41 Replies to “Mark Steyn on Islamic Terrorism in the West”

  6. Molyneux’s proposed solution—isolationism—presumes what is false. That the muzzies just want to be left alone—that they are only acting out of self-interest to brutal Western imperialism, is belied by mountain ranges of empirical evidence to the contrary and by Islamic doctrine, especially concerning jihad.
    To coin a phrase that may capture what is wrong with his understanding of the problem we face, you may not be interested in Islam, but Islam is interested in you.
    If so, then, as per his pie-chart, 102 million was not enough.

  8. nick >
    It’s properly described as Non-interventionism and the Isolation of Arabic Islamic states through sanctions, including all student and working visa’s to the west.
    Don’t let the globalists convince you that cutting off Islamic immigration and subsequent funding as the same thing as the big fear mongering boogyman “Isolationism”.
    If this was millions of white European Neo Nazi’s and their families immigrating to the west, there would be outrage and sanctions. The floodgates would be closed before Turdeau could comb and admire his hair in the morning.
    Force Arabic countries to fight for their own freedoms, or it’s worthless.

  11. Molyneux conflates Christianity and human nature.
    Christians were persecuted because they did not accept the deity of the Roman emporers. Then for the next 15 centuries or so, the ruling class continued the same policy, claiming ipso facto deity as God’s chosen gateway to heaven.
    For the most part they were venal, interested only in temporal power and wealth. They were fearful of people reading the Bible and discovering what it actually teaches (eg, burning of John Wycliffe).
    Galatians 5:1 “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”

  12. Always a great pleasure to hear Mark Steyn. There’s one small point of fact he gets wrong, though: He said in an interview on Sun News and on the Dennis Miller radio show that the Ottawa shooter was “pure laine,” when in fact Zehaf-Bibeau’s father was a Libyan immigrant with a Libyan passport who’d recently travelled overseas to fight there.
    The relevance of this detail can be debated, but it’s best to keep such inconvenient (to the usual suspects in the MSM, not Steyn) facts on the table. Years ago, feminists used the gynocidal Marc Lépine as an all-purpose stand-in for “men” while going out of their way to elide the fact that he was the son of a violent, misogynistic Algerian who physically abused both Lépine – who was born “Gamil Gharbi” – and his mother.

  13. Shorter Molyneux: Quoting James T. Kirk, “LET them die!”
    I actually don’t have much problem with that approach. Except its kinda hard on people, and it lets head choppers walk around free to chop more heads. I’ve got a fundamental problem with head choppers.
    I also think his analysis of the Middle East situation is fatuous. ISIS is getting bankrolled and supplied by Russia and China, because Commies want to rule the world. The American military “response” is a pre-election photo op so Barry looks like he’s Doing Something. Canada is probably going because we got promised the Keystone Pipeline or something else Ottawa wanted from Obama, and we hardly sent anything anyway. Mooselimbs having some kind of great religious uproar is the least of the reasons this is happening.
    Where I agree with Molyneux is this: the Big State Security approach is 180 degrees -backward- to what we need to do. Islamic terrorism is a non-cordinated, distributed attack, as I keep saying. You meet a distributed attack with a deeply distributed defense. You beat the Lone Jihadi with the Lone Cowboy.
    The USA took precisely the wrong direction after 9/11. They did, as Molyneux said, exactly what Bin Laden hoped they would do. They spent hundreds of billions on security theater to further oppress their own majority population, they spent -trillions- on handouts to keep their minority population fat happy and glued to the TV all day, and the whole thing is coming unglued before our very eyes.
    If we want to beat Islamic extremism, we will do it AS INDIVIDUALS. When some Islamist comes to our stores demanding halal this, hijab that, sharia something else, we will laugh at him. And if there is no Human Rights Commission coming around to bankrupt the store and enforce the Islamist’s wishes, he will go away. Chastened.
    No death, no violence, no government oppression required. Just personal freedom and the guts to use it. If the guy wants halal sharia hijabs let him start his own store, and good luck with that.
    But.
    If we continue to destroy our own freedom and our own culture ourselves, out of fear, they don’t have to do anything at all, do they? They can put their feet up in front of the TV and watch the whole thing on CNN while they eat halal popcorn.
    Should security get all beefed up and armored up on Parliament Hill? No. They should issue ammunition to the honor guard at the Cenotaph, they should compel every MP in Parliament and clerk and factotum in the civil service to buy a proper sidearm and wear it at all times, and they should repeal all the legal restrictions on buying, owning and carrying firearms in this country.
    What are they going to do? The opposite. Because -Liberals-.
    Mooselimbs are not a problem. Liberals are. We defeat Liberalism, we defeat Islam at the same time. Islam cannot exist here without the Liberals to puff them up with money and protection.

