Category Archives: Women

Nice Haircut


Here's an adept adaptation gone viral of a famous poem about the Nazis written by Pastor Martin Niemöller, a German anti-Nazi theologian. Niemöller was imprisoned for his passionate dissent in the infamous Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps from 1937 to 1945 where prisoners lived in constant fear of brutal treatment and terror detention including standing cells, floggings, the so-called tree or pole hanging, and standing at attention for extremely long periods. The pastor survived the regime, the war, his enemies and lived a long life dying in 1984 at the ripe old age of 92. We call this quiet adaptation—Muslim Outrage:

At first, the Muslims were outraged by cartoons, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't an artist.

And then the Muslims were outraged by history books and news, but I didn't speak up because I don't read much.

And then the Muslims were outraged by women who weren't completely veiled and hidden, but I didn't speak up because I'm not a woman.

And then the Muslims were outraged by the practice of other religions, but I didn't speak up because I'm not very religious.

And then the Muslims were outraged by the existence of Infidels so when they came for me...there was no one left to speak up.

The last line is the ultimate goal of Islam the rest are just steps towards that goal. But atmospherics are beginning to turn. Imagine where Western societies should be a decade from now. More Muslims no doubt will make demographic advances in Western societies some ten years from now but non-Muslims will be even more informed and disgruntled by the surly, superior doctrines and behaviors of the Mohammedans by then.

Muslim Ire
Muslim Ire

For Islam to be eventually assigned to oblivion, it is imperative that huge numbers of Muslims see the light and leave their fraudulent faith. We must remain confident this will happen. The more one examines Islamic doctrine and the life of Mohammed, the more unacceptable each becomes for both non-Muslim and Muslim alike.

Knowledge is power, a subtle power, giving steadfast rise to the necessary self-esteem, sense of obligation, and discernment, a psychological flashlight which provides the only path to extinguishing revolutionary Islam in long term.

Alternatively, once the West finds its sea legs in this new paradigm, it may not involve "consigning Islam to oblivion" but merely managing it as best as possible through global quarantine—an indefinite war without end, but finally one where we will have the clear advantage, once we wake up and discard the so-called political correctness that rules today.

And part of that waking up process involves the realization that most Muslims will never reform; coming to a mind that cannot really absorb the uniqueness of the full horror of that Islam bestows upon its willing victims, the Muslims; a people who truly, deeply, sincerely love all the evil and dangerous tenets of Islam and who are truly, deeply, sincerely fanatical, paranoid and hateful of all non-Muslims; a people who are hopeless, who will never, in numbers sufficient to solve our problem with Islam, live up to our Western Classical Liberal ideal of universalism where all humans must be, at heart, pro-human, and not anti-human, and if the conditions are right, any anti-human will reform and see the light, wholly rejecting the cult of death they know as Islam.

All other non-Western peoples show sufficient capability of living up to that ideal (some less than others perhaps), but Muslims are not merely the worst of the lot on the same scale, as a group they are off the scale. Unique. In terms of philosophical, psychological, and political science implications, we may say, mytho-poetically, that Muslims qua Muslims exist to kill and be killed.

And all we can chatter about is what a nice haircut...

The Plight Of Islamic Women

Thanks to Marwan's Daughter for this excellent analysis of women who by birth or by compulsatory religion live diminished lives under the throes of Islam.

IN SOME QUARTERS IN AMERICA, some men believe that a woman must hold a full-time wage-earning job, as well as a second unpaid full-time job caring for the house, husband, and children. Anything else is seen as parasitical. The husband's parasiting off the woman's grinding second job goes unmentioned, of course.

These types of men interpret the Muslim view that a nikah-attached female is responsible solely for sexual availability to her husband as "protection." They view it as desirable, as the woman "does not have to work."

Modern Morality

This resentful fantasy of females lazing in front of the television completely ignores Muslim reality: the women (in some Islamic countries, the majority of women) beaten freely and Koranically by their male owners; the female children molested and raped in nikah; the older and unwanted women divorced and left to starve because the Koran mandates no support; the women who lose their children; the uncovered and disobedient women who are harassed, attacked, mutilated by acid and knives, and murdered with the full collaboration of their parents, families, and entire communities—with the smiling approval of imams and government officials.

