Steyn on the future of Western society

White Doors · May 13, 2008

Click link, a good watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOgcGCaN29A

Edited May 26, 2008 by Greg
Fix spelling error in thread title

DogOnPorch · May 13, 2008

Whew...that took a while. Fun watch, though. From May 6th, 2008, so quite recent.

That one fellow was sure getting mad. Looked like he was going to "jihad" Mark Steyn right then and there.

:lol:

Steyn doesn't do much better, seems like he's on his 3rd scotch or something (lol)...but at least he knew he was right about this matter. Amazing that it seems like a good chunk of the case brought to the commision was based on the comment section of a blog!

We had a (big) thread on this before...but this is a different look at it...face to face, so to speak.

---------------------------------------------------------

These days, the Left advances its causes more effectively through the courts than through elections, for the fairly obvious reason that very few people are dumb enough to vote for this stuff.

---Mark Steyn

AngusThermopyle · May 18, 2008

face to face, so to speak.

Face to face appears to be their great downfall. When propaganda is countered with reality it always seems to degenerate to an emotional arguement unfounded in fact. Something that devolves into statements of opinion, nothing mnore than that.

Remiel · May 18, 2008

I thought the comment about quoting Ernst Zundel for an article about white Canadians was rather astute, though it was pretty clear that the three of them did not have the kind of, flair, needed to really take Steyn on one on one. If we were to have another show once they have a few years of experience in the courtroom, it could be a whole nother story.

I do not see what you mean about their argument being ungrounded in fact. Premises: 1. MacLean's is an important Canadian publication with a substantial readership (around 2.8 million I believe was the figure they quoted). 2. MacLean's has published twenty-two articles, mostly by Mark Steyn and Barbara Amiel (was it?) that are unfavourable to Muslims, and no articles from the other point of view (Steyn's contention about some sort of time lapse is misplaced here, as the sheer number of articles means it is an ongoing editorial policy and thus a pro-Muslim article should not need to appear directly after any anti-Muslim ones). 3. When presented with a one sided argument from an " authoritative source " people will tend to be persuaded by it, especially if it is repeated over and over and over and over... 4. The fewer the number of publications of a type available, the more important it is for them to allow an opposing view to be published. Or, in other words, MacLean's publishing of all these articles about the Muslim threat is a influencing their readers to hold a negative view of Muslims, which is particularly bad because they are a well known and respected weekly news journal in Canada, and that it could lead to more racism. I do not think there is anything particularly difficult about that leap of logic. I mean, that is what Nazi Germany did to Jews, and what a few Middle Eastern countries now do to Jews, so it is kind of problematic when MacLean's is taking their queues from mass murderers on one hand and religious fundamentalists on the other, no?

I agree that their great weakness was for them it was emotional argument, however.

Remiel · May 18, 2008

Also, I just finished readings Steyn's article, The future belongs to Islam. For all he talks about Muslims and their seemingly intrinsic high birth rates, their 3.5 births to the locals 1.4, he completely ignores the poverty argument for these high birth rates. If being Muslim is the prime determinant of having lots of children, then why does Iran have a fertility rate of only 1.71?

White Doors · May 20, 2008

Also, I just finished readings Steyn's article, The future belongs to Islam. For all he talks about Muslims and their seemingly intrinsic high birth rates, their 3.5 births to the locals 1.4, he completely ignores the poverty argument for these high birth rates. If being Muslim is the prime determinant of having lots of children, then why does Iran have a fertility rate of only 1.71?

I read the book and he never pretends to answer the question of 'why', just that it 'is'.

Remiel · May 20, 2008

Well, I think the issue as it relates to Europe is an overreaction. If the Muslims in Europe are allowed to integrate into the economy, birth rates will probably fall as quality of life rises. European birthrates will probably go back on the upswing (to a degree) at some point, though that is governed by a number of factors. If things really get " that " bad, immigration from the Middle East will probably be cut off and they will start using whatever excuse they can to deport people. The worst case scenario is, of course, that one day there is another war and a lot of people get ethnically cleansed. So, ultimately, I think that scaring people into thinking that Europe is going to be taken over by Muslims... just does not fit a reasonable projection of the possibilities.

WIP · May 20, 2008

Well, I think the issue as it relates to Europe is an overreaction. If the Muslims in Europe are allowed to integrate into the economy, birth rates will probably fall as quality of life rises. European birthrates will probably go back on the upswing (to a degree) at some point, though that is governed by a number of factors. If things really get " that " bad, immigration from the Middle East will probably be cut off and they will start using whatever excuse they can to deport people. The worst case scenario is, of course, that one day there is another war and a lot of people get ethnically cleansed. So, ultimately, I think that scaring people into thinking that Europe is going to be taken over by Muslims... just does not fit a reasonable projection of the possibilities.

The one key to making Islam a compatible religion with the Western World is for them to declare a moratorium on the crime of apostasy. In Muslim countries, anyone who is a critic is in danger of being charged, tried and executed as an apostate. This practise inevitably leads to totalitarianism. The idiot Neocons should have understood how unlikely it would be to establish "western democracy" in Iraq or Afghanistan as long as challenging religious authorities is a capital crime.

Many educated Western Muslims secretly become apostate, but do not dare express their lack of faith openly because their fellow Muslims are taught in Western Mosques that any Muslim who denies his religion deserves death! As long as freedom of religion in the West allows the free and open practise of Islam, the Muslim religious and political leaders should be leaned on forcefully to stop trying to use threats and intimidation to keep the apostates from speaking out!

And before I forget, Mark Steyn is one of those idiot Neocons who expresses the opinions shared by Robert Spencer, Bat Ye-or, Oriana Fallaci, and others, that Islam is a religion that cannot be made compatible with our values, so what the hell was he doing cheerleading the Bush Administration's foreign wars in the first place? Now that Iraq, and soon - Afghanistan will be revealed as unqualified disasters, Steyn, David Frum and a whole host of Neocon propagandists are trying to flee the ship now that the Bush Administration is under water! They can twist and squirm and make all kinds of excuses for failure now, but this wasn't a tactical blunder, or even a mistake of military planning - it was a based on an impossible theory to begin with!

Edited May 20, 2008 by WIP

BC_chick · May 26, 2008

2. MacLean's has published twenty-two articles, mostly by Mark Steyn and Barbara Amiel (was it?) that are unfavourable to Muslims, and no articles from the other point of view (Steyn's contention about some sort of time lapse is misplaced here, as the sheer number of articles means it is an ongoing editorial policy and thus a pro-Muslim article should not need to appear directly after any anti-Muslim ones).

I used to subscribe religiously to McLean's, it was one of my favourite magazines. I remember summer of 05 when a new format started with big bolded headlines and the-sky-is-about-to-fall sensational headlines on the front cover. Around the same time I started to notice a lot of articles which seemed very one-sided but I didn't really think much about it.

I gave a couple of issues to my dad and he said he was surprised I read such a right-wing magazine. I said it's not, but that I had also noticed a little bias in the last couple of issues. Then I noticed the letters from the readers were saying the same thing about the sharp turn to the right so I decided to do my homework.

It turns out Ken Whyte came on as the editor of the newspaper that same summer. He's a good friend of Amiel/Black, Steyn et al.... he was also the editor of the National Post for a while.

Not that there's anything wrong with a right-wing Canadian weekly magazine, but for Canada's only national political newspaper, I would expect a little more middle of the road than Ken Whyte.

So there you go, if it seems like McLean's is biased.... it's because it is.

DogOnPorch · May 26, 2008

So there you go, if it seems like McLean's is biased.... it's because it is.

...and that was indeed the tone of Steyn's comments. If you don't like MacLeans, start your own magazine. 'Tis a free country. No HRC needed.

-------------------------------------------------

The best revenge is massive success.

---Frank Sinatra

Wild Bill · May 26, 2008

...and that was indeed the tone of Steyn's comments. If you don't like MacLeans, start your own magazine. 'Tis a free country. No HRC needed.
-------------------------------------------------

The best revenge is massive success.

---Frank Sinatra

I have to wonder about some folks' definition of bias. Is it not possible that the reason MacLeans doesn't run pro-Muslim articles is because in the context of tolerance or politics they simply don't have any reports to base them on?

I mean really, we all know that the vast majority of Muslims in western countries are no different in tolerance than the rest of us. So what? They're not the ones we need to worry about. After MacLeans runs an article on mom's apple pie, what else could they write?