  14. The way to deal with islam is to use the means that were used to destroy the Thuggee cult.

  15. Except many conservatives are bought and owned by oil ticks as well. When both wings are compromised it doesn’t matter who wins, we all lose.

  16. Nice to see that some of the commentators here are waking up to the stage that some of the rest of us have been advocating for years. A government has only three functions protect and preserve the society that elected it and propagate that society not by force and coercion but by example. For any readers here that have ever voted liberal you should be held accountable for the dilution that has taken place in this country over the last fifty some years. You should be held accountable for the deaths of both soldiers killed in unarmed attacks this past week. You have helped to propagate the myth of multiculturalism by your inability to reason. This country is barely functional with three cultures, English, French, and Aboriginal, so what will it be like in fifty years or less when the full extent of introduced Islam take hold. After both World Wars you welcomed the Forces home by saying “Great job, boys but leave your guns on the docks you wont need them anymore.” And since then you have continually tried to restrict ownership of the one tool that ultimately enables us to be free. You have taxed Canadians to the benefit of the vermin that are now killing us on our own streets, sending aid packages to Muslim countries that cannot on their own feed their indigenous populations. You by your complacency have allowed this country to become what it is today and then blame the present government for what is happening. Liberalism is a cancer that erodes and dilutes a society incrementally, and you have been complicit in changing the face and fabric of this once great nation. Today’s Canada is not the nation that welcomed hundreds of thousands of hard working immigrants to it’s shores in the first half of the Twentieth Century. People that wanted freedom to work hard and have a chance to make a better life for themselves and their families. You gave that dream away to grafters and con-men that promised Utopia. You’re now beginning to see how the third world immigration policy of the Liberals, instituted in the Sixties, has unlocked the Gates of Hell and we’re all about to pay the price. As mentioned above a society that exists by force and coercion is and always will be at odds with a society that values work and cooperation. What the Greatest Generation sacrificed to close and lock the Gates of Hell on the Nazis and their slave labour and extermination camps, you in two generations have undone. To the regular SDA readers “Sorry for the rant but its been building all week”.

  17. EBD, don’t show terrorists respect by using their names, follow Rex Murphy’s good advice.

  18. The USA took precisely the wrong direction after 9/11. They did, as Molyneux said, exactly what Bin Laden hoped they would do. They spent hundreds of billions on security theater to further oppress their own majority population, they spent -trillions- on handouts to keep their minority population fat happy and glued to the TV all day, and the whole thing is coming unglued before our very eyes.
    Quite true. You are also correct that lieberal-progs are the real problem.
    A Muslim will externalize his transgressions and take up arms to stop those external forces from polluting his spirit.
    That also accurately describes the lieberal-prog attitude of blaming everything but themselves for their ‘transgressions’ and rejecting personal responsibility for their actions. It’s the basis of the attitude:
    “guns make good people do bad things, therefore we must ban guns” The same goes for anything else they fear or don’t like. That attitude is the basis of lieberal-prog social beliefs.
    Blaming others vs taking personal responsibility is the fundamental difference between lieberals and conservatives.

  19. Except it wasn’t really a show of “respect”, was it? There’s a world of difference between plastering their faces and names on coast-to-coast television (for example) and making reference to their parentage in a bespoke blog comment.
    Gavrilo Princip, Marc Lépine, John Wilkes Booth, yo mama, Mark David Chapman, Lee Harvey Oswald.
    There. That’s how seriously I take your presumptuous command.

  20. Antenor on October 26, 2014 1:20 PM
    “Sorry for the rant but its been building all week”.
    Never lie, never quit, and never apologize…..
    if you never lie nor quit, no apologies are in order.
    PS….never regret anything, done or said, with a good heart.
    and never, don’t ever, give the ba$tards the satisfaction.

  22. Having their names repeated is the attention these terrorists want.
    I can see how some people would have difficulty grasping this, given the attitudes they display on the forum.