The dehumanizing Koranic injunctions that women are lesser beings, whose dress, words, movements, behavior, and participation in the public sphere must be restricted to be "holy" completely elude Western men who think this way. They can't even perceive the hideous injustice of a "heaven" where men whore with female robots for eternity, while their wives . . . wait, one supposes. They see only women whose sole responsibility is "putting out," and this makes them both resentful and envious—as a Muslim male is entitled to four females, not just their one. Yet they do not see this as simple prostitution—they see it as "protection."

The fear and blood and misery, the narrowed world, the bars on the windows and in the mind, are completely irrelevant. "She doesn't have to work." That is the beginning, and the end, of the "protection" analysis.

Former Hillary Supporters Back Palin

Electorate Shifts

GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN met with a group of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s former supporters Tuesday evening at a special fund-raising reception organized for them on behalf of the Republican ticket.

The reception, which organizers said brought in more than $500,000, was part of an extended evening of fund-raising for Ms. Palin and Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign at the Grand Hyatt in New York that officials estimated raised more than $8 million. Ms. Palin, along with her husband, Todd, mingled and posed for pictures with the group of about 20, before appearing at the larger finance event, which McCain campaign officials said was the last time Mr. McCain would personally appear at a fund-raiser before the election. It was also the first time the pair had appeared together for donors.

More than 1,000 people paid $1,000 each for tickets to the main fund-raiser. Nearly 250 people who contributed $25,000 got dinner beforehand with Mr. McCain.

Read it all.

Just when you thought the world was coming to an end with all this national poll and electoral map blather, another day on the political circuit delivers a crucial crunch punch for the GOP. Where once upon a time on a midnight clear, the Obama machine had dismissed a certain segment of the Democratic Party base, saying that Hillary's supporters were not needed by this new younger, more urban and suburban coalition of the willing, and they'd have enough votes without them, the tables have turned. Those fat old poor white women who were told they could go pound salt are now the critical swing voters. Thankfully November 4 is only three weeks away. May the best campaign win, Hillary supporters or not, (and we all know what that means).

Lieberman May Leave Party

Joe Lieberman

During a friendly wide-ranging NewsMax interview, former Democratic VP nominee Joe Lieberman talked about the need to elect John McCain and Sarah Palin in November, including:

  • It’s important for the political process to question Obama’s ties to former Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers: “I think these are very fair questions and it’s now up to Senator Obama to answer them.”
  • Barack Obama is clearly ‘not ready’ yet to be commander in chief, and the country’s adversaries, including Iran “will not fear him” if he were to become president.
  • McCain needs to persuade voters that “based on his record, that he really is the one who will change Washington, and Washington truly needs to be changed.”
  • McCain should tout his economic plan that will emphasize tax cuts and job creation—exactly what a troubled economy needs. He said it would be foolhardy to raise taxes in a recession, as Obama has promised.
  • The Republicans must emphasize that his plan for energy independence will create “hundreds of thousands, I think millions of new jobs.”

Asked if he may leave his party and join with Senate Republicans, Lieberman said he had no immediate plans to make that move, but said he would consider it at a later date.

“The Democratic Party of today is not the Democratic Party that I joined in the '60s under my hero President Kennedy, and it’s not the Democratic Party of my dear friend Bill Clinton,” Lieberman said.

Of course, Lieberman, left out quite a few other dangling issues for the Obama Democrats, including his rather untidy Odinga connection, which has actually been public for some time now, but is only just coming to the top of the boil with Fox News opinionmaker Sean Hannity now on the snarl with some additional damaging news thanks to investigative author Jerome Corsi's recent adventures in Kenya.

Krauthammer Punks Gibson

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

New York Times, Sept. 12

Gibson's pre-emptive strike against Governor Palin...

Informed her? Rubbish. The mighty New York Times got it wrong. And the unusually glib Charlie Gibson got it wrong. There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration—and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different. Gibson said to Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine."

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?" Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right to anticipatory self-defense."


I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush Doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto treaty, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush Doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror—first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan—became the essence of the Bush Doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly is dependent on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in the world is the survival of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume—unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise—and that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Read it all in Charles Krauthammer's Washington Post punking of ABC's snarky Charles Gibson.

The Theatre Of Political Desire

The following is a comment from a PUMA named Janis. The topic is Obama's 2004 speech. Her perspective is quite close to my own, even though I do not consider myself a member of the Democratic Party as does she. In fact, I have been a declared independent, thus, bypassing the primary slate, for all of my adult life. But I am thankful to Janis for sharing her POV in this theatre of political desire.

I CAN QUOTE from the speech myself, from the parts that struck me as good speechwriting. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like people poking around in our libraries in the red states. It was good—but it wasn't that good. It wasn’t the goddamned second coming.

The Reality Of Obama's Kenyan Half-Brother

I recall a short comment from Howard Dean about how the Dems lost in 2004; he made a comment about how the Dems consistently underestimate how deeply religious Americans are. We do. I’m atheist; I’ll openly say that I tend to find organized religion rather laughable and sad.

But what they did was they figured if they could whip up a religious messiah-figure, they could capitalize on that. They still didn’t get what the religiosity of Americans was; they thought they’d come to a brilliant strategic realization that “most Americans are religious,” and then they filled in the blanks with the worst of their own stereotypes of what “religious” meant: chanting and falling to the ground in front of a messiah, like a cult following.

To most Americans, religion is a sort of quiet, rock-solid, hard little thing underneath their lives that they like to rest on but don’t like to think about or talk about all that much. They allude to it, make proclamations, and then go about their lives. Most American religious types are not swooning snake-handlers. *shakes head*

And what they got instead was exactly the opposite; they didn’t woo the fundies over from the other side; they created a shitload of unrevealed fundies on their own side, young kids who were DYING for their own chance to weep oceans at the sight of the Radiant One’s golden halo.

Just as was planned. After the destruction...

"I shall stand astride the wreckage a colossus."

—Karl Marx

Americans may be religious, but we also don’t like phonies. Dog whistles are one thing, but once we feel like someone’s bullshitting us, we turn red. We’re not that bright a lot of times, but once we clue in, we don’t clue OUT.

Women Rank Lower In Islam

Over and over again we are told how liberated women are under Islam sharia law, by the men who hold them hostage, and the women who obey them. Apologists for Islam like to distort history, or simply rewrite it altogether in claiming that Islam gave women a higher role than had been traditional to Christianity in Mohammed's time, despite the fact that Aisha, Mohammed's child bride, who later often became a thorn in Mohammed's side, for instance when she is quoted in the Hadith by Bukhari as having said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look, her skin is greener than her clothes."

But in reality, we draw a different picture. Dr. Farrukh Saleem writes in The News International:

Being Woman While Muslim

Muslims do not treat women right. According to the Global Gender Gap (GGG) report, the planet's ten-worst offenders are: Yemen, Chad, Pakistan, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Benin, Morocco, Turkey, Egypt and Oman. Of the ten, nine are Muslim-majority states. At the other end of the spectrum, the planet's best countries for women to live in are: Sweden, Norway, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Philippines, Germany, Denmark, Ireland and Spain. Not even one of the top-ten is a Muslim-majority state.

GGG collected data from a total of 128 countries to develop a comprehensive, scientific index. The GGG Index is based on four different sub-indices—namely, economic participation, educational attainment, political empowerment and health—while each of the sub-indices has half a dozen components.

Under economic participation, five of the worst-offenders are: Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Oman and Bahrain. Under educational attainment, the worst-offenders are: Chad, Yemen, Benin and Pakistan. The best: Denmark, United Kingdom, Australia, France and Belgium. Under political empowerment the worst are: Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Qatar, Egypt and Iran. The best: Sweden, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Spain.

For women, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan comes out as one the worst of countries to live in; there are only two other countries worse off than is Pakistan—Yemen and Chad. Under economic participation, Pakistan is ranked 126 out of 128. Educational attainment, 123 out of 128. Health, 121 out of 128. Political empowerment, 43 out of 128. Surprisingly, Pakistani women are worse off this year than they were last year.

Al Mamlakah al Arabiyah as Suudiyah, or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is ranked really low, too. Under economic participation, Saudi Arabia is ranked 127 out of 128. Educational attainment, 87 out of 128. Health, 60 out of 128. Political empowerment, 128 out of 128.

Al Jumhuriyah al Yamaniyah, or the Republic of Yemen is worse than both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Under economic participation, Yemen is ranked 128 out of 128. Educational attainment, 127 out of 128. Political empowerment, 127 out of 128.

Intriguingly, there is a correlation between poverty and status of women. Some of the worst offenders are also the poorest of the poor (with the exception of oil wealth). Most of the Arab world is far below global averages and conditions, unfortunately, are actually deteriorating—not improving. Yes, there are a few exceptions. The UAE, for instance, has invested massive resources into educating its women. Bahrain now has a woman parliamentarian....