Comments: Steyn -- America Alone

What I don't see in Steyn's list of ten steps are the simplest, most practical methods for limiting the influence of Muslims in the West. Obviously, Step #1 has to be:

Stop letting in Muslim immigrants.

In other words, First, do no more harm.

Then, for countries with too many Muslims alreadly, like the Netherlands, the next step is to start buying out Muslims. Many European countries already have programs that pay immigrants to leave, so they don't object in principle, but the programs are severely underfunded. Buyouts like $100,000 or more per family would probably be necessary to get a reasonable number of Muslim families in Europe to return to their countries of origin.

Instead, Steyn continues to back Bush's grand strategy of Invade the World / Invite the World, which has so far proven such a bust.

Posted by Steve Sailer at January 2, 2007 02:37 PM

When Slobodan Milosovic commented, to anyone who would listen, that other European nations should not complain about the Bosnian Serbs attempts to wipe out the Bosnian Muslims as 'we are doing their work for them' I noted the remark but did not, at the time,realise its' significance. Having read a lot of Marks articles subsequently, I have reached my own conclusion - any Christian country that tolerates Islam does so at its peril.Thank you Mark.

Posted by Peter Gee at January 2, 2007 08:37 PM

Few are those who know where they come from and where they are heading to. Fewer are the ones who want to know the world around them.
Instead they hide in escapism be it entertainmentism-pseudo:socialism/peace/humanrights-activism or some other isms.
I see around me most Community-Social Workers-Human rights Activists and Artists hiding behind their own idealised pseudo-mission where political correctness is a must.
They absolutely refuse to see the present Islamist threat reality. They fear more to know about it than to be swept away by it.
Blessed be writers who research past and present facts and denounce the Islamist threat.
Bravo to Bat Y'eor, Oriana Fallaci, Joan Peters, Mark Steyn and many others.

Posted by Esther Elbaz at January 6, 2007 06:47 AM

I love Mark Steyns wit and bluntness as much as the next man. But I do have a problem with demography as the sole engine of history. An even cursory look at history will show you that it just ain't so. Much more often, small groups of highly motivated, determined individuals (The Bolsheviks, the American founding fathers, the French revolutionaries) affect the course of history far more than vast numbers of contented peasants (see India, China, Africa etc). We need to really try to get a grip on what threat Islamism poses, which I believe is currently unknown.

Posted by Andrew Lale at January 6, 2007 11:54 AM

Mark Steyn makes clear to attentive readers what we must do in order to revive and save what can still be saved of Western countries and our liberties. He makes these things clear in a way that accords with the wise saying of the Chicago Boy par excellence, that "what should not be said cannot be said."

Posted by Kralizec at January 8, 2007 10:53 PM

The question of elites vs masses as the prime motivator for revolutionary change does not necessarily invalidate Steyn's thesis. After all, Islamists see themselves as a self-conscious elite within Islam - a talihah or taliyah, I believe it's called, which means something like 'vanguard' - and look down on other Muslims as sunk in barbarity and error, and almost as infidel as the rest of us. But an elite in charge of a large and growing fifth column is a more powerful enemy than just the elite on its own.

Still, though I enjoy his writing and tend to agree with his identification of problems, he does go on a bit and has made a reductio ad absurdum out of his critique of demography and welfarism. He’s also become a bit of an Anglophobe lately, and makes the mistake of thinking that, like New Zealand, our political culture now makes Michael Moore sound like George W. Bush. After all, the UK is the only country in the Anglosphere, probably the world, in which both the government and the principal opposition are gung-ho for the Long War. In fact, unlike any other English-speaking jurisdiction, if the government were to change tomorrow, the new ministry would no doubt jack up the defence budget and pursue a more robust policy than its predecessor.

I think that this would be so even under Cameron. The key, of course, is the Tory back-benchers. Whereas Blair must gather up support for troop deployments by buying off his back-benchers with absurd left-wing gestures involving foxes and Ulster grammar schools, Cameron would have to gather support for any anti-war positions by buying off his backbenchers with a series of conservative measures like tax cuts and Europe-baiting, which will be positively splendid. If he’s not prepared to lurch to the Right domestically, HM forces aren’t going anywhere except over-the-top and armed to the teeth. None of this is true even of such an allegedly conservative country as the United States.

So, perhaps someone should write a refutation, entitled, “Britain Alone: God save the King, Devil take the Tax-man, and Down with France” or some such thing.

Posted by Ed at January 9, 2007 08:35 AM

After all this, I'm thinking about moving to the wilds of Utah and forming a polygamous household. I simply need to determine the types of wives I will need. Certainly an attorney to hold off the overly-zealous Utah Attorney General. An Obstetrician to deliver all the little anti-jihadis I intend to sire, an architect to design and help build our little family fortress, and so on . . .

And while I may be a moron, I'm certainly not a mormon, but I won't let a technicality like that interfere with my master-plan.

Posted by Al Fin at January 13, 2007 06:11 PM

" the only substantial one that comes to mind is the Mormons. "


How so? Jacksonian Evangelicals (former Ulster Protestants) are more numerous, more hair-trigger ready to use violence in self-defense, and unlike the Mormons they have at least once actually swamped opponents, the Comanches are the example I am thinking of, with their birthrate

Posted by Jim at March 9, 2007 03:09 PM

Jim:

Steyn identifies three key elements: burgeoning population (which gives economic and military confidence), economic vitality, and cultural self-confidence. In my musings, I add organization, knowledge, and decision-making power related to retributive military action (conventional, nuclear, biological) *independent* of current civil authority. While there are more Jacksonian Evangelicals, they do not operate under a long-standing, trusted, technologically-savvy, centralized authority. Therefore, their ability to respond *immediately* and effectively to disintegrating civil conditions will be very limited.

Based on my very superficial understanding of Mormon history, current organization, and the positions of responsibility they hold in general US society, I don't see anything that paralyzes their communal decision-making ability. No more than that of the British or US Cabinet pre-WW2.

So I'm making an educated guess, taking Steyn's proposition about weaknesses, and flipping it over to look for matching strengths. All the best ...

Posted by James McCormick at March 10, 2007 10:38 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?