  23. Those are interesting thoughts from Stefan Molyneux, whose thoughts are often interesting, but don’t go too far in promoting the man.
    Among other things, he’s an anarchist (which is fine) who doesn’t believe in government (which is fine). But, he often, in one way or another, advises his young followers to leave their parents (and often siblings and friends), and convinces them their parents were abusive. Then he profits from their donations and entices them into his community, which they must conform to certain tenets or risk pretty quick expulsion, after Stefan has prompted them to leave their past support network.
    He recently went on Joe Rogan’s show and lied, saying the College of Psychologists of Ontario supports his position on “deFOO” (departing one’s family of origin). Only they don’t. They disciplined his wife, who is a therapist, for her participating in his show and recommended deFOOing (their acronym) to his callers, with minimal basis.
    Her license was saved, probably because she never actually recommended this to any of her own clients. Nonetheless, she had to undergo peer mentorship, retraining, etc.
    Anyway, Stefan lied about this.
    Further, on the same show, he also seemingly lied about why his FDR organisation had issued DMCA copyright notices to take down a critical YouTube channel. He said it had “nothing to do with copyright or anything like that,” so, seemingly admitted the takedown notices were fraudulent.
    Anyway, you can read about the resulting lawsuit, which was just filed, here:
    http://www.fdrliberated.com/exclusive-stefan-molyneux-sued-for-misrepresentation-defamation/
    In my view, the lawsuit is a nobrainer, not merely valid. Going on Rogan’s show and saying the DMCA takedowns didn’t have anything to do with copyright or anything related to copyright doesn’t help his case much. So, he’s a censor, who argues against censorship.
    Stefan is an often brilliant guy, but … an often dishonest and self-serving one, unfortunately (and to my regret, as I considered him a mentor). And while I support his peaceful parenting advocacy, very much so, the fact is, he seems to advocate that most people leave their parents. Not the most conservative position ever.
    I’m not saying don’t listen to him. I’m saying be aware of his odder pronouncements, of which I’ve only scratched the surface, including advising one man, Craig, that he would save some $5,000,000 by deFOOing (Craig became suicidal and, on a Freedom Feens podcast, alleges that the criticism of Molyneux is valid and, what’s more, Molyneux’s concern when Craig became suicidal is what it would do to Molyneux’s organisation and its goals). In fact, the YouTube channel that Molyneux took down, Tru Shibes, was devoted to burying into his massive amounts of material and exposing some of Stefan’s more controversial ideas, contradictions, and conflicts of interest.
    And I agree with many of Stefan’s ideas and defended him, even arguing several times with Tru Shibes in Stefan’s defence. But my defence of him personally mostly ended after he used thuggish tactics to shut her down (despite Stefan arguing for intellectual freedom and free speech, as well as against intellectual property and copyright law specifically).
    Because whether I agree with her or not, I support her right to speak.
    P.S. Mark Steyn is da bomb though. He’s not a censor. If he had time or interest to look into what I was talking about, he would get it.

  24. Dear Moderator,
    I submitted a longish comment about Stefan Molyneux’s comments which touched on your request that people fact-check his comments. Can you please retrieve it? (The first and longest of the two; the second is just my attempt to get it by whatever filter, by only having one link in it, but that didn’t work).
    Thank you.

  25. I had the unfortunate experience of listening to the CBC news(?)channel while over visiting my parents. The lead story was how the mother of the Ottawa terrorist is now saying that her son was wanting to go to Saudi Arabia, not Syria, and the RCMP were lying when they stated such. Although she was estranged for almost 5 years, she knew what her son was.
    While I can almost understand her late defense of her progeny, I cannot fathom why CBC can go so soon on the “shooter was a victim” rant. I just wonder how soon they will start blaming Kevin Vickers for not keeping the sod alive or trying to find out if he had a permit to carry or had his weapon secured properly.

  26. “I just wonder how soon they will start blaming Kevin Vickers for not keeping the sod alive or trying to find out if he had a permit to carry or had his weapon secured properly.”

    That wouldn’t go over well. And obviously his actions in the moment were spot-on and brave.
    However, he is the guy in charge of security over there and several people have asked, after the shooting at the cenotaph, how did he run into the centre block and as far inside as he got. That ought to be answered no matter how brave Kevin Vickers was that day, and if his security arrangements were generally adequate or the most he could do given the constraints placed on him, then good.
    But if not, that should come out, hero or no. I would hope he would want it that way.

  27. STOP publishing this terrorists name and picture.
    That’s exactly what these Islamist martyrs want.

  28. btw, I only managed to sit through about 5 minutes of Stefan Molyneux, but from that, and reading about this political activist, self-proclaimed philosopher, anarcho-capitalist, I can safely conclude the guy is a nutbar ( although he doesn’t believe in mental illness).

  29. Well, Texas Canuck, you’ll be interested to know that on Friday he just got sued in what is likely to be a precedent-setting case.
    Why?
    Despite being anti intellectual property and copyright law, he used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to take down the YouTube channel of “Tru Shibes”, one of his critics. He then went on the Joe Rogan show and said it “had nothing to do with copyright or anything like that”.
    Reading the 16-page statement of claim is eye-opening, but really, Tru Shibes’ lawyer left out the most controversial bits of Stefan Molyneux.
    Like, for example, his penchant for encouraging young people to leave their parents and signing them up as paying donators to himself.
    He was also challenged by Rogan on this, as Molyneux’s wife was disciplined by the Ontario College of Psychologists for recommending “deFOOing” (departing one’s family of origin) to callers on his show (but never to her own clients).
    Molyneux went so far as to say the College were in support of deFOOing, when the whole point of the disciplinary action and sanctions against his wife is that they were not.
    This just scratches the surface, but it gives you a taste.

