Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Quote of the Day

I have no desire to end up living like Geert Wilders or Kurt Westergaard, never mind dead as Fortuyn and van Gogh. But I also wish to live in truth, as a free man, and I do not like the shriveled vision of freedom offered by the Dutch Openbaar Ministrie, the British immigration authorities, the Austrian courts, Canada’s “human rights” tribunals, and the other useful idiots of Islamic imperialism. So it is necessary for more of us to do what Ayaan Hirsi Ali recommends: share the risk. So that the next time a novel or a cartoon provokes a fatwa, it will be republished worldwide and send the Islamic enforcers a message: Killing one of us won’t do it. You’d better have a great credit line at the Bank of Jihad because you’ll have to kill us all.

Mark Steyn – From the foreword to Geert Wilders’ Marked for Death


  1. Julie near Chicago says:

    Applause for Mr. Steyn. I think he’s exactly right (safe for me to say, my only “published” work consists of a few comments on libertarian and conservative boards).

    Still, my parenthetical to the contrary, I think we have to be willing to risk something. On another board, some people appear to be afraid of attracting “the wrong sort of attention”–by, for instance, allowing themselves to be associated with “nutters” of various stripes. For instance, the people who understand that the issues of Obama’s birthplace and parentage are important.

    They don’t grasp that teaching the populace to ridicule ideas inimical to it is one of the chief tactics of the Left/Progressives/Obamathugocrats. If you disdain to discuss issues which leave you open to being ridiculed, you’ll find nobody makes fun of you, and you’ll have a nice quiet life. Until, of course, they come for YOU.

    These same people were highly critical of “Don’t Touch My Junk” Tyner–he called attention to himself, he held up the line and inconvenienced lots of people!

    In short, he made a scene.

    It’s perfectly true–his action undoubtedly did put off some proportion of the populace. But what would he have accomplished if he’d simply followed the Program, “gone along to get along”?

    It really seems to me that we have to be willing to risk something. And we have to be willing to stand together with people who also yearn for what we want and what we think is right, even if they don’t go quite the whole way with us…as long as they don’t take positions that are inimical to our core principles, of course. (Yes, Ron Paul absolutely should have repudiated Stormfront, for instance.)

    Anyway, thanks to Mr. Steyn for trying to stiffen up the backbones of his literary confreres. And thanks, CC, for the quote.

  2. NickM says:

    Fortuyn was not killed by a jihadist but a hard-leftist with the usual grab-bag of grievances (including the demonization of Islam” very inter-alia). He was primarily an “animal rights” campaigner (though I wouldn’t trust him for 30s with my cat) and generalized Green. Van Gogh of course was killed over Islam and his movie. I mean it was hardly a case for Inspector Morse. The note on the knife contained further threats and made the motive very clear.

    I don’t exactly take Steyn’s comment at face-value. I don’t see it as “shared risk” as such. It is much deeper than that…

    I want my bicycle back.

  3. RAB says:

    Well it’s slightly encouraging that a group of MPs are calling for the “Insulting words and behaviour” clause in the Public Order Act to be struck out. The discouraging thing is that it took them so long, it’s been on the books since 1986. And no, it will not be struck out, it is way to useful to the powers that be.

    Me I hate thought crime and Speech crime. As an old time Law Graduate I was taught that only threats of physical abuse or even death should be actionable in Law, not hyperbole petulance and spite. Sticks and stones etc.

    I like offending people, it’s become a bit of a hobby over the years, but I would not touch one hair on my target’s head physically. And of course the clause is now used to stifle and silence the truth.

    If I were to describe the Religion of Peace, as it self proclaims itself to be, as the Religion of war, conflict and subjugation, I would only be speaking the truth, but the truth is apparently insulting, so hello Pentonville for me!

    I don’t see it as a shared risk either Nick, but a personal one. It has been made that way because the fanatic Islamists threaten and carry out violence and have learned only too well that it works in aiding their creeping Colonisation. In short they are allowed to get away with it because the facts don’t fit with Authorities fantasy of Multculturalism. Islamists do not believe in multiculturalism, to them there is only one. Submit to it, or die. Look at how desperately the BBCGuardianistas have tried to play down the Muslim grooming and rape of entirely white children as “nothing to do with race or religion” to see how fucked up this country, it’s Laws and attitudes have become since I graduated in the early 70s.

  4. john in cheshire says:

    islam is evil and muslims are not to be trusted. I’m afraid that’s the conclusion I have come to after nearly 30 years of seeing how they have invaded our country and caused almost unbelievable trouble for far too many natural inhabitants of our country. When was the last time you heard or read of a Hindu, Sikh or Chinese calling for the death of our people? Never. The only people who parade themselves in public in distinct dress, to show us how different they are from us, are the muslims. The only ones who have raped our children, are muslims, the only ones who have established enclaves or maybe ghettoes in our country are muslims. They have no saving graces as far as I’m concerned.

  5. Julie near Chicago says:

    NickM: “I don’t exactly take Steyn’s comment at face-value. I don’t see it as “shared risk” as such. It is much deeper than that….”

    That’s an interesting observation. “Much deeper than [shared risk]“–I interpreted it more or less along the lines of “standing together and not knuckling under to threats,” as did, say, the U.S. papers save the “Philadelphia Enquirer.” (And while the threats against Mr. Wilders’ and Miss Hirsi Ali’s lives are the ultimate sort–I think we also need to stand up to the lesser threats of browbeating, social bullying, ridicule….)

    What did you think he was getting at?

    Thanks. :>)

  6. Single Acts of Tyranny says:

    If I get the whole religion thing properly ‘sinners’ of all kinds spend eternity in hell as punishment for denying various godly injunctions, right?

    So what’s the point in killing them? Eternity doesn’t get any longer if you start in 2012 or fifty years later, it’s still eternity, so really why bother? It seems somewhat illogical to me.

    (I am of course aware that some hard-line religous loons who think God has called them to be a kind of religous enforcer, are not overly logical, and come to think of it, can’t the omnipotent diety start zapping people who transgress like in the days of the old testament?)

  7. CountingCats says:

    John in Cheshire,

    You conflate ‘they dress differently’ with child rape as examples of how evil you think they are. I would argue that the first criticism is nothing but xenophobia on your part.

    I don’t like Islam, but I have known some lovely and thoroughly trustworthy Muslims. Wild oversimplifications and gross stereotyping on your part chum.

  8. NickM says:

    You don’t stand because you are standing together. You stand just because it is right and if it is right other good people will stand with you. If no one else does and you are right we are all fucked.

    To quote Woody Allen. “Eternity is very long, especially towards the end.”

  9. NickM says:

    I guess what I was saying was that it is the individual that makes a stand. Or in the case of, say, Rosa Parks, has a sit. What matters is that if our civilization is broadly on the side of the angels others will follow.

    PS. A US friend of mine once confused Rosa Parks with Eva Braun to much hilarity.

  10. Paul Marks says:

    The Mark Steyn quote is correct.

    This reminds me that I have yet to buy “Marked For Death”.

    I will correct that oversight now.

    The least I can do.

  11. Julie near Chicago says:



    Besides which, Agreed!

    To that, I’d add that we “share the risk” in the same sense that we “share a feeling of pleasure at the purring of a kitty (say)”–the point being that it is a common battle, and pointing that out encourages us, and also encourages us to action. So, it is in part a morale thing. Comrades-in-arms, and all that. :>)



Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: