Banned in Canada - Mark Steyn`s America Alone

[54/102 CEF]

This is a VERY good book. Want to give the NDP a crushing headache? Read this first - how demographics affects what old time Big Government can't do for your by Mark Steyn - "America Alone"

Amazon link http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=america+alone+steyn

The writer on YOUTUBE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K375rwCgTSs

Admiral Nimitz "Strong Horse - Weak Horse" lecture at UCal Berkley Mar 2007 http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-901941866095630816&q=mark+steyn&ei=nqxTSJeLJo6IrQLUhaHZDg&hl=en

More good stuff - http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Politics/Quotes/Steyn_Terror.html

 

[TrexLink]

Looks interesting, but "Banned in Canada?"  Where did I miss that?

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

It seems amazon.CA is willing to sell and ship this book to Canada. http://www.amazon.ca/America-Alone-End-World-Know/dp/1596985275/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213455411&sr=8-1 I even can get a deal if I buy it with a related book The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Islam (and the Crusades) . 

After a quick read http://www.freedomtoread.ca/docs/challenged_books_and_magazines.pdf I don't think this book is banned in Canada. 

If it is Chapters is in trouble -

Eaton Centre
Indigo  28 220 Yonge Street
(416)591-3622 

1st Canadian Place
Indigospirit  10 1 First Canadian Place, Unit SM18
(416)869-1079 

World's Biggest Book Store
Chapters  14 20 Edward Street,
(416)977-7009 

Commerce Court
Coles  3 199 Bay Street, P.O. Box 159
(416) 868-1782 

Brookfield Place
Coles 4 161 Bay Street, P.O. Box 116,
(416)861-0166 

Bay & Bloor
Indigo  31 55 Bloor Street West
(416)925-3536 

.... a quick search showed it is in almost every chapters/indigo and faux chapters store in Toronto. 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the book is not banned, infact I think you only implied it was to gain attention.  Now I wonder if the book will really give NDPer's a headache.  Judging by the books it it linked to:

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
  Liberal Fascism: The Secret History Of The American Left, From Mussolini To The Politics Of Meaning | Jonah Goldberg
The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Global Warming: (and Environmentalism) | Christopher C. Horner
The Force Of Reason | Oriana Fallaci
The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Islam (and the Crusades) | Robert Spencer

I'm thinking it is another insipid American political book.  I miss Ann Coulter,  she was sooo much fun.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I haven't read it yet, but perhaps it's not the book that is 'Banned in Canada'. More so, maybe his sober outlook and musings on Islam. Our politically correct society refuses to accept what he is saying?

 

[X-mo-1979]

  Now I wonder if the book will really give NDPer's a headache. 

Now why would people who are informed give the NDP a headache?The NDP dont have much of a track record for using things like "facts" or use of things like "reality".

 

[Sythen]

I just bought this book last week end.. Not far into it, but I can already tell its gonna be a great read. The book isn't banned in Canada, the author just put "Soon to be banned in Canada" on the cover, as a reference to the ongoing CHRC complaint against Macleans and him.

 

[54/102 CEF]

You will enjoy it. Watch the video to get the main ideas.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

I just got back from Chapters,  I saw the book there... so I took a few minutes to read it.

The pre-pre-introduction, is titled "soon to be banned in Canada the 2008 paperback version" or something to that tune.  It sounded offensive, so I had to read it.  I got about to the part where Ontario socail assistance promotes polygamy.  (which was slightly after he said because of higher birthrates and waves of immigration Islam will take over socially progressive countries and kick out the non-muslims through overt and covert means)

There are some valid points, but I think some of the reasoning is faulty.  Basically it presupposes that the innate core of Islam is inherently opposed to any sort of civilized society.  I have to disagree with that.  I'm not saying popular interpretations of Islam wont cause horrible distruction,  but the same could be said about certain interpretations of any religion.

Is anyone here seriously suggesting that Canada begin an immigration policy similar to what Australia had before 1973?

 

[tomahawk6]

No freedom of speech eh ?

 

[Sythen]

Zell, another thing he points out is that out of every country with a population of 20% or more muslims only 3 are considered "free". The core of the muslim religion is inherently opposed to a free society. Even now in Canada, every so often you see a news story about a radical cleric, or teacher trying to preach jihad or whatever. Take for instance that muslim girl's school that opened in Toronto a few years back?

