Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Oct. 23, 2014 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

27:33

2827 Canadian Terror Attacks: What You Need to Know!

Soldier, 24, shot dead by Muslim convert Michael Zehaf-Bibeau who opened fire on Canadian Parliament in terrifying attack that left capital on lockdown.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main Radio.
	I hope you're doing well.
	So today, in my home locale of Canada, a dark-skinned man with a handkerchief covering or scarf covering half of his face, who was reported to have dark curly hair, opened fire at a Canadian soldier standing ceremonial guard at a war memorial, wounding The soldier has since died after being shot, of course, at point-blank range.
	The shooter then walked to the Parliament building in Ottawa, Canada, where he opened fire inside before being killed, reportedly shooting between 10 and 30 times.
	Shots have also been reported in a third location.
	Police are currently hunting a second and possibly a third gunman in Ottawa.
	Probably not coincidentally, recently Canada decided to join the US-led coalition against ISIS, the radical Islamic group, currently taking over and swallowing up large sections of Iraq and slaughtering many Muslims in the process.
	According to counter-terrorism sources, there was significant internet chatter in the days leading up to the shooting, and multiple threats were made, including that the Day of Reckoning is coming.
	ISIS followers have also commented on Twitter, quote, soldiers of hashtag Islamic State who are everywhere around the globe declared war on the coalition countries, which would be Canada, of course.
	According to some reports, the gunmen, multiple gunmen, stormed the Canadian parliament complex and one has been shot and the rest, if there are, there are still at large.
	This, of course, is last week in Canada, a radicalized A Muslim drove over two Canadian soldiers, killing one.
	What are we to make of this squaring off, of this, and you could say gaining of wisdom or loss of innocence for Canada as a whole?
	There is a war at the moment between the West and Islam.
	And the war goes back to very, very deep historical roots.
	The purpose of the war on the Islamic side, at least according to the reports of their leaders, is very simple.
	So let's listen to an ISIS video being read by a captive.
	For the Islamic State, it's a win-win situation.
	If these executions force public outcry or a policy change, that is a huge victory.
	And if they only goad our governments into dropping more bombs and spending millions more dollars, making our countries weaker in the process, then that is a victory too.
	I have yet to see David Cameron's reaction to the killing of David Haynes, but I'm sure it'll be along the lines of, Britain is shocked and appalled at this brutal act, and we will not rest until the Islamic State is defeated and those guilty of his murder are brought to justice.
	So there you have it.
	In committing attacks against Western countries such as 9-11 and so on, in putting forward these repulsive medieval beheading videos, the goal of these extremists is twofold and you can't really lose either way.
	Number one is to cause a withdrawal of Western military power from Muslim countries.
	Number two, of course, If that fails to continue to provoke the Western powers into escalating their violence against the Islamic countries until such time as the Western countries run out of money and thus withdraw their troops from Islamic countries, withdraw their military influence.
	This has a long history.
	It's so important to understand both sides in a conflict really need to be understood.
	And of course, most people in the West, which we'll get to in a second, have a good understanding of the West position on the Islamic or the Muslim position.
	The Muslims, of course, have been ruled and divided and Handed out like party favors among the Western powers for certainly since the early parts of the last century.
	And they have seen two significant waves, I guess three, three significant waves of imperial withdrawal.
	The first is after the First World War, the Ottoman Empire was dismantled and this brought some relative short-term freedom to the Islamic countries, which were then carved up by the Western colonial powers, the victorious powers in the First World War.
	At the end of the Second World War, the British Empire collapsed as a result, of course, of the fact that England had run out of gold and was fundamentally broke and therefore collapsed its empire, which was always a money-losing proposition as a whole.
	It only benefited a few select members of society.
	It was at the expense of the society as a whole.
	The third wave, of course, is the Mujahideen who were trained by the CIA to fight against the Russians in the Afghani War after the Russian invasion occupation and then continue to wage a war of attrition against the Russians and as a result the Russian Empire collapsed and the Russians withdrew and so on.
	And so now of course the dominant presence in the Middle East is America and to smaller degree Britain and of course through sales of arms and weaponry Israel.
	Now they're not going to get Israel to withdraw but they can focus on bankrupting the Western powers through this continued war of attrition.
	It's far more expensive to invade than it is to wage a war of attrition and therefore in the long run the invading power always runs out of money and has to withdraw.
	So this is the basic reality of the conflict.
	And it may be not coincidental that as the imperial powers withdraw from the conflict, specific actions are taken to provoking them into re-engaging.
	So, Canada ended its mission in Afghanistan in March of this year, so maybe there's a reason to goad Canada into re-engaging.
	America, of course, scaled back its involvement in Iraq, and so now they're back in Iraq, and the goal is to get them to re-engage.
