A Dutch court has ruled that Geert Wilders can be prosecuted for calling the Koran a ‘fascist book’ because this amounts to inciting hatred.
THE HAGUE, Netherlands: A right-wing lawmaker should be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred with anti-Islamic statements that include calling the Quran a “fascist book,” a Dutch court ruled Wednesday.
Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made headlines around the world in March 2008 with his film “Fitna,” which juxtaposed Quranic verses against a background of violent film clips and images of terrorism by Islamic radicals.
AdvertisementIn 2007, Wilders called for a ban on the Quran “the same way we ban ‘Mein Kampf.’” He said both Adolf Hitler’s work and the Muslim holy book contain passages that contradict Western values.
The Amsterdam Appeals Court called Wilders’ statements in his film, newspaper articles and media interviews “one-sided generalizations … which can amount to inciting hatred.”
I wonder whether describing those who call the Koran a ‘fascist book’, fascists, is in itself an incitement to hatred? Or does it only work one way? After all, when you fire Katyushas into Sderot that is nothing. When you pay the rocketeers in their own kind that is a war crime.
It will be interesting to compare the fate of Wilders to Jose Maria Sison. Sison operates the Communist Party of the Philippines out of the Netherlands. Whereas Wilders stands accused of saying something, Sison had recently been accused of using the country which granted him asylum to plot hundreds of murders. The Wikipedia entry lists the crimes of which Sison has been accused. They included:
- ” orchestrating the 1971 Plaza Miranda bombing during the Liberal Party Convention to force Marcos to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and sign Proclamation Number 1081 initiating the advent of Martial Law in the Philippines. This accusation comes from former CPP members such as Víctor Corpuz, Alex Magno and others.”
- initiating “the Second Great Rectification movement, a ‘cultural revolution’ which sought to reestablish the Party’s Marxist-Leninist-Maoist(MLM) political line, which the revisionist factions would later turn into a bloody internal purge of fellow comrades in the CPP/NPA”
- orchestrating the show trials of his various opponents
Sison was released by the Dutch court which believed the prosecution failed to provide enough evidence to prove he was directly linked to the murders in question. The relatives of Communist Party purge victims, many of them former Communists or Leftists themselves, have continued to press the Dutch authorities to continue the investigation. However, Sison has considerable political backing and has been defended by Ramsey Clark, a former US Attorney General. The Left knows how to take care of its own, even when most of the victims are leftists themselves. He remains at large even though “Since August 2002, he has been classified as a ‘person supporting terrorism’ by the U.S. and the European Union.” Since then, however The European Union’s second highest court ruled to delist and reversed a decision by member governments to freeze assets.”
The War on Terror is over. It’s payback time for those who ever thought it should have begun. Just today:
Family members of people killed on September 11, 2001, and in other terror attacks say they are outraged by President Obama’s draft order calling for the suspension of war crimes trials of prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.
“To me it’s beyond comprehension that they would take the side of the terrorists,” said Peter Gadiel, whose son, James, was killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11. “Many of these people have been released and been right back killing, right back at their terrorist work again.”
Obama’s request on the first full day of his presidency came as a draft order was being prepared ordering the closing of the Guantanamo prison within a year. A judge responded by halting the case against a Canadian detainee accused of killing an American soldier in Afghanistan, issuing a 120-day continuance in the case.
Maybe Sison will soon have new neighbors. “The UN special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, last week called for his own country, Austria, and other European countries to take in Guantánamo detainees as refugees.”
The Left knows how to pluck out the thorns in its side. The Sison saga provides a glimpse into how the hard left enforces consensus and how it defends those who impose consensus. Geert Wilders basic problem is that he is spitting in the face of the professed consensus of “progressives”. And like all other “deniers”, Wilders will pay.
You don’t need to agree with Wilders or like him to ask yourself: ‘if they can do this to Wilders, can they do this to me? Am I safe?’
Maybe we were never safe; and maybe the best thing about the Wilders case is how it destroys the complacent assumption that fairness is automatic. The struggle to keep justice untainted by politics is never-ending. The Duke Lacrosse case should remind us that justice can served; but that it requires effort. Freedom is real, but it has a price. Sison’s men once had a nemesis called James Rowe.
By February 1989, Colonel Rowe had acquired intelligence information which indicated that the communists were planning a major terrorist act. He warned Washington that a high-profile figure was about to be hit and that he himself was second or third on the assassination list. At around 7:00 in the morning of April 21, 1989, as he was being driven to work at the Joint U.S. Military Advisory Group headquarters in an unarmored limousine, Colonel Rowe’s vehicle was hit by gunfire from a .45 caliber pistol and an M16 rifle near the corner of Tomas Morato Street and Timog Avenue in Quezon City. Twenty-one shots hit the vehicle; one round entered through a slightly open window and struck Colonel Rowe in the head, killing him instantly. Rowe’s driver, Joaquin Vinuya, was wounded. The New People’s Army claimed responsibility for his assassination. Two Filipinos were convicted for Rowe’s assassination—Juanito T. Itaas as principal and Donato B. Continente as an accomplice. They were however, released under a government amnesty program in 1995. He was buried May 2, 1989 in Section 48 of Arlington National Cemetery.
This is the real pay to play.
Those who want to sign a petition of support for Wilders may do so here. Contributions to his defense fund can be made via this link, but the blurb is in Dutch.
One word sums all this up: “erosion”.
Western culture needs the process of mountain-building to begin anew before we are weathered away. Unfortunately, I don’t see many incumbent leaders who could be described as mountain builders.
“You hatin’ on me?”
When we hear that we know it immediately as a primitivism.
“One sided generalizations…which can amount to inciting hatred,” is a gussied up primitivism.
While criminal charges by the government for cases such as the one brought against Wilders may not be possible in the U.S. due to our Freedom of Speech principle, it appears that the Left has simply replaced that with civil lawsuits in many cases.
Shoot a burglar in Europe and the authorities very probably will charge you with a crime. Shoot a burglar in the U.S. and you may lose your house in civil court to aggrieved criminal. That is, if the local authorities decide not to charge you with something and the Feds decide not to charge you with violating the poor guy’s civil rights.
Like Col. Rowe, they will try to get you one way or another.
Let’s be honest about what is happening to Wilders. It’s a struggle over what else, women!
Muslims have run out of women due to their polygamy. They need to conquer non-Muslims to provide enough women to their young men. The solution is to conquer Europe and America to get women. That’s the essence of the struggle. Wilders, by drawing attention to this, must be punished, because the feminized elites of the Netherlands must surrender to the dominating men of Islam to make their mostly female backers happy.
After all, you’d expect women to oppose Islam the most yet the back it. Obviously they see advantages to being the chattel of the dominant men. At least it will destroy the odious average men they hate.
The dog that is not barking in the night-time is women in Europe. You would once again expect them to back Wilders to the hilt, yet it’s women who have backed his trial.
As for Obama, he faces right off the bat accusations that he is pro-Terrorist and pro-Muslim. He won a narrow victory based again largely on single women. The more he becomes pro-terrorist, and pro-Muslim, the more he is Celebrity in Chief and women will love him (even more).
But that creates male resentment. Obama’s Crown Heights could well be Gitmo and the terrorists within. Recall even New Yorkers voted Republican to keep Black politicians out of the Mayor’s office after Dinkins. It’s unlikely that NYC will see another Black mayor for a long, long time. Obama might well fare just like Dinkins.
He’s not just playing to the media, as the hype-hope guy with no responsibilities or record. He now has to DECIDE.
Keep his hard-left, feminine, and Black supporters happy by throwing open the gates of Gitmo? He can but it costs: White men in particular see him as the tribal enemy, the Black guy in solidarity with terrorists who kill them and propose to supplant them in public and private life.
Particularly as Iran nukes up, with no response from Obama other than meaningless speeches, he faces a backlash in the 2010 elections, where the Lee Atwater type elections from non-incumbent Republicans can say Obama and Dems let the 9/11 plotters out because they are on their side. Interspersed with Jay Z and Jeezy calling Obama “my President is Black” and Wright, Ayers, Lowery, etc. telling Whites to get to the back of the Bus.
Obama’s entire career has been playing the race card, but what happens when he runs up against Reps who play it right back at him, the non-McCains? After all every Republican by now knows ALL the media is hard-core hard-left Dems, and will try to pick up Men not women as their base.
In his first day he’s already pissed off veterans (skipping the Medal of Honor Ball, dating back to Ike, no other President ever skipped it) and on the path to freeing the Gitmo inmates and surrendering to Islam. The more women gush over him like Leonardo Di Caprio (and the media) the more men hate him just for that. Add the tribal nature of conflict and he becomes quickly the enemy. Carter went from hero to zero quickly, Obama is on that path. The only Whites he knows how to relate to is trust-fund radicals like Ayers.
@whiskey,
Sorry fellah but it isn’t that you re wrong, you may even be correct on aspects of an important subject, however the fact is that you have become a bore. We all care deeply about ideas but the monomania is killing the conversation. You have done better than this so please work on it.
Excellent post Wretchard (as usual). Incidentally, Rowe’s book “Five Years to Freedom” tells of his five-year experience as a prisoner of war in the jungle during the Vietnam war….very amazing story. His description of his rescue is an incredible story just by itself.
As Col Broughton (USAF pilot in Vietnam) said in one of his books, do not take your warriors for granted…they will always be needed. So far, they have always been there.
Where will a man like Wilders find refuge? No country in Europe will have him, will the US or China? Ideally some Civil Libertarian of the Left will invite him into America. The best would be if it was Deval Patrick and Bobby Jindal that pushed for him together.
The United States, like other nations, developed a full range of tools, legal, administrative and cultural, for protecting itself from subversion. They did this while grappling with the problem of welcoming and assimilating immigrants and becoming a great power with a global trade network. It took 150 years to build and refine these tools after the failure of the first effort known as the Alien and Sedition acts. It took less than 30 years to abandon those tools. Worse they were not actually destroyed but only abandoned, left unused against the threat of infiltration by the left or a foreign political-religious movement but available for those same forces to pick up and use against the decaying Establishment or other vulnerable minorities.
There are similar cases in history. The Romans ceased the persecutions and offered toleration to the Christians by Constantine’s Edict of Milan in 313 and in 380 Theodosius outlawed Paganism. The Christians were only to happy to pick up the discarded tools of oppression.
Islam is a death cult with no redeeming characteristics. Why do so many allow it to breathe on?
Olmert rescued Hamas from the mud pit. What does Olmert gain? Love? Hope?
Following your post The Grand Inquisitors, Wilders is now hounded by The Lesser Inquisitors.
Lifer
Whiskey is about the only commenter who has enough focus, and courage, to make predictions. Most others are kibitzing around the edges. The Three Conjectures argument is the central issue of our time. Recognizing that fact and working deductively from it is not monomania. If Obama alienates enough white males, all the women in American won’t save his presidency.
Ridge,
That is why there is a mad rush to effeminate boys through the public education system. As a father of two men who have gone through the public education system. I have seen first hand the tactics and propaganda used by teachers (not all but a massive majority) to stamp out any and all masculine instincts in boys. My own sons were hounded through out their school years for exhibiting masculine behavior. I succeeded in mitigating the attacks on my sons. But it is not a priority for a substantial number of parents to even try.
Why would I put them through that? They needed to see it so they would be able to recognize it when they are adults. They are strong and confident in their beliefs and will not be swayed by the left’s agitprop.
It would make me a happy man to see the ideology of Socialism wither and die in my time.
Jim
Nancy Pelosi’s now open to investigating officials guilty the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush administration. The NY Post reports:
I don’t mind complaints being sworn out against anyone who commits a crime. But I just wonder how willing Nancy Pelosi will be to yield office when her term expires. It is often the desire to avoid having done unto you what you have done unto others that leads to difficult situations.
Wretchard, Nancy P. fears not of reprisal, They have learned that only the right has the Moral, Righteous high ground and will not do unto others that they do not want done to them while for five decades Nancy P. and her predecessors have pushed the low road ever deeper and further then they could ever have imagined, Sir they will not stop and as all good men stand by and do nothing they will take every last drop of our founding fathers work away!
Good night America, the darknss draws closer every day…
Nancy Pelosi is a career politician, just as her father was (former Mayor D’ellasandro of Baltimore). She is in an exceedingly safe district for her ideology.
But she is an exceedingly poor Speaker with poor parliamentry skills. One the debate to pass the first “bailout bill” last October, she deliberately insulted and infuriated the minority Republican caucus, whose votes they needed (to a degree) to pass the bill. And she could not muster the party discipline to get enough of her own party to vote for the bill. Applause.
Sections of her caucus (with safe seats, like the CBC) will undoubtedly be “all for this”, and to the Mass Media and networks, this will be like a “stimulus package”. Bread and circuses. Keith Olbermann will have lots of “worst person in the world” to hurl his invective against. And his Obamaness will do nothing to stop it, regardless of his bon homme expressed for GWB the other day. But a lot of centrist congressional Democrats will grow increasingly uneasy with this inquisition. They hold their seats by slim majorities, and this sort of nonsense will alienate the muddled middle and energize the Republicans in 2010 (added on to the discontent of “stagflation” that will be present in the economy, despite all the “stimulus”). The longer this goes on, the more likely that it will fracture the Democratic majority.
They thirst for death.
I know next to nothing about the particular Dutch law in question, but I gather from the article cited that the gravamen of the offense is inciting racial hatred. This does not make sense. Islam is not a religion that is based on race, or that exalts one ethnic group above another, at least in theory.
Of course there is the disproportionate
impact rationale, in that since most Muslims in the Netherlands are not native Dutch therefore it will or can be assumed that it is really a veiled attack on those ethnic groups. This gives rise however to the peculiar situation of judging criminality by statistics. The same comment uttered with the same intent would not be a crime the next day if some arbitrary percentage of the ethnic makeup of the Muslim population now were native Dutch.
And by the same token, wouldn’t criticism of the Nazis be a hate crime because they are all Caucasian? After all, the truth of the criticism seems to be immaterial.
I need to find a rabbit hole so I can go down and get Alice and the Red Queen to explain it all to me.
Since we’re applauding those who stand up and make predictions, my prediction is that Pelosi will pander to the looney left in print and do absolutely nothing on paper or within the system to make it actually happen. She and a couple of her left-loving brethren (too bad Teddy’s convulsions would steal the limelight if she let him participate) may get as far as setting up Congressional hearings, but that’s as far as it’ll go.
She’s predicting herself that within the next six months something so wonderful or so badterribleawful will happen that the Bush-hate-crimes people will forget about their little obsession, and she can move on to the really important stuff like rebuilding New Orleans and providing free housing for Katrina’s terminal loser victims.
By the way, I think we should invite Wilders to immigrate to America. Billy Wilder immigrated from Austria at the beginning of WW2, was a film-maker and gave us some extraordinary movies. If Wilders went to HOllywood it would be very difficult for him *not* to be able to do better than “Syriana” and “Munich”.
Australia should be glad to get him for the same reasons.
Letofthemind: “There are similar cases in history. The Romans ceased the persecutions and offered toleration to the Christians by Constantine’s Edict of Milan in 313 and in 380 Theodosius outlawed Paganism. The Christians were only to happy to pick up the discarded tools of oppression.”
Sir, would it be too much to ask that you insert “There are, in my opinion, similar cases…”.
I have no beef with your opinion.
I do have a serious beef with your presenting opinion as fact.
There were those who called themselves Christians or were identified as Christians for lack of other description who picked up the tools of oppression and used them.
I don’t use them as models and/guides for my life. They themselves, in my opinion, were not using Christ for a model.
According to the Epistle of St. James, if your works don’t match your words, you are on the outside looking in!
The “Old Country”
What happened to the Dutch?
The answer is, not much since the 1600s.
A very small country, the Netherlands has tried very hard to accommodate its larger and more powerful neighbors. My personal family experience is with the NSB.
The NSB is short for the National Socialist Bond, a party that admired the German Nazis and did much to run the Netherlands during World War 2.
Thanks to immigration for its former colonies in Asia and Morocco, the Dutch are busy accommodating its Muslin population, much as it did its Nazi neighbors in earlier times.
We think of the Netherlands as being a peaceful country of pot smoking hippies and elderly burghers, advanced enough socially to legalize not just drugs but the flesh trade and the duty to be snuffed out if you get too old and sick. As I get older and my memory and hearing isn’t as good as it once was, I’m glad my parents moved me to a country where I don’t have to fear that nice young man in the white coat with the needle.
About that peaceful part, it seems to have more than its share of high profile killings. Van Gogh and Fortuyn were both killed by within a few years of each other, one by a Muslim, the other by a Leftist. The rest of the population is terrified by “youths” with exuberant ideas.
To keep the natives docile, the Dutch political establishment does what it can. And if it means suppressing free speech, keep in mind the free speech is enshrined in the US constitution, not in Dutch common law.
Life, what else explains it?
HOW else do you explain a Pelosi, who has already “won” pretty much everything she’s asked for, pursuing the gone Bush Administration?
What is her payoff? Why does Feinstein want nuclear disarmanent (for the US only obviously) with her Party in charge of the White House AND Congress?
Why are not Women flocking to Wilder’s defense. Obviously they would be the first to suffer in a first-pass view of life under increasingly Islamization.
Instead women’s groups as documented by Gates of Vienna are the prime supporters of increased Islamization.
You offer vague, untestable hypothesis of cultural decline, or various PC-like explanations. NONE of them explain women’s behavior which you find “boring.”
Obama won on the basis of the single women vote, which went 70-29 for him, about ten points higher than single women traditionally vote for Dems, and the demographic itself was much higher (single women outnumber married women now for the first time) than prior elections. Had single women remained in the demographic slice of 2000, and voted for Obama in the same percent as they did Gore, McCain would be President.
Nearly EVERYTHING is subject to the Gender divide. It explains politics, including Israel’s inability to destroy Hamas (women inside Israel don’t like military action). It explains Obama’s election, and the pursuit of Wilders and Bush.
Yes OF COURSE PELOSI will pursue Bush. All one needs to do is watch the View, or Oprah, to see how popular that would be with Women. Who form the largest consumers of media and in particular, television. It’s why she’s doing it in the first place. Her mostly female or feminized constituents demand it. SHE thinks it’s a good idea. She honestly thinks “peace” comes from surrender to non-White, non-Christian aggressive men from a polygamous culture. Heck, HBO’s “Big Love” about a sexy, “nice” polygamist has a nearly all female audience. That alone ought to be a big red flag.
What you don’t get (largely because IMHO you are likely an older, out of touch man) is how BIG the shift in female attitudes and culture has been over the last twenty years, and how disconnected women have become from most men. All the stats: marriage/divorce rates, illegitimacy, STD rates, age at marriage, age at first child’s birth, etc. show a big shift that is driving the political response to Islam’s aggression.
Women were not always like this. But they are now. Mostly because they are single for most of their lives.
Either women find Wilders’ punishment/trial an acceptable trade-off for destroying the nuclear family in alliance with the Islamists, or they find life under the Islamists a preferable alternative to life now.
It’s worth noting that the support of Wilder’s Freedom Party and that of Vlams Belaang is almost entirely men plus married women. Almost no single women support either party in either country. Women are predictably the most fertile base for hard-left sentiment. Though this is a recent (last twenty years) phenomena.
Yes, it’s boring. Truth is boring. Democratic politics even had an article in the Atlantic “So Long Whiteboy” hailing the feminine-non-white aspects of the new Democratic majority that deliberately sought to marginalize White men.
This is of course the project of trust fund terrorists like Ayers. But one ought to consider WHY guys like Ayers were successful in building their careers, also Joschka Fischer, and other ex-Radicals.
They did not build extensive Boss Tweed style patronage networks like Daley and company. They did not ingratiate themselves with lots of men by trading favors and sponsoring careers to lots of men, instead they pursued highly feminized academic careers. And became quite successful based not on patronage and shoveling money to people (mostly men) the old-school politics, but posturing as the bad-boy rebel … for women and a feminized group of men in media, law, etc. removed from male dominated groups.
Anyone who steps into say a highly feminized workplace like Law or Media will note the difference in culture and values from say, a masculine workplace like a steel mill or metals processor. It’s something that hits hard and immediate. It takes an effort to ignore it.
Yes this is boring, stuff I’ve said before … BUT you cannot understand WHY Wilders is being tried and Pelosi is pursuing Bush unless you understand the gender divide and the female desire to punish those with unpopular views the “tastemakers” disaprove of.
A male oriented response of course would be Death Squads for Bush and Wilders, so we can be thankful for the innate moderation against violence that characterizes women even at their worst.
But if you think of Bush and Wilders as the nerdy and unpopular guys that annoyed the Queen Bees in High School, the responses to them make sense. As do the responders.
whiskey does make sense about some things, now that I think about it. He and I have had our differences over how to slot Islam. He uses anthropology and psychology to analyze it, and I’ve used the prism of my Christian theology and a sense of history to understand it. But I think I’ve hit upon a very big dimension of Muhammad’s narcissistic personality disorder that will shed some light on the way whiskey explains Islam. Muhammad had an insatiable desire for women. As many of them as possible and he wanted them to erotically stimulate him, going so far as to desiring a SIX YEAR OLD GIRL, the daughter of his main lieutenant, Abu Bakr, the young Aisha. She was six years old when he married her and nine years old when he could no longer put off his burning pedophilia. Muhammad loved to manipulate women and they were his prize possession. This man was so egotistical and selfish that he plotted and schemed to steal the wife of his adopted son – a woman whom his adopted son did not love but who tried to be a good husband to. When he spotted her naked, his mind was set and he plotted to get her into his bed.
whiskey is right. This is a culture of predatory, sick, perverted, and evil males who are all intent in stealing other men’s women. The men all want to imitate the Prophet. To the victor goes the spoils. And as for looting the enemy’s wealth, even that serves the purpose of holding out hope that a Muslim man has to be able to afford several wives.
As for the women of our declining Western Civilization… here’s my take on why nearly 80% of single, white females voted for Obama. First, our culture has degenerated into a miasma of nihilistic hedonism to the point where our women feel vulnerable. Relationships are disposable; children an afterthought. This is something men and women have achieved together and it’s not pretty. Women fear the party that has a strong element that wants to protect the life of the unborn. Abortion is seen as a way for women to protect themselves from the disastrous consequences of casual sex with men who in no way are going to stick around or are, worse, not wanted and not encouraged to stick around. As an aside, here we are in the 21st century and there are still people who are not practicing safe sex and preventing pregnancies. Which means a lot of unwanted pregnancies resulting from these casual relationships happen because of impulsive liaisons with no preparations. People who are drunk or gals who have been drugged by unscrupulous predators. I could go on and on about all the permutations of this pathetic condition we now find our culture shackled to.
The candidate who promises some kind of expanded social welfare is going to garner the female vote, since a premium is put on security over risk taking and discipline.
However, I do not think the Wilders’ case is primarily driven by the alienation of women from their culture, although I am sure it plays a role. Primarily, cultural Marxism wants to use the jihadis as a means to destroy the West. And if it requires the violation of a basic human right to speak the truth to power, so be it. They do not care about such rights. The Marxists and the Muslims are in an unholy alliance to destroy our civilization. Wilders speaks the truth about the viciousness and the evil that Islam truly embodies, and he’s attacking the allies of the Left. They cannot have this! So, they aim to shut him up and will try to put him in prison if they can.
I believe I am living in the time of the decline of Western Civilization. There are so many signs that this is happening. I know to utter these words in a public forum would cast me into the role of the shrill, shrieking, insane Cassandra. So be it. This is how I see it playing out. If we do not wake up we could lose something bright and precious, and the darkness we descend into would be pitch black for many centuries.
@Basil,
Agreed, we all need editors in life. I should have prefaced with the word “Arguably.”
@whiskey,
Do not be offended, we both need to listen to correction. I encourage you to refer to your known perspective in other responses that use your analytical skills. It is not my blog so I would not presume to offer more advice than that. Perhaps we all need another war in the Caucasus to refocus our analyses.
That last was sarcasm, OK everyone?
whiskey is boring. he writes the same bullshit over and over and over again sprinkling it with a little bit of history and analysis, but frankly, as one of the ones he’s obsessed by, I just don’t see where being herded into whiskey’s harem would be any better than being herded into Achmed’s. therefore, I refuse to read his drivel any more and think of him now as being more deranged troll than mere annoying one-noter. I wish he’d just go away.
Good post whiskey
also, woman seem to be very intuitive about avoiding conflict. They may know that if Obama can not find a way to get muslims to reform their reading of the koran,, its on, globally.
Saudi must get out of our schools and politics and the wahhabi and salafi and iranians give up the jihad for the califates and they forget the jews and dhimmi or the west takes off the gloves. We will know in a couple years.
“I just don’t see where being herded into whiskey’s harem would be any better than being herded into Achmed’s.”
Amen to that!
whiskey – I don’t even know what you say anymore because I stopped reading. You had a few good points but you don’t know when to quit. Women, single or not, are here to stay. Deal with it.
Isn’t it interesting that the people who want to shut whiskey down are women?
How would NahnCee or marymcl define the broad strokes that change cultures? Something is happening in Europe that demands explanation. What then drives European intellectuals to surrender their culture and the most successful civilization in human history to the barbarian tribes?
Isn’t it interesting that the people who want to shut whiskey down are women?
It is.
You know what I really want to hear? An explanation of why a creed like Islam seems to attract such little opposition from single women, despite it pushing for the subjugation of women. So far, only Whiskey has provided such an explanation.
The alternative to Whiskey’s theory is simply to say that it is men who have lost it. Occam’s Razor suggests that we don’t have to blame women when it’s much more direct to blame men who’ve stopped acting like men. Nobody is ‘feminized’ unless he lets himself get ‘feminized’. If Islam is getting social traction it’s because too many men have let themselves get pushed around. For Pete’s sake we’re letting killers go just because we don’t want to hurt people’s feelings. If we quit poncing around then maybe we’d get a lot more respect, not just from single women, but from ourselves.
Wilders is doing what would have come naturally to a lot more men in the past. He’s strange because the type he represents was once normal. He’s doing what was once the done thing. But it isn’t that hard to regain something of ourselves. Can we sign the support Wilders position? Can those of us with some money to spare give him some? Can we stand for something without equivocating, shading, hedging, fudging or qualifying? Well here’s our chance. It’s hard to be a big hero. But we can try to be little ones. That is hard enough.
They put a hot wire to my head
Cos of the things i did and said
They made these feelings go away
Model citizen in every way
http://www.lyricstime.com/pil-rise-lyrics.html
I would suggest to Mr. Wilders and others it is time to seriously contemplate this paragraph…
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The alternative to Whiskey’s theory is simply to say that it is men who have lost it. Occam’s Razor suggests that we don’t have to blame women when it’s much more direct to blame men who’ve stopped acting like men. Nobody is ‘feminized’ unless he lets himself get ‘feminized’.
That’s what I always figured; what you might call the “girly-men” narrative of limp-wristed progressive bien-pensants.
But I realised a while ago that it doesn’t tell us why single women steadfastly refuse to condemn or even opine against the same radical Islam that would enslave them.
Why aren’t women up in arms about it? Some women might be (er, see above), but most aren’t. This is why I’ve put my chips on Whiskey’s theory: it makes sense and there’s precious few convincing alternatives.
So what are defenders of WHiskey suggesting? It seems to me that what you are demanding is that women shut up, find a man, and allow themselves to be put back in that kitchen barefoot and pregnant … and non-voting.
Whereas, as Wretchard notes, if there are changes to be made doesn’t it make more sense for men to step up to the plate and be fathers and husbands again, and once in a while to also be a warrior? If “single women” are indeed doing this or that, can we at least stop to wonder why so many of them *are* single in the first place?
So what are defenders of WHiskey suggesting?
That his theory is correct. And why not? It makes perfect sense. Do you have a better theory explaining why single women are so quiet on (or worse, support) radical Islam?
It seems to me that what you are demanding is that women shut up, find a man, and allow themselves to be put back in that kitchen barefoot and pregnant … and non-voting.
Er, I think you’ve confused us with the Islamists.
I just realised: if you go to The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics, you’ll see that:
It seems to me that what you are demanding is that women shut up, find a man, and allow themselves to be put back in that kitchen barefoot and pregnant … and non-voting.
is a “Code Black” in the Shaming Tactics taxonomy, and:
doesn’t it make more sense for men to step up to the plate and be fathers and husbands again, and once in a while to also be a warrior? If “single women” are indeed doing this or that, can we at least stop to wonder why so many of them *are* single in the first place?
is either a “Code Yellow” or “Code Green”.
Anyway, Whiskey’s theory explains why so many women are single: they all want an alpha male and there aren’t enough to go around. That is why they’re single… they’re single by choice.
wretchard at #29 has it right. My brief essay above is really not intended as an attack on women, and I don’t think that whiskey really is, in the final analysis attacking women. I should have added the point that wretchard explained, because I believe it’s true: we men have failed to be what honorable men should be.
About Wilders, it’s obvious that he is fighting the good fight and we should support him in whatever small ways we can. He is being set upon by the Marxist wolves, who are baying like leashed in hounds, as their Muslim allies whip them into a frenzy. I have seen video clips of his movie, and is says nothing that is not true. My God, what have we become if we now decree that the truth, even it be offensive to certain groups, must never be uttered?
Islam is indeed an assault upon all of humanity, but it most certainly does turn women into merely objects which exist simply for men’s pleasures and to be baby machines. Isn’t that degrading, NahnCee? I think it is. No one here is advocating that women get back into the kitchen.
My point is that our civilization is breaking down, and men are tomcatting around as women have become sluts. Men have degraded themselves and are 50% of the equation of chaos that the Gramscian Marxists have constructed. And because we men have become less than real men, our women and our children ARE indeed more vulnerable.
Let me be personal here a bit. I was in my very early teens (having been born in 1955)during the late Sixties and I began to see how the culture was changing. I was brought up in the last vestiges of the very Jansenist Roman Catholic culture that pervaded the French Canadian Catholic families I grew up in. Suddenly, we are exposed to the new fashion of “anything goes” and a lot of my older peers got with the program. I didn’t. As a teenager and sensitive young man I was trying to find some kind of ground to stand on that would allow a bit of fresh air to clear away the cobwebs of Jansenism and yet remain faithful to the core of my faith and ethics. My compromise: I would not be sexually intimate with a woman unless the relationship was serious and heading for a commitment. I would not tomcat around. And if the woman I loved were to become pregnant, I would marry her. I kept to that. My wife did not become pregnant before we were married. And we’ve been happy ever since that the greatest day of my life. I’ve been faithful to her and I’ve never looked back and never wondered, “Gee, I wonder what a dalliance with that other attractive gal would be like?” I went down the road I went down because I saw that there was wisdom in the Christian way of living and loving, minus the extreme prudishness of Jansens and how I think it harmed Catholics. I looked at the swinging lifestyles of people around me as I grew up into adulthood and I could see that it was doing so much harm to people’s lives. And the big losers, in many cases, were the children.
Thus, women in our culture DO feel vulnerable, and yet now most of them are so far removed from the better aspects of a former practice of discernment and restraint that their only perception of “hope” is a politician who promises unlimited access to abortion and welfare. Obama is not truly a Christian man. And I learned a long time ago that Leftist variants of Christianity are in continual struggle to compromise in ever bigger ways with the emerging Gramscian Marxism and post-modernism.
Our culture now objectifies women. And so does Islam. Honorable men take a stand against this dehumanizing of both men and women.
@Whiskey
What Fred Said.
Plus this: An interesting sounding theory isn’t necessarily true. For a long time I was intrigued by theories like Whiskey’s, but not so much lately. Like Nietszche and his ubermensch, a theory like Whiskey’s says more about the person it intrigues. It betrays something about an attitude toward large groups of people that someone would be inclined to accept such explanations. I find it totally unsurprising that the only two women responding don’t find it interesting at all. It certainly doesn’t prove anything about whether the theory is true or not.
Is it really plausible that complex social behavior (like actively protesting, or not, events far removed from oneself) can be explained in a direct line from some genetic hard wiring? I don’t think so. If you said that about male behavior (and I know it has been) I’d say it’s almost prima facie ridiculous. Dozens of factors are involved, most of them social. Maybe there are a handful of women who privately feel attracted to the virility of terrorists, but that doesn’t affect much behavior, I’d bet. For myself, I might turn my head this way and that walking down Bourbon street due to some genetic hard wiring, but there’s a whole lot more to me left to figure in before I’ll do more than that.
Perhaps if Whiskey can write his theory into a book or a novel he’ll grow a set of followers like Ayn Rand has. It might seem just as hard not to wonder about Whiskey’s followers as those who constantly sing the praises of selfishness.
What troubles me about the Wilders prosecution is that he has already been tried and convicted.
When the first line of a media report calls a protagonist “right-wing,” well, he’s already lost.
This thoughtless slander of any European politician who believes in freedom (there’s that pesky word again) as “right-wing” is reflexive anymore. And, just as death tolls in Gaza are uncritically accepted and propagated by Europe’s media mavens, so, too, is this ridiculous label.
I’d like to see a symposium of journalists convene to discuss word-play like this. A blue-book test should be administered to each Journo and the first question should be, “in 10 words or less define the term “Right Wing.” If a disregard for civil liberties, and a penchant for command-economies make the list of qualifiers, then the journo’s should take a long, hard look in the mirror.
Because, by this definition, the Koran and much of Leftist dogma is incontrovertibly “Right Wing.”
A few points, and I am fully aware that they won’t be agreed with universally:
Families exist in order to bring up children in as much safety as can be managed, and socialised into the society that they come from. That’s it; at need everything else can be, and has been, thrown away. For most people, monogamous relationships work best, presumably because of our evolutionary hardwiring, but it doesn’t always apply; communes sometimes work. To put it another way; human relationships are often based on jealousy and it doesn’t have to be like that. “An it harm none, do as thou wilt”.
Second: it is probably agreed, by most reading this that are old enough, that there used to be an implied contract between men and women. If you are a woman, then you may be somewhat subservient – but no man worthy of the name will fail to do such things as open doors and offer his seat to you, and no such man would attack you – and if he did he might expect random strangers to prevent him and, if caught, to be severely punished. That contract breaks down further by the year.
Third; whiskey, sorry but I disagree. In my opinion the change in sexual roles since perhaps the 1950s in the West is due to labour-saving household machinery. Simply put, before then it was impossible to run a household and work outside the home at the same time – and therefore the economy was arranged so that a man could earn enough to keep both himself and his wife. Now, it is possible (although difficult) for both partners to work – and if history teaches us anything, it is that if anything becomes possible, sooner or later it becomes compulsory. So now, in probably the majority of households, both partners work; and the change in economic roles leads to a change in relationship roles as well. This same change also means that it is possible, although difficult, for a single mother to survive – once, it was nearly impossible.
Whether this change is desirable is quite another matter. Men are hardwired, perhaps, to be dominant and providers – and the lack of both dominance and the provider role for many men may be a lot to do with the problems of society. Simply put, men don’t know any more who they are supposed to be.
Two things:
“”"”"”Indeed, she’s asking if she and other congressional Democrats even “have a right to ignore” the high crimes and misdemeanors populating the fervid imaginations of hard-left pitbulls like Reps. John Conyers and Henry Waxman.”"”"”"”"
The though of being hounded by the likes of Henry Waxman is especially horrifying. Pardon my pettyness, but has there ever been a more butt-ugly man in high office in all of American history? He looks like the product of an unholy union between Porky Pig and a Warthog.
As to Whiskey and his over-the-top world view, It reminds me of one important thing: The right-wing crazies of the early Cold War were more correct in their characterization of Communism, its depredations, and its intents than all the rest of us with our quasi-accommodationist, “wordly” view of the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, and Communist China and its minions and spinoffs. Also, the racism-tinged early opponents of forced busing and “Affirmative Action,” and minority-fueled crime waves may not have been our social cup of tea, but they did get right down to the heart of the matter that we later signed onto didn’t they?
The question of why such a large majority of single women voted for Obama, why they are silent or supportive of Islamization and why so many are single, is interesting.
In Canada the recent prosecution of Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine for “inciting hatred” against Islam were effectively
led by the heads of 2 Human Rights Commissions, both women.
A recent controversy in Ontario about clitoridectomy resulted in the head of the anthropology department at the University of Toronto declaring that she had no problem with it because it was “culturally useful” to Moslems (old spelling; I do not care) and it is none of our whiteboy business. “She” of course would be a person of the female persuasion. (Maybe she’s right, but there is a large Moslem population here in Montreal, and my kid brother is an ob-gyn surgeon and has seen first hand what they do to their women. He says it is horrible.)
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada was recently involved in a manouver which resulted in the award of the Order of Canada to our pioneering abortionist, Henry Morgentaler. Her name is Beverly. She will soon preside over a case which may legalize polygamy in Canada.
The former Attorney General of Ontario recently pushed hard for the institution of Sharia law for family matters in Ontario and nearly succeeded. As a consolation prize to the resident Moslems she outlawed the long established Jewish tribunals in the province. I forget her name.
I could perhaps understand idiot males going for this stuff: polygamy, divorce by simple repudiation (“… and get the hell out, right now!” the right to beat her if she won’t give you the remote for the TV. Great stuff. Why not convert now?
But the women? Supporting any of that?
Friend of mine has a beautiful daughter. She got a job with Al Jazeera in one of the gulf states, married a handsome Egyptian, had a baby soon after. Fine. (the baby, not Al J.)
She wanted to bring the baby home for a week to show her grandmother. She had to get a (false) letter from granny’s doctor stating that the old lady was dying, or else no exit visa.
What in the name of God is wrong with these women?
But maybe it’s just me.
Fred 36:
Thank you for an interesting post.
I taught Englit at the U from ’66 to ’71, so I remember the 60′s. The divorce epidemic among the faculty ratboys dumping their faithful old wives for shiny new 20 year old students and trading them in every 2 years. I remember it well.
Something very unfair was done to women back then, perhaps with their collusion, and we are all paying for it now.
Was it something as simple as the so-called sexual revolution resulting in the moron males suddenly concluding that women had no value because they could get for free what they used to have to marry for? I don’t know, but here in Quebec nobody marries and 60% of the babies are to unmarried mothers, 1.2 babies each.
I realize that this may bore the bright and articulate majority of the commenters, but after teaching, I did 3 law degrees (fool) and practised in both languages for 30 years. I am now tired of theorizing and abstractifying and tend toward the anecdotal, but I am pleased to read the elegant juggling of abstractions by the younger commenters. Smart kids.
My point is that I agree; the foolish and destructive 60′s attitudes resulted directly in the current problems. I quite realize that it’s trite to say this, but it still fascinates me because I was standing in front of those classes, looking at all those pretty, smart, naive little brats, watching it all happen. Such a shame.
I’m not a whiskey hater, but I have to admit when he starts off his posts with “This is all because single women…” – well, I skip ahead.
I would agree with whiskey to a certain degree about the feminization of Western culture, but only up to a point.
I think the real, root problem is the Communist remnant. The Reds were never discredited after WWII like the Nazis were. Never, I repeat “never,” has there been a worldwide public exposure of the crimes and twisted ideology associated with communism and socialism. Western communists after WWII saw the possibility of a better world: a world without racism, a world without war, a world without poverty – “if only.” If only people could give up a few rights and some property to the benevolent centralized system overseers, all could be made well. And if a few eggs got broken along the way, that’s show biz.
The Soviets and their fellow travelers are entrenched throughout the Western world, secure and safe in ivory towers. The hard Left has been undermining western values and civilization for 100 years, with the goal of discrediting the entire system. The anti-Americanism and disdain for free speech goes hand-in-glove with the Left thinking “We know better and can fix this if we are given the power.”
The radical environmentalists? Green on the outside, red on the inside. The terror-loving Western Leftists? They support revolutionary groups that the USSR used to sponsor to undermine democracy (throw in a little anti-Semitism to help explain the special hatred reserved for Israel).
The Left has done a hell of a job undermining Western civilization. The only problem is they don’t have any idea about what to do next.
For as long as I can remember, people have been bemoaning the lack of families among black people — that the father-image thing simply wasn’t there, and that black women were having to bear and raise their own children by themselves.
Initially, this was blamed upon slavery and that the cruel white masters would tear apart black husbands and wives, but leave the children with the woman. So black men simply got out of the habit of knowing how to be a husband or a father.
Then, in the 1960′s the blame shifted to white women stealing black men, so there were not enough left for black women to form families with. Given the percentage of bi-racial blacks in America now (hello, Mr. President) there is probably some validity to this complaint.
Now, we’re reading that a majority of family-aged black men are locked up in prison. Although that doesn’t explain why white men are so anti-marriage and family.
(BTW, if you read Australian newspapers, the Aussies are freaking out about the same issues, except they phrase it that Oz men are REFUSING to be tied down. That might also be the case in America but we just don’t come right out and say it.)
It seems to me that the disintegration of the American family has followed along with this black-family-arc — that somehow white men started abandoning their families as easily as black men had been doing for decades, and that women were faced with the issue of choosing to have children on their own or remaining barren.
And have discovered to a large extent that — guess what — given the advances in child care and payscales, we don’t NEED men!
I’m hearing more and more bitterness and spite, too, from men about being taken to the cleaners by the courts and about excessive financial expectations of women. So I think there’s a lot of anger by left-over homely women, as well as a lot of anger by men who feel taken advantage of financially.
I really don’t have an answer for why NOW-feminist types haven’t spoken up about the horror that is Islam and what it does to women outside of Western civilization. One small guess would be that pushy women are taking a break after decades of daily striving against glass ceilings.
Another guess would be the attitude that if *we* could do it, then what the hell is wrong with them that they can’t get it together in the Middle East or Africa the same way since we’ve shown them how it’s done?
A final guess would be stark fear — if everyone else in the world is afraid of getting their heads sawed off by some drooling beady-eyed Islamist, then why on earth should Gloria Steinham be expected to stand up to him/them all by herself?
I would question that single women are physically attracted to the virility of the Mohammad Atta’s of the world. Just … yuck. But consider this: if we neo-cons think the moonbat left are a bunch of pimply-faced nerds living in their parents’ basement, then do we really expect moonbat females to be attracted to THAT?
NahnCee wrote:
“I would question that single women are physically attracted to the virility of the Mohammad Atta’s of the world. Just … yuck. But consider this: if we neo-cons think the moonbat left are a bunch of pimply-faced nerds living in their parents’ basement, then do we really expect moonbat females to be attracted to THAT?”
No argument from me about that. If I were a single female no way those kinds of guys are gonna turn my head.
Cosmeau Bugleweed @42,
I followed the Steyn case very closely. We here in New Hampshire now have him as a literary treasure. I’m sure he’s glad he’s an American now. He was actually hoping that the CHRC would have found against him and MacCleans’ magazine, so that he could take his case before a high Canadian court. He thinks the principles involved are very important and in Canada this needs to be decided once and for all.
As for the academic Leftists/Post-Modernists… I was at one time an aspiring academic Marxist who also happened to be a Jesuit seminarian. Not everyone over there was personally corrupt and venal. A few actually were motivated by some of the things I felt deeply motivated by. In college I had an academic mentor, a philosophy professor, who was a very ethical guy and a very good human being. He was a man of the Left, but not doctrinaire and he encouraged me to think independently. He approved of the fact that I took the critiques of socialism seriously and thought I had the right instincts to see if – someday – I could find a way around Michael Novak’s criticism of socialism and liberation theology. I tried, but failed and I do not consider that failure a real failure in any sense. I matured as a thinker. I discovered that the telos of socialism, which it utopia, is impossible. Human nature is not maleable in that way. Very, very few fellow socialists – especially the activist types – took the conservatives’ critiques seriously. In those days they were into making fun of Ronald Reagan, calling him a buffoon. Guess he had the last laugh on them, but these days the Left is ascendant and the Reagan years are long gone. The kids today know nothing of what life was like during the Seventies and why the Left was swept from power in 1980.
Some on the Left are motivated by anger, envy, or a sublimated or overt lust for power to dominate other people’s minds and lives. I was not ever that way. It would be too private and personal to get into my motivations behind my attraction to Marxism in those years, but it did involve an authentic spiritual quest that took me into the slums of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro and thence to Washington, D.C. and Chicago.
In no way do I blame women for what is happening in the West. I blame intellectuals, artists, heretics (and I am a former Pelagian heretic of a kind), and politicians for this mess. Women and men are victims and victimizers, insofar as they embrace the cultural Marxism/Post-Modernism uncritically.
The counterculture of the Sixties and Seventies was not truly “counter cultural.” It was simply destruction.
I have chosen to live a truly counter cultural option. I’ve chosen to embrace many aspects of traditional Catholic life and mate those with some contemporary theology as well. I like Aquinas, Maritain, Lonergan, S.J., and Segundo, S.J. Some old and some new.
body {margin:8px} .tr-field {font:normal small arial} img {-moz-force-broken-image-icon: 1;} Take a look at this by Tina Brown
What about Obama makes her feel “safer and calmer”? Is it that he will shy from conflict? Is he more of an Alpha man? How is he different than Bush (on issues of her safety) , or is it just that he is not Bush? (BDS and all)Closing Guantanamo was debatable but closing the overseas CIA detention centers was a bigger compromise of our security. Is this what makes her feel more comfortable?
Tina’s a Yurpizoid, for what it’s worth. Born in England, became a US citizen in 2005. Perhaps her perceptions are slightly skewed and I’m positive she’s afflicted with BDS. But then I heard some educated black woman being interviewed in the last day or so and she “just knew” after hearing him talk that he could change everything. “Just knew it!”
Jim Jones
Kool-Aid
Sacrificial suicide
Phyllis Chesler (whose blog is on PJM Xpress) is a feminist who has written a number of essays about the failure of Western feminists to address the misogyny of Islam. She has an entire section of her personal website devoted to the question of feminism and Islam.
http://76.12.0.56/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=4&id=13&Itemid=58
Chesler married a Muslim in 1961 and has written elsewhere about the nightmare she went through to leave Afghanistan in order to get away from him. She credits this ordeal with making her a feminist. So yes, there are women in the West who consider themselves feminists who are taking the NOW crowd to task.
Could Wilders apply for political asylum in the United States? He really is a victim of political persecution and his basic human rights are being violated by the Dutch government.
Where did Ayaan Hirsi Ali end up after she was run out of HOlland? Last I heard a year or so ago, she was living in the U.S. but couldn’t afford the security she needed to maintain against the fatwa’s that had been issued against her. She and Wilders were hiding out together at one point because the Muslims were threatening Wilders even then.
The last I heard about Ayaan Hirsi Ali she lives in DC and works for the American Enterprise Institute.
And thank you wretchard, for pointing out the obvious @29. All this whining and crying about women ruining the world for true-hearted men is an eye-opener, that’s for sure.
I should add that I don’t mean to trivialize the degree to which the West has been “feminized”, if by that we mean become passive and reactionary. But to say this is all the fault of women is just obtuse. Legalities aside, whatever ground the NOW crowd has gained socially was conceded, OK? And NOW has never spoken for all women in America, not by a long shot.
Young women voted in mass for Obama for probably the same reason many young men did – because they’re young and idealistic and he appeals to those prejudices. And what’s the plan anyway? Take away the women’s vote? Fat chance.
As for the attraction to so-called alpha males – let me just say that human sexuality (not to mention human feeling) is a little more complicated than whiskey’s anthropological pigeonholes, however well they serve his Grand Unified Theory of What’s Wrong. It’s a safe bet that if women only married and procreated with *alphas* most of us wouldn’t be here.
One last thing (three short posts instead of one long one -sorry)
The failure of American feminists to raise a peep against the way Islam treats women and girls like dogmeat is shameful, but not surprising. You could see it in their mindset years ago, in the weird system of equivalence that made a middle class American whose father never encouraged her to be a brain surgeon just as oppressed as her Third World counterpart who got sold into prostitution by her parents. Establishment feminism is all about looking in the mirror and seeing what you want to see.
I hope Mr. Wilders finds a haven here in the US.
Sorry guys. Another thing
Besides I have to catch up with NahnCee, who did a lot of heavy lifting yesterday
Bear in mind also that the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated by the tireless activism of a woman. I don’t know about you guys, but I call that a victory for our side.
And nobody took it on the chin more than Phyllis Schlafley.
Mary – I thought about the Equal Rights Amendment, too, and what that says about the support of America for NOW and American feminists but decided to let it go. Thanks for reinforcing my instinct that it mattered.
Well, the women of America are going to get a big present from Obama shortly. Complete, total abortion on demand. No medical practitioner regardless of the facility (and it will compel Catholic hospitals and clinics to obey the law)will have a conscience clause so that he or she can refuse to do abortions. And it may even include pharmacists who currently will not dispense the abortion pill because of their conflicts with conscience. Catholic hospitals will not be exempt from the law. Late term abortions will return. And minors will not have to have their parents/guardians informed.
And all of it will be on the taxpayer dime.
For the record ladies, I am not in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. I am not in favor of making abortion illegal because I have known of a few cases of women who did it because their pregancies would have resulted in deliveries that would likely have killed them. Their husbands and kids are grateful for this.
For the rest… I am in favor of adoptions, since there are indeed couples who are looking for infants to adopt. My wife has cousins – children of her father’s brother – were all adopted as babies because the couple could not conceive. It was a blessing for them.
Geert Wilders is an alpha male, but so is Osama bin-Laden. George Patton was an alpha male, and so was Adolph Hitler. I believe women are attracted to alpha males for genetic/biological/social reasons; but those genes, hormones and neurons sometime render her unable to tell the difference between the guard dog and the wolf. What a shame. As for us men, we better get down to the serious business of being the guard dogs of human life and human liberty; our women will love and respect us for it.
I offer this thought in humble admiration and memory of my father who fought in hand-to-hand combat at the battle of Saipan on July 7, 1944. Thank you dad for being a courageous man; for fighting like a tiger, and for risking your life in defense of my life and liberty.
“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Thomas Jefferson
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” Patrick Henry
57. Fred;
Another small bit of anecdoticism:
Article 14 of the 1994 Civil Code of Quebec says that the parents of a minor of 14 or older will not be notified of any medical procedure on such child unless it requires a stay of more than 24 hours in the clinic/hospital.
You know what that’s all about, right?
But the “Codifiers Comments” justify this in the name of respect for the child’s “privacy” (sound familiar?)in cases of sexual diseases and drug addiction. They do not mention abortion, but the whole thing is about secret abortions for the 14 year olds.
To conclude with yet another personal
experience, a 15 year old girl in a Montreal Catholic High School was steered through a quickie afternoon D&C, rested in the school nurse’s office for a few hours then sent home.
Everyone on the school staff, the girl’s friends, me and you know about it. Everyone except her parents, who were deemed too unsophisticated to be told. Everybody but them.
Nice stuff.
By the way, in article 14 the
words “mother”, “father” “parents” are not used.
The socialist newspeak is “Le titulaire de l’autorite parentale” or “the holder of parental authority”.
This is because the state is the grantor of this authority. The biological parents are merely the holders thereof.
Doubleplusgood.
57. Fred;
Clarification: The wife of a very good friend was the teacher of the 15 year old and took her to the clinic by taxi. The experience was not “personal”.
The terms “alpha male” and “beta male” were invited by scientists who studied the behavior of chimps. They found examples where a group of beta mailes formed a coalition to overcome the dominance of the alpha mail of the pack.
Human sexuality is more complicated that that of chimps since we have a bigger vocabulary and can write.
I am a professor of economics and thus I can not talk with my students about their sex lives. A late friend of mine was a social psychologist who taught courses on sexuality. He was able to obtain consent from many of his male and female undergraduates to talk about their sex lives and phantasies. He was the first to tell me about the hooking up.
I have had two female undergraduates who out of the blue when talking about the lack of maturity of their fellow male students told me that they do not date but go out in “groups”. One a real beauty told me that she wanted to have dates.
Now I hear from some males that they do “date” but I can not ask them what that means.
But try to get a restaurant reservation in a college town on Valentines Day. The college males are treating their female data to a fine dinner using the money they make while working and sort of going to class.
The femanization of Western men is a result of the leftist insanities of teachers starting at the elementary level and going on through high school.
Turning to Islam, the Turks have one wife, at least in the cities. The Islamic PM of Turkey has one wife and at least one daughter who is studying in the US. He is a real Islamacist who believes that Islam is a superior religion to all others.
Many males want power move than women as long as they can obtain sufficient sex.
“Many males want power move than women as long as they can obtain sufficient sex.”
Agree. I would also add “comfort”, as in TV with remote, microwave oven, and once a week maid service.
BTW, Fred – I haven’t looked at Obama’s abortion ruling, but if it’s like it used to be, if a facility is taxpayer-funded it cannot refuse abortion upon request. That’s not new, legally, although I think perhaps in the last few years it hasn’t been a publicized policy.
The Catholics have been getting around this law for years now by referring their patients who want an abortion to other facilities that have agreements with the Catholics where it can be done with no one’s feelings getting stepped on.
Of course, if the Catholics *really* don’t want to have anything to do with abortion all they have to do is not accept Federal or state funding and they’re free to make up any rules or procedures they want to. (It’s been my experience that Catholics who run hospitals are really quite understanding and flexible about these issues.)
I wonder if what Obama is doing is merely stripping away the veiling to reveal the law as it is currently written again.
I don’t think the U.S. should or can rescue Europe from itself again. Face it: the European elite wants a monolithic government under which only official opinion is permitted. Whether that government is called Fascist, Nazi, Communist or the EU, it’s the paradigmatic European government. Holland is Holland; we can’t make it part of the U.S. Let them live (and die) by their own justice.
tehag