And when you say interpretations of any religion can be destructive (sorry, don't really know how to make the cool quote thing) its true, but how many right now are at war with Canada? I think you should watch some of the videos of Steyn on youtube, and listen to what he has to say.

 

[54/102 CEF]

I just got back from Chapters,  I saw the book there... so I took a few minutes to read it.

The pre-pre-introduction, is titled "soon to be banned in Canada the 2008 paperback version" or something to that tune.  It sounded offensive, so I had to read it.  I got about to the part where Ontario socail assistance promotes polygamy.  (which was slightly after he said because of higher birthrates and waves of immigration Islam will take over socially progressive countries and kick out the non-muslims through overt and covert means)

There are some valid points, but I think some of the reasoning is faulty. 
Is anyone here seriously suggesting that Canada begin an immigration policy similar to what Australia had before 1973?

Better to read through the book or at least listen to the Videos - Videos are great.

His main point is the 1945 World Order guided and protected by ABCA Countries led by USa and TO A LESSER EXTENT the UN to about 1960 is gone, AND IT WONT BE COMING BACK. Now its all about  demographics - depite being the Great Satan to a host of "Dead Ender" countries (with respect to Donald Rusmfeld) - the USA will end the next 25 years way ahead of the rest of them because their population is replacing itself while France, UK, Germany and all the places that give lots of holidays and great pensions are headed for the old folks homes as their population growth is headed through the floor.

Canada, by the way, is in the losing population side of the equation. Bye Bye pensions, and assorted government freebies, hello sky high taxes.

There is a way out of this mess - intensive education driven programs for those who remain - be Singapore - and it wasn`t me who said that -  its was Bill Gates.

 

[scoutfinch]

The book has not been banned in Canada.  I bought a copy of it last year in Chapters.  It's a good read so long as -- like anything else you read -- you keep in mind the political leanings of the author. 

 

[a_majoor]

Not banned, but if the BCHRC has its way it could be, and the Ontario Human Rights commission managed to issue a statement which simultaneously say they had no jurisdiction over magazines but still condemning McLean's magazine for publishing an excerpt from "America Alone".

Given the unrestrained use of HRC's against political speech (and also Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation or SLAPP suits against Free Speechers), we need to work very hard to keep the free speech we have and ensure people like Mark Styen can continue to write and be published. 

 

[Kilo_302]

I've read a few of Steyn's columns, and I have to say, he's pretty radical. When he starts using demographics alone to explain genocide, I get uneasy. His suggestion that Islam is inherently "undemocratic" is ridiculous of course. He is extremely selective in his examples. Iran once had a democracy, until it was overthrown by a CIA backed coup. Of course he doesn't mention this fact , well known by even the most amateur critic of the "West." The three nations that contain a measure of freedom (and are 20% Muslim) also don't have oil, and the threats to internal freedom in these nations was largely from the Christian populations (and governments). Now I think all religious fundamentalism should be stamped out, but we must remember this applies to all religions. A radical cleric in Toronto in no way worries me more than a radical televangelist (ie Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell) who has an audience of millions.
'

 

[X-mo-1979]

I've read a few of Steyn's columns, and I have to say, he's pretty radical. When he starts using demographics alone to explain genocide, I get uneasy. His suggestion that Islam is inherently "undemocratic" is ridiculous of course. He is extremely selective in his examples. Iran once had a democracy, until it was overthrown by a CIA backed coup. Of course he doesn't mention this fact , well known by even the most amateur critic of the "West." The three nations that contain a measure of freedom (and are 20% Muslim) also don't have oil, and the threats to internal freedom in these nations was largely from the Christian populations (and governments). Now I think all religious fundamentalism should be stamped out, but we must remember this applies to all religions. A radical cleric in Toronto in no way worries me more than a radical televangelist (ie Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell) who has an audience of millions.
'

Are the televangelist telling his congregation to kill jew's and muslims?Teaching kid's that daddy is a martyr/hero for blowing himself up and killing a pile of civilians?
Didnt think so.

Some people think Mark's articles are "radical" I find he say's what most of North Americans are thinking....but don't due to racisim issues.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

He is extremely selective in his examples. Iran once had a democracy, until it was overthrown by a CIA backed coup. Of course he doesn't mention this fact

WTF are you talking about?!?  The US supported (well sort-of, in Carter's ridiculously mealy-mouthed way) the Shah (who was the last of a series monarchic dynasties which had existed since the Middle Ages) against a popular theocratic revolution.  The revolution was successful and eventually evolved into a somewhat democratic theocratic state (an "Islamic Republic"). The conspiracy theory is that the US secretly supported the revolution against the monarchy, because the Shah was too progressive, or overtly friendly to the US (which of course makes no sense, as is the case with most conspiracy theories).  On the other hand maybe we shouldn't let reality, exposed by the free speech of radicals, get in the way of "fact(s), well known by even the most amateur critic of the 'West'."

 

[Kilo_302]

Televangelists have blamed 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina on acts of God, as punishment for homosexuality, and other "immoral" aspects of modern life in the US. That to me is pretty radical. Many of these televangelists also support Israel, because they believe that once Israel is dominant in the Middle East, Jesus will return and smite all non-Christians, at which point all Christians can return to the Holy Land. Again, pretty radical.

 

[Loachman]

WTF are you talking about?!?[/i]"

Ummmm...

The US supported ... against a popular theocratic revolution.

Have you wondered why the "theocratic revolution" was "popular"?

The conspiracy theory is that the US secretly supported the revolution against the monarchy,

Reference, please. I don't recall ever hearing that conspiracy theory, and I was alive at the time. It doesn't really make sense in light of the capture of the US Embassy and lengthy hostage-taking, does it?

because the Shah was too progressive,[/i]"

Substitute "rep" for "prog" and you'll be a bit closer to why the "theocratic revolution" received so much support.

or overtly friendly to the US

That was because he had no power without US backing.

Read about SAVAK.

Televangelists have blamed 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina on acts of God, as punishment for homosexuality, and other "immoral" aspects of modern life in the US. That to me is pretty radical. Many of these televangelists also support Israel, because they believe that once Israel is dominant in the Middle East, Jesus will return and smite all non-Christians, at which point all Christians can return to the Holy Land. Again, pretty radical.

This Christian "radicalism" does not even come close to Islamic radicalism.

Please provide me with some examples of influential Christian radicals (individual nutcases do not count) who have advocated for the wholesale slaughter of races/religious groups, forced women into burkas, denied them medical care, prevented them from driving, beheaded those who disagreed with them.

There is simply no comparison.

 

[catalyst]

I work at chapters, and when I'm back at work on Wed I'll find out what the scoop is.

I know it was on our shelves as of last night because I put more out (its a 'new/hot' thing).

 

[Kilo_302]

WTF are you talking about?!?  The US supported (well sort-of, in Carter's ridiculously mealy-mouthed way) the Shah (who was the last of a series monarchic dynasties which had existed since the Middle Ages) against a popular theocratic revolution.  The revolution was successful and eventually evolved into a somewhat democratic theocratic state (an "Islamic Republic"). The conspiracy theory is that the US secretly supported the revolution against the monarchy, because the Shah was too progressive, or overtly friendly to the US (which of course makes no sense, as is the case with most conspiracy theories).  On the other hand maybe we shouldn't let reality, exposed by the free speech of radicals, get in the way of

Prior to the Shah was Mossadeq, who's only crime was nationalizing the oil industry. Say what you want about his economics, that was definitely an internal Iranian issue, something that has nothing to do with the UK or US.

This Christian "radicalism" does not even come close to Islamic radicalism.

Please provide me with some examples of influential Christian radicals (individual nutcases do not count) who have advocated for the wholesale slaughter of races/religious groups, forced women into burkas, denied them medical care, prevented them from driving, beheaded those who disagreed with them.

There is simply no comparison.

Or course "individual nut cases" count. If we examine what the likes of Roberts, Falwell and Haggerty have said on TV, it is safe to assume that there are preachers out there saying far worse to their congregations. I think the two are definitely comparable. Roberts and Falwell in particular have come close to advocating the expulsion of Muslims from the US on live television, and have essentially given the OK to violence against homosexuals. We have to remember that these guys have to be careful of the FCC, the radical cleric in the street (or Christian minister for that matter) does not. I just think the latter is reported on less in the United States and Canada because we are Christian nations, so perhaps Christian radicalism takes a little longer to be noticed.