	You have to keep, if you are waging this war of attrition against an occupying force, you have to keep them engaging until You bleed the treasury dry.
	Well, of course, the American treasury is long dry, as is most of the Western treasuries, because they're off the gold standard.
	But the reality is there's so much debt that until you simply can't pay the soldiers anymore, until you simply run out of money to fund your imperialistic fantasies, you continue to get the Western powers to re-engage.
	And that, of course, is the purpose.
	In Canada, of course, the tragedy is going to be...
	That is going to be significant if it turns out that the shooters are Islamic or radicalized or Muslim or something like that.
	And we, in fact, will hold this video until this determination is made.
	And we're going to assume that it is and release it when this information comes out.
	The tragedy is going to be that there's going to be a renewed call for let's go get these guys, let's go bring these killers to justice, let's go do this, let's go do that.
	And the only thing that will happen is further debt and erosion of civil liberties in the relatively formerly free countries in the Western.
	And this is the tragic outcome of this.
	Now, there will, of course, be massive...
	Politically correct cries to not succumb to what is called Islamophobia.
	You always have to worry and be very, very skeptical when people put forward arguments with the word phobia or gate in the Gamergate.
	And so phobia, of course, is one of these irrational words that denotes the rational word denoting irrational perspectives.
	And to what degree Is it irrational to have concerns about an Islamic or Muslim population in your country?
	Well, around a third of young British Muslims favor killing in the name of Islam, according to a survey released by WikiLeaks publication of US diplomatic cables.
	A US diplomatic cable from January 2009 quoted a poll by the Center for Social Cohesion as saying 54% wanted a Muslim party to represent their worldview in Parliament and 40% want Muslims in the UK to be under Sharia law.
	12% of young Muslims in Britain believe that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified.
	1 in 4, 25% of Muslims support suicide attacks against British troops.
	From 2007, 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified, 35% in Britain, 42% in France, 22% in Germany, and 29% in Spain.
	25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has the obligation or an obligation to report terrorists to police.
	One in five Muslim students in Britain would not report a fellow Muslim for planning a terror attack.
	68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam.
	As was recently quoted in the Bill Maher show, 78% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of the newspapers in Europe which published Mohammedan cartoons.
	35% of Canadian Muslims refuse to repudiate Al-Qaeda.
	62% of Muslims want Sharia law in Canada, and 15% say, make it mandatory.
	So that's not particularly compatible with the multi-millennia development of the separation of church and state and freedom of religion, freedom of speech and so on that has literally on the bodies of tens of millions of Westerners been built as an edifice that is one of the great glories of human civilization.
	It really is astonishing.
	This is not a tiny group of radicalized Muslims.
	There is significant support 25%, 35%, 45%, depending on which questions you ask.
	And what you measure, significant support for radical destructive terrorism in the Islamic community in the West.
	And this is something which cannot be sidestepped.
	And therefore, it is not fair to say that it is merely Islamophobia that has people having concerns about these communities in the West.
	Now, it wasn't that long ago, of course, that Christianity had similar levels of domestic violence.
	All leaders in the West are fundamentally religious leaders, with the possible exception of those in the former Soviet Union and perhaps some Eastern Bloc countries.
	But certainly in the West, you can't be an atheist and achieve public office, certainly not in America.
	And so it was not that long ago that Christianity had an extraordinarily violent domestic history.
	And one of the great tragedies, for those who don't know, I studied history at the graduate level at the University of Toronto here in Canada, focusing on the history of ideas.
	One of the huge and ugly truths about human development, human progress, is the degree to which Human beings must literally drink the blood of millions in order to achieve any kind of wisdom or break with a totalitarian tendency.
	It is unbelievably brutal how many bodies progress has to dig its way out of in order to see sunlight.
	And in Christianity it was The unity of church and state that drove these kinds of conflicts.
	So when you have a government and you have differing religious sects, and you can see this going on all over the world, except, of course, in the West at the moment, when you have a government and you have religious sects, each religious sect wishes to gain the power of the government, where the government has the right to legislate beliefs,
	wishes to gain the power of the government to impose its religion on Everyone else and this means it's it's kill or be killed basically you either gain control of the government and use the power of the government to impose your beliefs on others or some other group does it and imposes their beliefs on you but once you have a government in society where there's no separation of church and state this is inevitable it simply cannot be avoided where you have religion plus A state with the power to legislate beliefs,
	you will inevitably end up with this.
	It's like a bunch of hitmen all grabbing for a single gun in a small room.
	It's inevitable that it's going to go off.
	This, of course, occurred for Christianity in the early 4th century AD, when the Roman Empire, Constantine, legalized Christianity, made it the empire's preferred religion.
	Originally, in Rome, there was an avenue of temples, and each religion had their own temple and most of them were live and let live except the Christians were very much you know you guys are all worshipping demons we're the only righteous one and this is of course how they managed to cause so much trouble and this is really why they were persecuted because they were causing too much trouble for the empire early on It didn't take long.
	In the late 4th century, the emperor Magnus Maximus beheaded an eccentric ascetic named Priscillian.
	Nothing to do with any queens of the desert, I believe.
	And this kind of persecution continued once the state had the power to control or legislate beliefs.
	An early form of the Inquisition, a Roman Catholic movement, attempted to purge heretics from the church at times by execution that began In the 1100s, by the mid-1200s, the Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas said heretics, quote, deserved not only to be separated from the church, but eliminated from the world.
	Now, of course, in most instances, the church did not execute anyone directly.
	They simply declared someone to be a heretic, and then they handed the offender over to the civil authorities who would then execute that person.
	This was not, of course, just the case with Catholicism.
	16th century reformers or Protestants also executed those seen as doctrinally deviant.
	These included the Anabaptists.
	These were people who believed in adult baptism.
	So basically they would grab them, hold them under water and say, how do you like your baptism now, bitch?
	Until they died.
	And there was a rival of Calvin named Michael Servetus who denied the Trinity, who was also murdered or killed.
	Now, by the 16th century, particularly 1517, in his 95 Theses nailed to the church door, Martin Luther wrote that, quote, The burning of heretics is contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit.
	And later, Luther divided these two kinds of heretics into A, those who were just heretics because they believed the wrong things, and those who actually caused public unrest.
	Now, those who caused public unrest were to be executed by the state, and he saw the Anabaptists as that category, but there was some idea around religious tolerance, generally because that category would probably have applied to Luther.
	It was a bit hypocritical.
	Now, of course, in the 1600s, British writers like John Milton argued in Areopagitica for the liberty to speak and act according to conscience.
	Their basic argument was that the best way to get the best ideas is to have a free market of ideas and let the best ideas win in the court of public opinion.
	Let bad ideas be promulgated so that everyone can see how ridiculous they are and get rid of them.
	So, John Milton's argument for the freedom of conscience tragically only applied that liberty-divying Protestant sects and not to Roman Catholics or non-Christians.
	The Puritan leader, Oliver Cromwell, who was, of course, England's head of state during the years when there was no monarchy, he went a step further, actually, saying he would rather, quote, Mohammedanism or Islam be permitted among us than one of God's children should be persecuted.
	After the monarchy was restored in England in 1689, non-conformists like Baptists and Congregationalists were granted freedom of worship.
	In continental Europe, the conflict between the Protestants and the Catholics in the 1600s was known as the Thirty Years' War.
	It's staggering how many deaths this 30 years war it really was the absolute changing point in the need to separate church and state it took and the estimates vary widely some people say it took 10 million lives and this is of course back when 10 million lives was quite a lot in medieval Europe Senseless pillaging,
	there are reports that people would go through Germany and you could barely, they said, we scarcely see a tree without a body hanging from it.
	And senseless pillaging, it destroyed crops, and there was just this mass hysterical slaughter.
	There are some estimates that 16 to 1648, the Thirty Years War, the death toll in Germany alone was around 14 million people.
	And that is, of course, is one of the arguments as to why Germany kind of didn't go through the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, and thus brought a particularly virulent form of collectivism and medievalism into the 20th century, where, united with the products of the free market and of the military-industrial complex, produced Nazism.
	But perhaps that's a story for another time.
	The death count of the Catholic papacy throughout the Middle Ages has been variously estimated from variously reliable sources as anywhere from 50 million to 150 million souls.
	This is, of course, people killed directly or indirectly by the papacy.
	So from a history of Romanism, 1871, quote, from the birth of Popery in 606 to the present time, it is estimated by careful and credible historians that more than 50 millions of the human family have been slaughtered for the crime of heresy by Popish persecutors, an average of more than 40,000 religious murders for every year of the existence of Popery.
	In the Thirty Years' War, At least 40% of the population was killed.
	And again, a lot of that was, or some say mostly, was in Germany.
	40% of the European population was killed by the virus of sectarian religious warfare.
	Of course, in America, Maryland passed a law in 1649, allowing anyone who believed in the Trinity to practice their religion freely.
	And there was still no tolerance for atheism, of course, or other religions, but Roger Williams, a theologian who became a Baptist, but then quickly became an ex-Baptist, founded Rhode Island as a colony with religious freedom.
	And it only required that one believe in one God.
	That's it.
	So what was called religious toleration in Europe emerged out of the Reformation, out of the endless internecine slaughterhouse that divergent beliefs produced in Europe.
	Well, Once people had seen 40% of those around them murdered for the cause of religious intolerance, they began to magically find some value in religious tolerance.
	It is one of the unbelievably frustrating aspects of history, which we see played out in the current world.
	The unbelievable and astonishing degree to which human beings only...
	Like, how much blood do we have to drink before we cough up some freedoms?
	It's absolutely horrifying and astonishing.
	So early forms of religious toleration occurred because governments could no longer find people to slaughter.
	There really wasn't much left of the country.
	And, of course, conflicts between Christians didn't end in the 1700s.
	The Spanish Inquisition lasted until 1834.
	Catholics and partisans continued to fight in Northern Ireland.
	But since the 18th century, Christian wars of religion have declined.
	Christian government wars against everyone else have continued.
	So, if we understand that until relatively recently, a couple of hundred years ago, the Christians were slaughtering each other with mad devilish vampiric abandon, it's one way to understand what's going on in the Islamic world because one of the reasons that theologically motivated killings are still occurring Including the Sunnis and Shiite conflicts in the Middle East is because Islam does not really recognize the separation of church
	and state.
	Islam has always historically embraced, according to one theologian, what's called sword evangelism.
	That the state and the mosque are one.
	This is really, really important to understand.
	Now, the other thing that's important to understand is from the Muslim perspective, Christians are pretty destructive, right?
	So in the 11th century crusades, upwards of half a million Jews and Muslims were murdered.
	And in the 20th century, and this is a very rough estimate, 120 million people were killed in wars and warlike acts.
	And only a small fraction of that figure was the result of Muslim killings, right?
	The majority of it were non-Muslim killings and There's a chart which we'll have a look at here.
	Visually displays the dramatic and lopsided accountability of Christian nations.
	Mostly those, of course, located in Europe, plus the US and Canada.
	Two additional little tidbits that are important from either side of the equation.
	The first is that non-Muslims actually carried out more than 90% of all of the terrorist attacks in America on one side.
	On the other side, of the 11 million Muslims who've been violently killed since 1948, since the founding of Israel, 35,000 of the 11 million, or 0.3%, died during the 60 years of fighting Israel, or 1 out of every 315 of the Muslims who were killed.
	In contrast, over 90% of the 11 million who were killed were killed by fellow Muslims, and this is another important aspect to remember in this conflict.
	So I guess just two more points and thank you for your patience in this matter, which I believe to be essential for the fundamental flourishing and survivability of human societies as a whole.
	First and foremost, even if we take the very most conservative estimates over the past 30 years, Muslims have killed 10,000 Americans.
	Americans have killed 300,000 Muslims.
	So, 30 to 1.
	Taking less conservative estimates, which are probably closer to the truth, in my humble opinion, it's probably closer to 100 to 1.
	So, it is...
	Of course, inevitable when the 100 to 1 victim ratio strikes back at the Imperial overlords for the Imperial overlord citizens to be shocked and appalled and horrified.
	But when you look at the lopsided death count, it is scarcely a fair fight.
	And given the overwhelming military superiority of the West, it is natural.
	That those who are under the imperialistic heel are going to resort to things like public beheadings and goading into wasting resources on the part of the imperialists in the fruitless pursuit of turning the Middle East into something like Europe, which is not going to happen for a considerable period of time.
	And the reality of the fact that human beings only changed when about to drown from the blood of their own offspring, that's when human beings fight their way to the surface and see reason.
	There are irrational doctrines the world over.
	That unite with the state.
	When you take pathological charity and unite it with the state, you get communism, which is an unbelievably anti-rational doctrine and therefore incredibly destructive.
	When you have theology uniting with the state and able to control the beliefs of citizens, you end up with the virus of grabbing for the gun to point it at every other believer known to mankind, but the endless splitting that that results in.
	Until basically it's whoever's got the gun is the only true believer.
	These are natural.
	These are inevitable.
	It would be wonderful if I am a philosopher and I believe that it would be great for human beings to learn by reason and evidence.
	It would be wonderful if they did.
	However, that is historically not how people learn.
	The reality is that the Western countries should stay home.
	I mean, have we really run out of problems to solve in our own countries that we must run around playing snakes and ladders with the rulers and citizens of countries about which we know very little, about whose heritage we have almost nothing in common with, and in terms of historical development, are not exactly close to where we are.
	It makes no sense whatsoever.
	It is a massive international problem.
	It's an incredible game of push the plastic counters around pretending that you're doing something.
	All you're doing is causing more problems, creating more backlash, and it is incredibly destructive to everyone involved.
	That at some point, the more superstitious elements of the planet are going to drink enough blood that they cough up some freedom.
	It's not going to come from outside, which simply unites and creates destabilization that promotes the agendas of the most irrational and violent in the local world.
	Citizenry, the essential thing, is for the West to withdraw, to focus on solving our own problems rather than imagining we can solve the problems of foreigners.
	And the world over there in the Middle East is going to have to wait until it is sick of slaughter in order to become free because that's how it happened here.
	This is Stefan Molyneux for Free Domain Radio.

▲