Maclean's is not "The Family Circus". We read it mainly for the politics. How many incidents occur where a Muslim community expels an Imam for advocating violence against non-muslims? How many terrorist wannabes are turned in to police by their own Muslim community?

Tell it to Rushdie!

When I read Steyn's book I got no sense at all that he was attacking Muslims as individuals. He clearly mentions that most are law-abiding folks. However, many are NOT and those are the ones we must deal with! Incidents like the HRC attacks on MacLeans and Steyn only reinforce Steyn's premise that perhaps western society no longer has the intestinal fortitude to defend or promote its own values and thus deserves its own fate.

When Iran becomes a champion of free speech then and only then will I accept their values as equivalent to our own.

BC_chick · May 26, 2008

...and that was indeed the tone of Steyn's comments. If you don't like MacLeans, start your own magazine. 'Tis a free country. No HRC needed.
-------------------------------------------------

The best revenge is massive success.

---Frank Sinatra

I see. So we only complain about bias and balancing things out when Canada's media outlets lean to the left. When they lean to the right BC_chick needs to start her own magazine.

White Doors · May 26, 2008

I see. So we only complain about bias and balancing things out when Canada's media outlets lean to the left. When they lean to the right BC_chick needs to start her own magazine.

I only see people on the right complain of left wing bias when the corporation doing it is the cbc. that makes sense because they are paying for it involuntarily.

Even you can get the difference.

You don't own MacLeans, you do own the cbc.

Wild Bill · May 26, 2008

I see. So we only complain about bias and balancing things out when Canada's media outlets lean to the left. When they lean to the right BC_chick needs to start her own magazine.

I have no problem with any media outlet having a leftwing bias. It's just that they are usually so arrogant, rude and snarky about it!

They seem to think that they have a monopoly on human kindness and if anyone disagrees with their methods then they must be against their goals. The goals are often noble but the proposed methods of getting there are usually impractical at best and at worst totally loopy!

AngusThermopyle · May 27, 2008

I see. So we only complain about bias and balancing things out when Canada's media outlets lean to the left. When they lean to the right BC_chick needs to start her own magazine.

And that is the crux of the matter.

MacLeans is privately owned, yet there are many who think they should have control of, or at least a say in the editorial content. If MacLeans is not breaking the law then they have every right in the world to publish what they please. if anyone doesn't like it they can vote against it with their wallets.

jbg · June 1, 2008

Dunkin' Donuts recently pulled an advertisement in which, according to the perhaps over-vivid perceptions of certain right-wing bloggers, spokesgal Rachael Ray was wearing what they felt was a kaffiyeh, or Arab headdress, as a neck scarf. According to the Newsweek column (link):

It was in fact a black and white paisley scarf, not traditional Arab garb, but that didn't matter when blogger Pam Geller posted the following under the header "Rachel [sic] Ray: Dunkin Donuts Jihad Tool": "Have you seen Rachel [sic] Ray wearing the icon of Yasser Arafatbastard and the bloody Islamic jihad. This is part of the cultural jihad," wrote Geller.
**************

Shouldn't we be more offended that Ray was shilling their weak iced coffee, a beverage that should be criticized for impersonating, well, iced coffee. But cries of "Bad java!" just don't seem to catch the attention the way racist rhetoric against Arabs and Muslims does. This ad was pulled because anti-Arab bloggers saw it as promoting a culture they love to hate, and they used the terrorism card to push their agenda through. The amazing part is that Dunkin' Donuts caved.

**************

Let's face it, the real danger here is not the girly scarf charged with being a kaffiyeh, or that jihadists are purportedly using Dunkin' Donuts as a backdoor into America's malleable consciousness. It's that the cries of a few commentators indulging in the worst form of racial stereotyping—and their demonization of an entire culture—was enough to spook a giant corporation. As for dangers lurking beyond the kaffiyeh controversy? Beware of Dunkin's Blueberry Cake Donut. At 290 calories with 16 grams of fat, it's more deadly than a paisley scarf in spring.

