illegals” in the U.S. during the same time period, 10 turned out to be terrorists, killing 1 American in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The chances of being killed by an illegal immigrant are at 1 in the “astronomical” 10.9 billion.
Of course, all of these statistics can change with one major terrorist incident on the magnitude of 9/11. But the current numbers do not support the alarmist justification offered by the Trump administration for the executive order temporarily barring entry into the U.S. for citizens of 7 Muslim-majority countries. The measure has so far drawn much protest, confusion and division.
Without sacrificing vigilance, the resources of the federal government would be better channeled towards the real dangers to the lives of Americans - consider that over 20,000 people kill themselves every year by firearms, heart disease (the leading cause of death) takes 614,348 lives, while cancer takes 591,699. It’s hard not to question the priorities of the White House, with the first executive orders both attacking people’s health care and overreacting on the dangers posed by citizens of countries who did not kill a single American on U.S. soil.
Cover photo: People walk in the street in the area where the World Trade Center buildings collapsed September 11, 2001 after two airplanes slammed into the twin towers in a suspected terrorist attack. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)
Number of terrorist acts perpetrated in the U.S. by nationals of any of the seven countries? Zero.
The so-called Muslim Travel Ban is President Trump's most controversial measure yet.
The suspension of entry into the U.S. covers citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries, mainly in the Middle East. Comments by Trump indicating that he would exempt members of Christian minorities in those countries have fueled accusations that the measure specifically targets Muslims.
However, the travel ban does not include a few other important Middle-Eastern countries, also with a Muslim majority. To assume, as some have done, that the latter countries were exempted because the Trump Organization has vested business interests there would be to ignore former vice president Joe Biden's parting advice: “Question a man’s judgment, not his motives”.
The ostensible motive of Trump's executive order is "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry". However, as pointed out by CNN's Fareed Zakaria on his show GPS, the total tally of Americans killed on U.S. soil by nationals of any of the seven countries is... zero. Or, as he quoted the list in full: "Iraq – zero, Iran – zero, Syria – zero, Yemen – zero, Libya – zero, Somalia – zero, Sudan – zero".
The figures quoted by Zakaria were produced by the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank. Comparing those figures to those of some countries left off the banned list: "That number for Saudi Arabia is 2,369, for the UAE is 314, for Egypt is 162, according to CATO," Zakaria says.
Images from GPS.
Strange Maps #821
Got a strange map? Let me know at firstname.lastname@example.org.