  30. “Canada is probably going because we got promised the Keystone Pipeline or something else Ottawa wanted from Obama, and we hardly sent anything anyway.”
    Do we not also have a similar sized RCAF force in Poland?
    All of you are right about liberal progressives being the problem. for some reason they have a death wish for western democratic civilization.
    Great rant Antenor.

  31. His history of Islam seems to begin in 1918 and by 7 minutes in, he used the term “western Imperialist dreams” just one too many times. Todays Muslim events may use post 1918 ‘grievances’ as an excuse to be murderous a**holes for the ears of leftwing retards but this is the same 1400 year old struggle that has always been.

  32. Stefan makes some valid points: How much indeed have we spent since Munich 1972 on this issue?…and what have we reaped in return…seems to me that every time we are in a shooting war, we create the millions of refugees that now seemingly MUST be let into our country due to “humanitarian” considerations… I would argue in this we are misguided
    But, I still maintain the real enemy are those that facilitate Islamic presence in our country, those that appease, those that scream “Islamophobia”, those that immediately label anyone questioning Islam as racist-bigoted, those that push Political Correctness, (a de-facto form of tyranny), in order to quell free speech, those that have been and continue to be unable to utter the word “terrorist”, those that go out of their way to crucify Christianity.
    .yet allow near any transgression by Islamics…and finally those that by their silence are as guilty as the perpetrators of violence on our home ground…(are ya with us Nenshi..? or against us?) an example of one who has been silent!
    These are the true enemy we must face..the Left.

  33. “Blaming others vs taking personal responsibility is the fundamental difference between lieberals and conservatives.”
    Except your entire argument (and SDA’s, in general) boils down to you blaming others — specifically, “lieberals” — for everything.

  35. Well, liberals are in charge of the media, academia and the social work professions as well as much of the judiciary and the political mainstream. So does it not make sense to blame them for their failures? That is not some case of looking around for “someone else to blame,” it is simply analysis of who is to blame.
    Much of this is self-evident to conservatives, we just keep reminding each other to pass the time until the whole system collapses under the weight of its false assumptions.

  37. Have to disagree with you Sasquatch. Sometimes an apology is in order. I apologized to the regular readers at SDA since I’m preaching to the choir in a way and regular readers know where I stand therefore they didn’t need to spend their time reading my rant.

  38. Texas Canuck >
    “btw, I only managed to sit through about 5 minutes of Stefan Molyneux…….”
    Which is a big problem within our society, namely shutting down the opinions and ideas of others the minute they don’t appear to agree with our own views 100%.
    I’m not trashing you Texas Canuck, as we are all guilty of the same self-censorship.
    The problem lies in regurgitating the party line on problems and solutions with no other inputs to attempt a different approach.
    This is why we continue to repeat the same mistakes over and over again expecting different results as we clearly do in the Middle East and our handling of Islamic Jihadists domestically.

  39. Knight99,

    “Which is a big problem within our society, namely shutting down the opinions and ideas of others the minute they don’t appear to agree with our own views 100%.
    “I’m not trashing you Texas Canuck, as we are all guilty of the same self-censorship.”

    You seriously misunderstood why he did this. He was very clear about it, and you did not read correctly.
    Speaking personally, I agree with many of Stefan’s ideas, more probably than most people here. However, for reasons I made clear in my comments on this thread, I have learned enough about his character that now I tend to get my information elsewhere.
    Texas Canuck was forming a judgement about the man. Texas Canuck wasn’t afraid of differing ideas, and you unfairly malign him in saying so.

  40. “You seriously misunderstood why he did this. He was very clear about it, and you did not read correctly.”
    Possibly I did misunderstand, but I don’t see where he was clear about it. I suppose that Texas Canuck would be the best person to clear up what he was trying to say, if he cared too.
    This is how I understood it – “I can safely conclude the guy is a nutbar…….” Texas Canuck
    A point to which I disagreed.
    On another note I don’t agree with Stefan Molyneux 100 % either, possibly only as much as 50%. But I don’t believe he’s a “nutbar” at all, and respect his intellectually and rationally based opinions.
    Example: Molyneux believes in Open Borders (I disagree 100%), Molyneux also recognizes that Open Borders do not work with a Welfare System in place (I agree with that 100%) along with a plethora or other reasons as too why Open borders are fatal to our culture and way of life.
    That’s all, no disrespect to Texas Canuck.

  41. “Which is a big problem within our society, namely shutting down the opinions and ideas of others the minute they don’t appear to agree with our own views 100%…The problem lies in regurgitating the party line on problems and solutions with no other inputs to attempt a different approach.”
    He wrote, apparently with a complete lack of irony, on smalldeadanimals.com.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation