72 Hijabs In a Cracker Jack Box

Islam is a religion by men and for men. Women belong to the head of the household, to do with as he wishes. The woman child belongs to the head of the household until he tells her she belongs to someone else -- another male head of another household. If a woman child allows her wrappings of virginity to be soiled by anyone but the master, her life is forfeit.

...male domination and female subjugation are Quranically prescribed, and who is Man to challenge the immutable Word of God—especially when God’s arrangements ensure perpetual male domination? This punitive patriarchy is not confined to Muslims in their own lands; it thrives....in the West, in the lands to which Muslims immigrate, but whose “degenerate” and “sinful” societies they abhor.....the subjection of women within Islam is the biggest obstacle to the integration and progress of Muslim communities in the West. It is a subjection committed by the closest kin in the most intimate place, the home, and it is sanctioned by the greatest figure in the imagination of Muslims: Allah himself. _DB

Men of Islam do not wish to integrate with the west. They do not wish for the westerner's version of "progress." Men of Islam are born into a world of unlimited male dominance. Why would they give that up for western concepts of "equality" and "opportunity for all?"

There have been numerous honor killings in the United States, in which Muslim fathers or husbands kill daughters or wives who have “sullied” the family name in some way; and yet, ....not once has the achingly non-judgmental American press used the phrase “honor killing” in its reports on the murders _DB

Women are among the most prized possessions of the Muslim male. But they only hold their value as long as they maintain their innocence, in the eyes of the master. The moment the master perceives -- for whatever reason -- that innocence is lost, the life is forfeit.

Not every Muslim male is born into a privileged life of wealth, many wives, concubines, and female slaves. Some of them must roam western cities in gangs, to rape infidel women and Muslim women who appear to stray from the path. Others must fantasize of the 72 virgins who await him if he fulfills the conditions set forth for martyrdom -- the ultimate prize and reward, poured out of an exploding Cracker Jack box.

The women must be virgins as they change hands, from master to master. Without innocence of the chattel, the owner master's honour is lost, and can only be regained through the spilling of blood. It is a fetish of innocence, but instead of valuing one's own innocence it is the innocence of one's human possessions that is valued.

There is no escape from this fetish for the Muslim woman. No escape except the one she provides for herself. And if the woman does summon up the courage to escape, how is she regarded? A Somali taxi driver in Washington DC:

“What do you think of Ayaan Hirsi Ali… you know, the Somali lady?” He swiveled his head to fix me with his gaze, and then turned it back to the road. “Very bad person,” he said, after a strained pause. “We think she is a bitch. We hate her.” _DB

Yes, they hate her. They want to kill her, if they could only get past the bodyguards. Most escaped un-hijabbed women do not have bodyguards or protectors, even in the west. Western feminists and the western media and academia generally see these would-be liberated women as an embarassment to the post-modernist multicultural program.

Because if we ever did confront the deep and essential pathology of the Islamic community, what would become of "progressive multiculturalism?" If Muslim women are forced to wear hijabs as a "fetish of innocence hung tightly round the neck", then western post modern multiculturalists must all wear a fetish of feigned ignorance.

As the innocents are slaughtered by the Cracker Jack fireworks, and are sacrificed on the eternal altar of the master's honour, the monkeys of the west must always remember to cover their eyes, ears, and mouths, lest they sin against their own radical religion of "progressive dieoff progressivism."

Fetish of Innocence, Hung Tightly Round the Neck

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
fet·ish /ˈfɛtɪʃ, ˈfitɪʃ/ [fet-ish, fee-tish] noun

• 1. an object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency.
• 2. any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades.
• 3. Psychology. any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.

Increasingly, couples are having only one child (if any) and devoting most of their energies to pampering and maintaining the extended innocence of this "pet child." Children are born "innocent" to be sure, but the perverse intent of modern society to maintain this innocence--far beyond infancy, beyond childhood, into adulthood--is spawning a multitude of problems that society has yet to comprehend, much less ascribe to its own counter-productive habits and modern customs.

Children pass through a number of "critical developmental periods" between conception and the ages of 25 or 30. Those who are deprived of the nutrients, basic needs, and experiences necessary to develop the particular capacity of that developmental window will fail to develop. They may maintain their innocence. But if so, innocence becomes a perversion--a fetish--not a virtue. Imagine a society that intentionally prevented infants and toddlers from hearing human language. The children would grow up "innocent of language", but helpless to participate meaningfully in human society.

Child abuse, you say? Yes, but hardly worse than much of what goes on in the name of proper child-raising and educating using methods developed by the "very best" of educators and child psychologists, and administered under threat of deadly force by governments. Child abuse, yes.

What happens to a society that restricts the access of its children to the experiences which would allow them to develop as independent, self-sufficient, clear thinking and decisively acting adults? It grows very specialised, very brittle, very divided, and increasingly helpless to deal with threats from within and without. It grows charismatic leaders who promise to relieve voters of the burden of thinking for themselves. And we all know what comes next.

Only a Coward is Totally Innocent

Innocence is vastly over-rated. Besides being virtually impossible to attain, who would want to be a member of the cowardly, mediocre innocent? We live by various overlapping systems of ethics. Our society is divided along the lines of different ethical systems. We are taught that innocence is good, so we want to be "innocent", but if we act in the real world--which we must--we necessarily break ethical rules of one system or another.

For example, to many ideologues it is impossible for a person of European extraction not to be a racist. The accused may protest the charge, asserting that they are not racists, that they have close friends among the minorities, work amicably alongside persons of colour, and may even be married to a non-European. It does not matter. They are racists by the very definition of some ethical system. And since in this society, persons guilty of "racism" cannot be members of polite company, the guilty must be driven out. That is merely one example of the assortment of "original sins" bestowed on large groups by the dominant ethical system in modern academia, media, and much of society at large (post-modern faux-multicultural monoculturalism).

Everyone who exists, acts, more or less. It is not possible that anyone is truly 'innocent.' That is just how oppressive police states like it, since "having something on everyone" is the best way of staying in control. It is also how political activists like it, because they do not have to actually prove someone's malfeasance to have that person fired, disgraced, or driven from public life.

The pretense of innocence is necessary if one is to make a life of loud and pompous judgments against others. And the best way of maintaining a pretense of innocence is not to act, overtly, other than performing acts of loud, clangorous judgment. Such loud ceremonial or demonstrative acts of judgment are best done in groups--as in protest marches, echo chambers, or political rallies. The strength of numbers in pronouncing judgment should never be underestimated by anyone susceptible to a lynching.

When susceptible to attack, a feeling of safety may be found within anonymity inside a group--as in a school of fish or a herd of grazing animals. An even stronger feeling of safety is anonymity within the group that is doing the attacking. A member of a lynch mob who stays back a bit from the front can be safe from the mob, yet still claim innocence.

Politicians exhibit this sort of "leading from behind" behaviour as often as possible. Particularly legislators, who are far less restricted in the claims they can make during campaigns, if their records are somewhat "undistinguished." A clear record of overt action can be somewhat inconvenient when conjuring up conveniently changeable images of oneself--depending upon the audience of the day.

When claiming the role of innocent judge of the guilty, it is best for one's prior actions to be few and mild, somewhat obscured, or conveniently deniable.

These innocent judges are not of any use to anyone whatsoever, but it is possible for them to acquire loud and powerful public voices, and to rise to positions of significant power in government, academia, media, and society. Particularly in a strongly divided political environment, the more chameleon-like a person can make himself, the better his prospects--up to a point.

What kind of society would grow such cowardly innocents to prominence? Dangerously brittle societies. Probably the society in which you live.

Kindergarchy of the Western World

Having only one or two children allows parents to shower a great deal of attention upon each child. And that must be a good thing, right?

No other generations of kids have been so curried and cultivated, so pampered and primed, though primed for what exactly is a bit unclear. Children are given a voice in lots of decisions formerly not up for their consideration. "If it's your child, not you, who gets to choose your weekend brunch spot,"

...Every high school now has its battery of counselors: guidance, psychological, college. A larger and larger segment of the student population seems to bring its own psychological tics and jiggeroos to school with them: ADHD, dyslexia and other learning disabilities, various degrees of depression requiring regimens of pills and therapy sessions. Some of these defects and disabilities are the result of parents' having their children at a later age. Might others be that the children are so intensely watched over and tested that more and more defects and disabilities show up, some among them possibly imaginary?

...So often in my literature classes students told me what they "felt" about a novel, or a particular character in a novel. I tried, ever so gently, to tell them that no one cared what they felt; the trick was to discover not one's feelings but what the author had put into the book, its moral weight and its resultant power. In essay courses, many of these same students turned in papers upon which I wished to--but did not--write: "D-, Too much love in the home." I knew where they came by their sense of their own deep significance and that this sense was utterly false to any conceivable reality. Despite what their parents had been telling them from the very outset of their lives, they were not significant. Significance has to be earned, and it is earned only through achievement. Besides, one of the first things that people who really are significant seem to know is that, in the grander scheme, they are themselves really quite insignificant. __Source_via_aldaily.com

Even "only children" raised without siblings, full of self-esteem and their own specialness, are in reality "quite insignificant." Sequestered in classrooms until their twenties or later, protected from any real responsibilities, prevented from being tested by the larger world, they are finally tossed into reality demanding everything but qualified for little or nothing.

These "special" children are turning into psychologically neotenised lawyers, politicians, journalists, judges, political activists, bureaucrats, educators, clerks, and any other occupation where they can frequently turn their feelings into a quasi-truth.

Heaven help these poor children who fall into a field where they are actually tested against reality in a meaningful way. Working physicians, engineers, IT workers, technologists and technicians, military, ICU nurses, maintenance and construction workers, law enforcement, pilots, researchers and lab workers who are required to develop things "that work", EMS, business people who must "deliver the goods"--these are examples of people who have to go beyond their feelings and actually be competent.

There are many examples of psychologically neotenised people who got into "competence-tested" fields by mistake. They flew the plane drunk, killed or terrorized innocent people, operated on the patient under the influence of drugs. They fudged their data, produced sloppy code, and designed buildings that fell down.

Unfortunately, parents in developed societies are turning their few progeny into more and more psychologically neotenised princes and princesses. Full of self-esteem and a sense of entitlement, they are spilling out into all occupations and fields. What have they done? Nothing. What can they do? Nothing. What are they willing to learn to do? Almost nothing. What do they want? Everything!

In November, voters in the US will have the opportunity to elect a US President who has done essentially nothing. Never flew a jet fighter or served in any type of military or national guard unit. Never operated a successful business or served in an important administrative position. Barely served half a US Senate term. Never faced re-election as US Senator. No record of achievement, legislation, or accomplishment. The very picture of a quite special psychological neotenate, sliding his way toward an important position at a time in history where challenges to western civilisation are growing critical.

Welcome to the Kindergarchy.

Too Stupid to Know . . .

. . . when people are trying to kill you.

I recently watched A History of Violence, a film starring Viggo Mortensen, from LOTR. After an apparently unconnected short violent opening, the film begins to portray the peaceful family life of Tom and Edie Stall, living the american dream in small town Millbrook, Indiana. Tom is a devoted family man, peaceable and loyal to his home and hometown. Nothing seems to foreshadow what is going to happen next.

Late one night, two men walk into Tom's diner just as it is closing. Tom asks them to leave, explaining that the diner was closed. The two men had other plans. One of the men held everyone in the diner at gunpoint, while the other brutalised a female diner employee. Then the older of the two gunmen orders the younger one to kill the woman. What happens next is abrupt, brutal, and decisive.

If Tom had not really believed the younger gunman would kill his employee, he would not have acted as he did. And everyone in the diner would have been killed by the two murdering strangers. If Tom had been too stupid to know that they were planning to kill them all, they would have all died.

Before I saw the film, I read several reviews at rottentomatoes.com. Most of the reviews were simply garbage, of course. I knew that after I had seen the film for myself. You may wish to make the comparison yourself, read the reviews and see the movie.

But I digress. What happens to people who are too stupid to know that other people intend to kill them? They usually die. Often horribly. Primitive people in Rwanda massacred almost a million other people with machetes. Primitive people in Iraq and other places decapitate other people with dull knives, while screaming "allahu akbar!" Primitive people in Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, NYC, Madrid, London, Washington DC, blow themselves up in crowds and buildings to kill as many innocent people as possible.

Do you want to die? There are people who want to kill you, for certain. Are you stupid? Will you passively allow the dull knives to slit your throats, denying to the end that this could really be happening to you?

We are all different, and we all take different messages home from the cinema, and from a news story or a book. There are many things about the world that we see differently from each other, without paying a cost. The one thing we have to see clearly, and understand with certainty, is when someone wants to kill us. None of us can afford the stupidity of denial in such a situation.