I do not regard the bloggers' comments as the "worst form of racial stereotyping" or "their demonization of an entire culture". Let's face facts. While the bloggers' imaginations are vivid and perhaps almost psychotic, any similar resemblances to crosses, bibles or the Jewish star depicted in the Arab world, trust me, would result in a fate far worse than the removal of an advertisement. The Muslims are a culture that cannot and will not live at peace with the West.

I'd rather have peace but if it's us or them, I choose us.

BubberMiley · June 1, 2008

I'd rather have peace but if it's us or them, I choose us.[/font][/size]

Good lord. Your font size makes you look insane.

But I don't think it's us or them, and I think that condemning a hanky because it resembles the fashion sense of a culture you despise backs up what your font choice suggests. :lol:

Peter F · June 1, 2008

Let's face facts. While the bloggers' imaginations are vivid and perhaps almost psychotic, any similar resemblances to crosses, bibles or the Jewish star depicted in the Arab world, trust me, would result in a fate far worse than the removal of an advertisement. The Muslims are a culture that cannot and will not live at peace with the West.
I'd rather have peace but if it's us or them, I choose us.

Are you saying that She's lucky we didn't kill her?

Kitchener · June 1, 2008

And that is the crux of the matter.
MacLeans is privately owned, yet there are many who think they should have control of, or at least a say in the editorial content.

The lights would not be on at Maclean's without decades of massive public financial support. This "private publication" nonsense is rank hypocrisy.

In 2006-7 alone, a single public program, the Publication Assistance Program, gave Maclean's over three million dollars in government money. If the chronic complainers about the CBC can cite their involuntary taxpaying support of it, so too can those who complain about supporting Maclean's as it becomes (still more of) a haven for right-wingnut shriekers like Steyn.

margrace · June 1, 2008

And that is the crux of the matter.
MacLeans is privately owned, yet there are many who think they should have control of, or at least a say in the editorial content. If MacLeans is not breaking the law then they have every right in the world to publish what they please. if anyone doesn't like it they can vote against it with their wallets.

And there are people who do this, my daughter was so incensed at some of their colomnist that she cancelled her subscription. I never had one, but if more people would do this maybe they might clean up their act.

Wild Bill · June 1, 2008

And there are people who do this, my daughter was so incensed at some of their colomnist that she cancelled her subscription. I never had one, but if more people would do this maybe they might clean up their act.

Maybe. If they did "clean up their act" others would probably stop buying it! Perhaps enough to THEN put it out of business!

It's like with newspapers. I never buy the Toronto Star. I simply find it boring and predictable. Every news story has the same slant: "Liberals always good! Everyone else is bad!". I know what I'll read before I even get to the story.

That's just MY tastes! LOTS of people LIKE the Star! People choose for themselves.

Isn't it easier just to let magazines do their own marketing and see who sells enough to survive?

jbg · June 2, 2008

Good lord. Your font size makes you look insane.
But I don't think it's us or them, and I think that condemning a hanky because it resembles the fashion sense of a culture you despise backs up what your font choice suggests.

I apologize for the font size. I was trying to distinguish it from the lengthy excerpt.

I do not despise Islam or its culture. I actually have quite high admiration and respect for its many accomplishments.

BubberMiley · June 2, 2008

I do not despise Islam or its culture. I actually have quite high admiration and respect for its many accomplishments.

Then you must not have a problem with someone wearing a scarf that kind of looks like some scarves that are sometimes warn by all kinds of Arabs. It would make more sense to wish to see baseball caps censored because gangsters are sometimes known to wear them.

jbg · June 2, 2008

Then you must not have a problem with someone wearing a scarf that kind of looks like some scarves that are sometimes warn by all kinds of Arabs. It would make more sense to wish to see baseball caps censored because gangsters are sometimes known to wear them.

I also said that the "bloggers' imaginations are vivid and perhaps almost psychotic" I agree with you that the ads were not terror ads by the way.

BubberMiley · June 2, 2008

I also said that the "bloggers' imaginations are vivid and perhaps almost psychotic" I agree with you that the ads were not terror ads by the way.

But on the one hand you say Muslims are a culture that cannot and will not live in the peace with the west (even though it has, for the most part, done so for 1000 years), and, in a bipolar manner, you then say you have much admiration and respect for it. You agree they aren't terror ads, but if our society is threatened by these Dunkin Donuts ads to the point that it's us or them, you choose us. :lol: