Why are all the excuses made for Islam?
From Bush to Obama, and around the world, Western leaders are falling all over themselves to proclaim that ISIS is not Islamic, whereas ISIS declares itself to be proudly Islamic and the heir to ancient caliphates.
Looking-glass world.
Why is this happening? The truth—that there is something (and perhaps many things) about Islam that lends itself to violence in its name—is even apparent to such religion-haters as Bill Maher, who states it rather well (and, by the way, Charlie Rose is a simpering idiot):
[Hat tip: Ace.]
But that is the truth that cannot even be whispered by those in charge. Let’s not even focus on Obama, who may or may not have a special fondness for Islam. This is not about Obama, it’s about the entire West, except for a few brave souls who don’t mind being called bigots.
Who don’t mind being called bigots is actually the key. Islam, after all, is a religion, and has been for over a thousand years. You can call it a weird religion, a violent religion, an intolerant religion, not a “true” religion (whatever that means), but it certainly has claimed to be one quite successfully for all that time. Unlike the other Abrahamic religions which preceded it, and which have a text (the so-called Old Testament) that contains some violence and misogyny, Islam is steeped in both—positively marinated in them—and those Muslims who don’t espouse such things are not in the overwhelming majority. Maher describes the situation quite well, but our presidents—Democrat or Republican—can’t seem to bring themselves to concur.
Another reason they don’t is that the West still needs, or feels it needs, certain Islamic nations as both geopolitical allies and oil suppliers, and Europe is in a worse boat regarding the latter than we are. Still another reason is the potential for internal dissension and even violence from and towards the Muslims who live in the West and are very vocal.
But if we can’t even describe what’s happening, how can we fight it?
Yes, notice that he demonstrates a literal physical discomfort in acknowledging the facts Maher points out. And, after being forced to do so, frantically trips all over himself in order to try and paper over what has just been painfully acknowledged. Sputter, re-frame, deflect, giggle, throw-up irrelevant provisos, deflect, simper and giggle some more.
The man is despicable.
The Bible is supposedly the cause of patriarchal oppression, destruction of the environment, genocide of native peoples, etc. etc., but we’re not allowed to blame even a little violence on the Koran.
In Crossing the Threshold of Hope, John Paul II, who knew a thing or two about theology, said, ‘Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which it completely reduces Divine Revelation. It is impossible not to note the movement away from what God said about Himself….Not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity.”
This is why I liked Pamela Geller’s project where she took quotes from Muslims and put them on the sides of buses, in the metro stations, etc. You don’t have to explain how the Muslims/Islam really feels about non-Muslims when they say it so clearly, so often.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/13/bus-ads-with-jihadist-quotes-draw-outcry-in-san-francisco/
*When I bing’d for this the majority of the results included labels like ‘anti-muslim’ and ‘islamophobia’ – amazing hoe completely programmed the West is about this.
Roc Scssrs: I have never forgotten that in that same book Pope John Paul II differentiates Islam from Christianity by stating that in Islam, God is ONLY “Judge”, never Emmanuel, God with us.
I watched the Maher/Rose clip last Friday…Rose is a disgrace!
DNW:
He fidgets quite a bit, too.
Bill Maher? That Bill Maher? I’ll be damned.
Islam, at its very best, keeps women down. That’s failing to mention mutilating their clitorises. Or tossing them in Taliban(and many other) stoning pits for anything from minor defiance to going out on Omar the Husband. Homosexuals? Dead. Trannies? Deader. Shall I go on? So much more. Yes, the Liberals and Left have every reason to root for Islam.
As NCS often says: You can’t possibly make this stuff up.
I am thin, young, rich, and immortal. Charlie Rose is smart as a whip. Islam is peace. Jihad is a struggle against evil. I am not delusional. I am not delusional. I am not delusional. I am not delusional. I am not delusional. I am not delusional. I am not delusional. I am not delusional. I am not delusional. I am not …
The politically correct deny reality. Islam is a political system with a veneer of religion. It’s about 85% political and 15% religion. Islam is all about domination.
http://www.davidstuff.com/historical/imperialdreams.htm
In my post The Perfect Enemy, I postulated that one was a screenwriter in 1999 and needed to create a fictional enemy would appear as the incarnation of ultimate evil to people of the demographic to which your movie was targeted…that demographic being people who are affluent, highly educated (college with at least some postgraduate education), not particularly religious, and who consider themselves politically liberal or “progressive.” You will clearly want your enemy to share many of the characteristics of the Nazis—disrespect for human life, wanton cruelty, a love of apocalyptic violence. But to make the enemy particuarly awful from the standpoint of your target demographic, you will want to emphasize certain aspects of its belief system.
Members of your target demographic usually have strong beliefs about women’s rights. So, your enemy must have a particularly disrespectful belief set, and a violent behavior pattern, towards women. Similarly, your demographic is generally favorable toward gay rights…so the enemy must advocate and practice the suppression, torture, and killing of gays. Your demographic is generally nonreligious and often hostile toward religion…so, make sure the enemy includes a large element of religious fanaticism. Members of your demographic talk a lot about “the children”—so make sure your enemy uses children in particularly cruel ways.
Had you created such an enemy for your screenplay in 1999, you would have surely felt justified in assuming that it would achieve its intended reaction with your target demographic.
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/36252.html
Rose was anticipating a sumptuous *christianity* bashing session with Maher. He fidgets with obvious delight as Maher sets up the scenario “bronze age,
condoning slavery, suppressing women, beheadings, convert or die choices etc” then when Maher commits the (0bvious, to Charlie )
oversight of not including “Christians” in the roll call
of depraved behavior, Rose, Pavlovian like provides it!
But then Maher makes the idiot of him by stating the obvious ! LOL, a worthy clip !
“From Bush to Obama, and around the world, Western leaders are falling all over themselves to proclaim that ISIS is not Islamic… Why is this happening?” neo
Fear or a form of ‘secondary gain’ is always at the heart of denial.
Fear and misinformation is what motivated George Bush, to declare that ‘Islam is a religion of peace’. Fear is what leads liberals to accept that platitude. Many fear the accusation of bigotry.
Secondary gain is what motivates Obama and the left to act as apologists for Islam. The hard core left is aligned with Islam in a temporary ‘marriage of convenience’. Each rightly views the Western right as a far greater obstacle to the advancement of their individual agenda, than they do the other.
“Islam, after all, is a religion, and has been for over a thousand years.”
If you accept the theological premise that God commands that anyone who does not fully accept his rules as defined by the Qur’an… should either be enslaved or put to death, then Islam is a ‘religion’.
But if you reject the premise that any entity worthy of worship could not be that ruthless and unmerciful, then Islam is not a religion but an expansionist, totalitarian ideology that has intentionally wrapped itself within the facade of a religion. That is what is meant by the assertion that Islam is “not a “true” religion”.
“Not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity.” roc scssrs
The anthropology of Islam runs through Ishmael. “Ishmael is recognized as an important prophet and patriarch of Islam. Muslims believe that Ishmael was the firstborn of Abraham, born to him from his second wife Hagar (Sarai’s handmaiden). Ishmael is recognized by Muslims as the ancestor of several prominent Arab tribes and being the forefather of Muhammad.”
Christianity, as well as Judaism maintains that Isaac rather than Ishmael was the true heir of Abraham, as Isaac was the son of Abraham and Sarai his first wife with conception occurring only after Abraham and his house/tribe had made their covenant with God.
The Bible proclaims that “God told Abraham that He would establish his covenant through Isaac, and when Abraham inquired as to Ishmael’s role, God answers that Ishmael has been blessed and that He “will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.”
Obviously, Islam proclaims that being a ‘great nation’ is not enough, that Allah changed his mind and proclaimed that Islam shall be, essentially the greatest nation with dominion over all. Whether we like it or not.
You can call it a weird religion, a violent religion, an intolerant religion, not a “true” religion
Islam is a religion by only the broadest definitions of anthropology. So too is it a religion that sacrificed infants to Moloch in the Levant; as was the Mezzo American religion that sacrificed humans, by way of exenteration. If by ‘true’ it is meant, I think obviously, not welcome in a Judeo Christian society or otherwise civilized society, then it is not true.
Islam is further, not spiritual. There is no more spirituality in Mohammedanism than water in Arabian deserts. There is more spirituality in the first line of Gerard Manley Hopkins’ Pied Beauty, “Glory be to God for dappled things”. In that one line of seven words, there is a volume of theology; a seven word dissertation on God, creation, man, and the relationship, one to the other; seven words of purpose, praise and thanks; seven words convened to profess more spirituality than there is in the entirety of Mohammedanism.
Unlike the other Abrahamic religions
Islam is not an Abrahamic religion – no matter its claims. The claim is pretense to legitimization. The Abrahamic God was God the Creator. It should be obvious that Islam has about as much use for God the Creator as they have for His followers, the Jews and Christians. Islam is at odds with that very creation. It will not abide God’s having made man with a free will; nor will it abide God having made man in His image, i.e., creative and loving; nor does it abide God’s having made women sexually sensate. I know the Gnostics hate God and His Creation — nature itself, but Islam is as hostile to it as any ancient or modern Gnostic.
Islam is a death cult, a violence cult, a murder cult, a theft cult. They preceded the Thuggees of India by centuries yet we give proper consideration to the neologism ‘thug’ but haven’t the same proper consideration for Muslim — ‘muzzie’.
Islam is an imperial ideology (i.e. left-wing) overlaid with religious tenets. It is spread not through proselytization but coercion.
Why? The obvious reasons.
1. There is the historical fact of the Crusades. The Left uses this event to deconstruct the Western Religious Structure. I dogmatically cannot have been anything but aggression and imperialism against the innocent and enlightened Muslims. Therefore, no ill can be spoken of them. It is like saying slaves did something wrong. Can’t happen.
2. There is the Lefto-Islamic Alliance. They both hate the same thing – the West. The Left calculates that it can use them to defeat their mutual enemy, the West, and then it will deal with them later. Remember, the West has nukes and Jets and Drones and Tanks. If it has to, after it has wiped out the Good West, it will go Full-Stalin and obliterate Islam. Obama is doing a partial on that right now – using the tools he hates to prop up his good name, which is required for now.
3. Let’s not forget fear. If they say what they really think – that Islam and all religions are oppressor structures, they will get their heads chopped off. Better to attack some priests and nuns somewhere.
Islam is ANTI-Abrahamic.
It’s a cruel parody of Judaism.
Some idea of the projection and reversal lingers on.
Witness the Arabs (aka Palis) proclaiming the Jews to be Nazis.
That inversion springs from the same well.
In Boolean logic, Islam — as an operant — is a NOT function. It applies a ‘sign error’ — or truth error to every logical premiss.
Islam is the feral rule set applied to humanity.
It’s beastly aspects must be apparent to all.
Charlie Rose appears to be tipsy. He acts like someone who had a few too many and is trying to keep a straight face when all he wants to do is giggle.
Maher is well equipped to critique Islam. He is anti-religion and has organized the case in his mind against all religions very precisely. However, it’s gratifying to see that he recognizes the stark differences between Christianity and Islam.
So much of the problem we have springs from the debate about whether there is a such a thing as a moderate Muslim. Reportedly, there are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. That is a consequential number. The fact that the sentence for leaving the religion or trying to moderate some of the tenets is death makes it very hard for people to renounce it or reform it.
What few mention is that most in the West would just like to live in mutual tolerance and peace with the world of Islam. But they don’t feel that way about us. It’s not the West that is causing the problems. The blog, “The Religion of Peace,” @ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
makes it clear that, wherever non-Muslims live in close proximity to Muslims outside the West, there is always violence. In the West we commonly see Muslim groups that tend to live in ghettoes where they refuse to integrate and when they get large enough, become very demanding that their religious practices, which violate Western norms, be allowed.
It may be a religion but it is a religion that practices many activities that are against the law and custom in the West. It is not possible to be a strict observer of Islam and integrate into Western society. Until we begin to accept these facts, we will continue to be at a disadvantage in dealing with them.
Seriously, we have a big problem. Even if you state the obvious, what becomes of the Muslim down the street, in the universities, in the Army?
They become Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.
Vast numbers of Mahers treat women as trash unless they are Democrat saints.
Maher is in no position of moral authority. But he is in the position of having credibility on Islam’s angsts, since most of his Democrats share the same beliefs and counter factual faiths.
“what becomes of the Muslim down the street, in the universities, in the Army?”
What natural consequence can there be but expulsion? Given Islam’s theologically approved lying (Taqiyya) and theologically approved behavioral pretense (Muruna) combined with a refusal by ‘moderate’ Muslims to face the fact that Islam and Western precepts are incompatible? That Islam’s most fundamental tenets not only make it the West’s mortal enemy but prevent any possibility of reform?
“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” a certain Jewish carpenter from Nazareth
A gold star to Bill Maher for showing up Charlie Rose. When Bill Maher mentioned surveys in Egypt in which 82% of Muslims believe stoning is the appropriate punishment for adultery he forced Charlie Rose to admit that he knew about the survey, yet Mr. Rose insists that the vast majority of Muslims are moderate and that Christians are just as violent and bigoted.
Because both Bill Maher and Charlie Rose are areligious, neither man has any antidote for the violence in Islam. Both of them believe religious belief is a residual of Bronze age delusions which all scientific intelligent people have long since shed. Contrary to their opinion that religion is a spent force, the majority of humanity is still very religious. Since most people are unwilling to adopt atheism, the issue is not whether people will be religious, but rather what religion will they follow. Mr. Maher doesn’t realize it but every time he trashes Christianity, he is weakening the immune system of our society which is necessary for us to withstand the assaults of Islam.
Incidentally, science arose in Western Civilization largely because of its Judeo-Christian heritage which was combined with Greek Philosophy very early in the history of Christianity. While science will be uncomfortable for some Christians who chose to interpret the Bible to agree with Usher’s chronology, those who take a more liberal exegesis of the Bible will find that science very much what one would expect from the Bible.
Illuminati:
You say Maher forced Rose to admit he (Rose) already knew about the survey. And it would certainly appear that way from the tape. But it occurred to me when I watched it that Rose was saying he already knew about the survey but that perhaps he hadn’t known, and he was just too embarrassed to admit it.
Hard to tell.
Follow the money. There is vast amounts of Arab oil money flowing to American politicians of both parties, universities, and media companies.
About ten years ago, Michael Moore made the movie Fahrenheit 911, which in part detailed the close ties of the Bush family to the Saudis. It was anti-Bush propaganda, of course, but I have always maintained that Moore could have done a real service to the country if he had explored the extent of Saudi influence throughout our political and educational systems.
neo-neocon says:
“…it occurred to me when I watched it that Rose was saying he already knew about the survey but that perhaps he hadn’t known, and he was just too embarrassed to admit it.”
In a sense I agree. It is much more pleasant to think that Charlie Rose was lying and perhaps you are correct. Since Charlie Rose and the rest of the apologists for Islam on the left are among the brightest humans alive, I’m not inclined to excuse their blindness as ignorance. But that’s just me.
Many people on the left are very intelligent. People with IQ’s two standard deviations above the mean can not rightfully claim ignorance on something this important, especially when they take every opportunity to lambast common folk who worry about Islam and portray them as ignorant bigots.
@ GB “what becomes of the Muslim down the street, in the universities, in the Army?”
What natural consequence can there be but expulsion?…”
Spain has been vilified over the ages for the Reconquista. That is what they did and we all judge them as being uncivilized murdering brutes.
rickl…
Moore would’ve been buried under too much evidence — an orgy of evidence.
It’s actually tough to work a script around proving that the sky is blue and that the Sun comes up in the east without looking absurd and bizarre.
It would come off like a primer.
Imagined Jewish world conspiracies are much tastier. Hence, variations on this theme all over the Disney Cable Channels under the rubric of “it might actually prove to be somewhat true.”
Illuminati:
Actually, I’m ordinarily not inclined to view their blindness as ignorance, either—not the ones in the media, anyway. That’s not why I thought that Rose was ignorant in this clip. It was something about his demeanor when he finally indicated that he already knew that just seemed false to me.
To George Bush’s eternal credit, he brought thousands of Islamists to room temperature.
Let’s see yours, Oh, Pretender in Chief.
http://www.voxday.blogspot.com/2014/09/in-freaking-sane.html
The Left allows and profits from such things in Rotter. But CPS in Texas and other places are just as bad. They farm them out. The Catholic Church used to be where the Left sent a lot of their agents and homosexual freaks, to destabilize institutions. When that fell through, they had to disperse towards greener pastures where networks were already working. Teachers unions. Etc.
The Left are not mere apologists for their Islamic jihad allies. They are enablers and well… allies.
Mike:
They also threw out the Jews for good measure:
The short answer is that nobody wants a worldwide religious war.
The longer answer is that in modern “enlightened” civilization, we don’t like making sweeping judgments about the relative values of different religions. They’re all “equal.” Unfortunately, that’s not true. Islam is essentially fundamentalist in ways that the other major religions are not.
Christianity has a holy book written by many different people, all “inspired by God,” in different cultures and languages across hundreds of years. There’s a lot of room for interpretation, and Christians stopped fighting each over interpretation hundreds of years ago.
In contrast, Islam’s holy book was (supposedly) written in an archaic form of one current language, by one person taking dictation from God, who has the master copy of the book in Heaven. Imagine what Christianity would be like if Jesus wrote the Bible in Shakespearean English, and said it was God’s exact (and final) words.
For an interesting look at Islam’s early history, I highly recommend Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins by Robert Spencer. The title question is arguable, but the book contains much that is not, particularly regarding the history of the Koran, which has many contradictions and has clearly been edited by mere humans.
Maybe it’s as simple as this:
Liberals don’t like confronting Islam for the same reason many women don’t like taking out the trash.
More seriously, confronting Islam would require a recognition of an entire mindset outside of the liberal chattering classes. A world where rough, burly men actually do things instead of talking about doing them.
Maybe lending this worldview the tiniest bit of credibility is too much for liberals, so they deny it.
Of course, there’s also their recent distaste for war…more or less.
“They also threw out the Jews for good measure”
Mike is right, the Reconquista was essential to save Europe. The myth of Andalusia hides the fact that the Muslims used their strongholds to launch raids on surrounding Christian communities and took many Christian Spaniards as slaves. The Muslims of Andalusia also enjoyed torturing Christians including crucifixions.
Since the left and some dummies on the right have thrown open the doors and allowed a flood of Muslims into Western countries once the Muslims gain enough power they may well resume enslaving Christians and Jews. Islamic aggression might well trigger a second Reconquista.
It is difficult to conceive why the Jews were expelled during the Reconquista. It would be interesting to read a well researched study into contemporary Spanish culture with emphasis on this event. Religion certainly played a part although it was probably not a complete explanation since Jews were still welcomed in other Christian countries.
It is possible that the Visigoths were anti-Semitic by nature and didn’t need any other reason. Or perhaps there were factors which we have overlooked. Christian Europe was under siege at the time. The Ottoman Turks had just annihilated the Christian Roman Empire (aka the Byzantine Empire) in Constantinople – a Christian empire which had been quite welcoming of Jews throughout its history. Could it be that Isabella and Ferdinand were concerned that the Spanish Jews were still too fond of Andalusia and that perhaps that they were too friendly with their Muslim enemies? Was the expulsion partly motivated by fear?
Whatever the reason, looking back it appears to have been a big mistake by the Spanish. A large portion of the Spanish Jews who were expelled moved to the Ottoman Empire – the enemies. That additional talent ended up strengthening the enemies whom the Spanish feared.
“It is difficult to conceive why the Jews were expelled during the Reconquista.”
I don’t know if this is factual or not as I heard or read it years ago. Apparently since “Christians” of that time could not lend money for interest, the Jews were the “banks” of that time. Some of the kingdoms had run up considerable “loans” from the Jewish community. When the “Jews” were expelled, all the loans made to the State and kingdoms became null and void. Not saying this was the only reason. But Henry VIII filled his state coffers from all the monasteries and lands that flowed to the state when he broke from Rome. And I think once the Knights of Templar had made significant “loans” to Rome, it became profitable to declare them heretics.
Not saying any of this is right, only saying that it appears to be something that was profitable. So take this comment with a grain of salt but it might give reason for why the Jews were expelled. The political hacks of that era were just as devious as the political hacks of our day 🙁
Before defending Islam, read Quran. Before attacking Islam, also read Quran. The Book is here http://www.clearquran.com
Mike’s suggestion is interesting. The bankers were Jews. Debtors hate their bankers. When debtors get into trouble it is very easy for them to blame the bankers. We all know the drill – predatory loans and greedy bankers.
The Spanish expulsion of Jews may have been different than most. If the primary object was to steal Jewish wealth, the Spaniards had a strange way of doing it. The Jews were allowed to take their wealth with them so long as it was not in the form of gold or silver. That stipulation may have made it difficult for many Jews to transfer their wealth, but undoubtedly there were ways. Also, the many Jews who remained behind as Catholic converts could have helped their Jewish relatives to transfer wealth.
Since the left and some dummies on the right have thrown open the doors and allowed a flood of Muslims into Western countries once the Muslims gain enough power they may well resume enslaving Christians and Jews.
That makes it sound like it’s a hypothetical that may happen in the future, when Rotter is proof it already happened decades ago.
Go ahead and skillfully define it. The Left, who owns the Narrative, will re-define it with barrels of digital ink, a world of images and mockery.
Game.Set.Match.
That’s why it was critically important, before anything else, for Americans to hate the Left first. Before that, nothing much will be accomplished.
The thesis (Chrsitanity, judaism)
hits the antithesis (islam, atheism, etc)
to make a new synthesis…
hegel… duh
and this is what women wanted, and they got it.
i was attacked this morning for standing still
nice lady… yelling at me that i had to move when there was no place to move, but since when was the smarter better sex actually smarter and better?
right now they are working hard to not have babies considering themselves the future of the earth, while their tax money pays women of low iq and abilty to pop out more tax needy people for them to pay for out of jobs they got disenfranchising their mates who now they holler there arent any, and complaining (in very ugly ways) that chinese women and foreigners are taking their men…
you wanted it
you got it
there is not a damn thing we can do about it as the state has bigger pockets than the disenfranchised men and so the state wins the bribe women game.
in ny they now have pre kindergarden… what do they care if they leave their kids with statists rather than grandmom. and what do they care if the kids get abused, sexualized, and more… just so long as someone else is paying, they dont care… (they do care the minute there is something free to get from pretending to care)
women ARE the left, and you cant hate women
you cant even reason with the wackos civilly, as they think whatever it is they want is the right thing, regardless whether its even possible or what it will do in the future.
i want it now is the mantra, the me of me is their song
Islamic feminism is a form of feminism concerned with the role of women in Islam. It aims for the full equality of all Muslims, regardless of gender, in public and private life. Islamic feminists advocate women’s rights, gender equality, and social justice grounded in an Islamic framework. Although rooted in Islam, the movement’s pioneers have also utilised secular, Western, or otherwise non-Muslim feminist discourses, and have recognized the role of Islamic feminism as part of an integrated global feminist movement
foprget about the concept of battling someting you cant name neo. you can name it all you want, but the metrosexualized man is not going to fight, the women have to… otherwise we are just evil brutes who will beat up people of color…
its up to the women… bed, see bed, lie in bed…
THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT AND THE MUSLIM WOMAN
http://www.islam101.com/women/jameelah.htm
August 26, 1970, hundreds of women marched down Fifth Avenue, New York City carrying placards which read:
HOUSEWIVES ARE UNPAID SLAVES! STATE PAY FOR HOUSEWORK! OPPRESSED WOMEN! DON’T COOK DINNER! STARVE YOUR HUSBAND TONIGHT! END HUMAN SACRIFICE! DON’T GET MARRIED! WASHING DIAPERS IS NOT FULFILLING! LEGALISE ABORTION! DEPENDENCY IS NOT HEALTHY STATE OF BEING!
Why Feminism is AWOL on Islam
http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_1_why_feminism.html
On the Western feminist love affair with Islam.
http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/07/06/on-the-western-feminist-love-affair-with-islam/
The Challenge of Defining Muslim Feminism
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/common-ground-news-service/muslim-feminism-definition_b_2566693.html
Does FEMEN Believe Muslim Feminists Are a Thing?
http://jezebel.com/does-femen-believe-muslim-feminists-are-a-thing-471804633
below is an interesting piece.
because if men want to have families again, the easiest way is for them to side with islam… this is why the black community has sided a lot with islam, as it promises the black men a return to their role as family man… now that the caucasians share similar ends, the easiest way to get the family back together is for them to also side with islam…
after all, if they side gainst it, they are siding with their marginalization, disnfranchisement and all that stuff, for woment that hate them, and more..
How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1300
If you look closely, you will notice that, on average, Western women are actually more supportive of Multiculturalism and massive immigration than are Western men.
[this despite their complaints that chinese women are sweeping up the boring guys who have money that are supposed to wait for the slutty women to get done playing around and want kids… ]
I got many comments on my posts about Muslim anti-female violence in Scandinavia. Several of my readers asked what Scandinavian men are doing about this.
I suspect that the most important reason has to do with the extreme anti-masculine strand of feminism that has permeated Scandinavia for decades. The male protective instinct doesn’t take action because Scandinavian women have worked tirelessly to eradicate it, together with everything else that smacks of traditional masculinity. Because of this, feminism has greatly weakened Scandinavia, and perhaps Western civilization as whole.
The only major political party in Norway that has voiced any serious opposition to the madness of Muslim immigration is the rightwing Progress Party. This is a party which receives about two thirds or even 70% male votes. At the opposite end of the scale we have the Socialist Left party, with two thirds or 70% female votes.
The parties most critical of the current immigration are typically male parties, while those who praise the Multicultural society are dominated by feminists. And across the Atlantic, if only American women voted, the US President during 9/11 would be called Al Gore, not George Bush.
The standard explanation in my country for this gender gap in voting patterns is that men are more “xenophobic and selfish” than women, who are more open-minded and possess a greater ability to show solidarity with outsiders. That’s one possibility. Another one is that men traditionally have had the responsibility for protecting the “tribe” and spotting an enemy, a necessity in a dog-eat-dog world. Women are more naé¯ve, and less willing to rationally think through the long-term consequences of avoiding confrontation or dealing with unpleasant realities now.
[personally, i am waiting to die, and dont care any more… the women can deal with the mexicans the islamics, and others coming in… dont expect their men who have been declawed to protect them, not to mention the men dont particularly like the women much any more… you can see i how the young girls complain that they dont have relationships other than sex, which i guess is what feminism wanted, men are just walking dildoes… (a pseudo-quote)]
you mean like the republican party vs dems? the women WANT communism, totalitarianism, and all that… (the few who dont dont count and arent enough to matter and are old enough that medical rationing of care witll take care of them)
Didn’t feminists always claim that the world would be a better place with women in the driver’s seat, because they wouldn’t sacrifice their own children? Well, isn’t that exactly what they are doing now? Smiling and voting for parties that keep the doors open to Muslim immigration, the same Muslims who will be attacking their children tomorrow?
Judging from the rhetoric of many feminists, all the oppression in the world comes from Western men, who are oppressing both women and non-Western men. Muslim immigrants are “fellow victims” of this bias. At best, they may be patriarchal pigs, but no worse than Western men. Many Western universities have courses filled with hate against men that would be unthinkable the other way around. That’s why Scandinavian feminists don’t call for Scandinavian men to show a more traditional masculinity and protect them against aggression from Muslim men. Most Norwegian feminists are also passionate anti-racists who will oppose any steps to limit Muslim immigration as “racism and xenophobia.”
so all obama and kerry and others are doing are courting the feminists… the evil white males who would prevent such incursions, and so on, are evil because they would prevent it.
there is nothing to do
eve sold out adam
and eden is dead to them
feminists sold out the US
and so, what was the US is dead to us
you reap what you sow..
read the rest of the article to get the rest
its more cogent than a lot of the “hypothesis” floating around here as commentary, as all of that commentary hinges on convincing women to stop being feminist victims and siding with islam as victim and voting people like obama, kerry, etc into office…
us white men are dead to the world unless we are wealthy.. not our fight… we are just waiting to die in a world that has taken our kids, destroyed our families, removed our purpose, disenfranchised our careers and more… why would we care either way? we woint be aronod and neither will the kids we didnt have or the kids we had and cant be with…
When Islam and Feminism Converge
http://www.academia.edu/4402655/When_Islam_and_Feminism_Converge
Islam vs. Feminism
By: Dr. Hajj Muhammad Legenhausen
http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=2543
Perhaps the first use of the term ‘feminism’ was in the early nineteenth century by the socialist, Charles Fourier (1772-1837). The followers of another early socialist, Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825), introduced the androgyny principle, according to which there was a mixed male and female being at the beginning of history. (Muslims will find it amusing to learn that Saint-Simon’s disciples went to Turkey to seek the female savior after having lost hope of finding a truly free woman in Europe
the rest is long and an interesting read
people should really read the people who are shaping the world and the law and behaviors… then they would see who is causing what and why.
feminists for islam – about 855,000 results
And did you know about the Muslim inbreeding problem? The Prophet married his first cousin and so it is allowed. Over 60% in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Resulting, of course, in birth defects and low IQs.
Seventy percent of Turks have not read a single book. I guess that includes the Koran.
Few Risks Seen To the Children Of 1st Cousins
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us/few-risks-seen-to-the-children-of-1st-cousins.html
” …. us white men are dead to the world unless we are wealthy.. not our fight… we are just waiting to die in a world that has taken our kids, destroyed our families, removed our purpose, disenfranchised our careers and more… why would we care either way? we woint be aronod and neither will the kids we didnt have or the kids we had and cant be with…”
Somebody won’t let somebody be “a man”?
Art: The Muslims have been doing this since 642. And polygamy only compounds the problem.
Cornhead. if it was that bad they would not be here, and would not have so much… ie. its not that bad… nor is it a reason for anything..
however, if you read the stuff that brought us here…
THAT is a lot worse… ie. no foul births required.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
who set up the society to allow this: Rotherham?
who forced their mates to comply with all the changes, including now the law defining how two people should engage in sex? (see california law)
who created the victim ideology that islam uses?
who marginalied their mates then said there are no good men?
Asian Women Need To Stop Dating White Men
http://thoughtcatalog.com/anne-gus/2014/03/asian-women-need-to-stop-dating-white-men/
Here’s What ‘Yellow Fever’ Really Means
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/29/anna-akana-asian-girls_n_5628201.html
they are dictating everything… from who you can see, ant see, how to talk and walk, who can work, cant work, and on and on.
you are not going to get anywhere without and end to the force that dictates to women who then dictate to men.
women WANT islam..
how many feminists call isrealis nazis?
how many wear scarfs in solidarity?
they will tell someone like me that i am married to the woman i have cause i hate her, but will be silent on the list of things islam does.
and on and on it goes…
without the people who are interested in talking about it bothering to read who is driving the whole of the social melieu
think that kerry would have a place if it wasnt for the women? obama? hitler? pelosi? who, but women, vote for them in droves?
if you want the culture to react to islam
then you need those who define culture, law, and all that to care… otherwise, your just farting in a hurricane
Victim Blaming and Patriarchy
http://www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/2468
there’s a straight line that runs from Booker T. Washington through Marcus Garvey to the Nation of Islam.
and
~ “In using terms like patriarchy, hermeneutics, and sexual/textual, I do not wish to misrepresent the Qurn as a feminist text; rather, the use of such terminology shows my own intellectual disposition and biases.”
– Asma Barlas in “Believing Women” in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Quran (University of Texas Press, 2002), p. 19.
~ What is Islamic feminism? Let me offer a concise definition: it is a feminist discourse and practice articulated within an Islamic paradigm. Islamic feminism, which derives its understanding and mandate from the Qur’an, seeks rights and justice for women, and for men, in the totality of their existence.
– Barbara Stowasser
the fatal feminist
Quranic Verses and Misconceptions
Myth: Islam is Inherently Patriarchal
Women Led Men in Prayer During the Time of the Prophet
Maryam is a Prophet.
Taken Out of Context: Marital Sexual Relations
Taken Out of Context: Violence Toward Non-Muslims
who is driving this definition of islam that the west follows? its certainly not men, as men are not allowed to define that. and its not africans, or mexicans… its not anyone BUT feminists who now define what is allowed to be thought about everyting from sexual relations to football, to births, to education, to law, to religion
Figments of Patriarchal Imagination: The Testimony of Two Women “Equals” One Man’s
Menstruation is not contamination.
Figments of Patriarchal Imagination: 72 virgins.
Disregarded Verses: Women as Examples for Men, and Why Women Don’t Have Names in the Qur’an
Disregarded Verses: Deciding What is Halaal and Haraam
On Feminist Interpretations, and Devaluing Women’s Words
The Unrecognized Prophetess
Taken Out of Context: the Feminization of Divinity
Reading the Advocacy of Male Privilege When It Isn’t There; the Qur’an and the Woman’s Perspective
to them this is just one more male thing to work on
The second variety of feminism, seemingly more sophisticated and especially prevalent on college campuses, is multiculturalism and its twin, postcolonialism. The postcolonial feminist has even more reason to shy away from the predicament of women under radical Islam than her maternally thinking sister. She believes that the Western world is so sullied by its legacy of imperialism that no Westerner, man or woman, can utter a word of judgment against former colonial peoples. Worse, she is not so sure that radical Islam isn’t an authentic, indigenous–and therefore appropriate–expression of Arab and Middle Eastern identity.
Art,
The NYT article that you cite on consanguineous marriages is classic misdirection. Although the text proclaims little evidence for 1st cousin breeding problems, most of the data are from 2nd cousin unions. The 1st cousin unions are significantly more problematic than 2nd cousin unions.
They published other articles purporting to make the same point, but with more evidence that contradicted the narrative.
Pertaining to the points discussed and mentioned above (by Range of Light, n.n., Geoffrey Britain, Mike, Illuminati, Artfldgr, Ymarsakar, Joan of Argghh — and a subtext of this important and interesting thread, in general!) readers may find the following — from chapter 11 of Oriana Fallaci’s “The Force of Reason” (2004) – to be of interest:
“… Thus, how can it [the Left] possibly speak of revolution when it refers to Khomeini and Khomeinism? The Left speaks of progress. For a century it has been singing hymns to Progress, to Improvement, to the Sun of the Future. Thus, how can it possible be fornicating with the most backward and reactionary ideology on Earth?!? The Left was born and grew in the West. It is western. It belongs to the most evolved civilization in history. Thus, how can it possibly identify with a world in which you have to be told that marrying your mother is wrong and eating the sheep you keep as your mistress is na sin?!? How can it possibly sing the praises of a world in which a girl can be widowed or repudiated at the age of nine or before?!? Then my sort of malady became an obsession, and I started asking, “Do you understand, can you understand, why the Left is on the side of Islam?” Well… Some answered: “Because the Left is pro-Third World, anti-American, anti-Zionist. Islam is also so. In Islam the left sees what the Red Brigaders call their natural-ally.” Others answered: “Because with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of capitalism in its former States and in China, the Left has lost the old points of reference. Ergo, it clings to Islam as to a lifebelt.” Or: “It’s obvious. In Europe the real proletariat is like a shopkeeper with no goods. So in the Islamic proletariat the Left has found the merchandise it needs for selling: a future reservoir of votes.” But, although all the answers contained an indisputable truth, none of them took account of the reasoning my questions was based upon. I continued to torment myself, and this lasted until I realize that my question was wrong.
It was wrong because it came from a residue of respect for the Left I had known as a child. The Left of my grandparents, of my parents, of my dead comrades, of my youth’s utopias. The Left that ceased to exist half a century ago. It was wrong also because it came from the political solitude in which I have always lived. A political solitude which at that time included the one given to me by moral and intellectual desert of the phony heroes in which I had believed as a youngster. Justice-and-freedom. Liberal-socialism. And so on. But above all it was wrong because the reasonings or rather the premises on which I based my interrogative were wrong. First premise, my illusion that the Left would be laic. I mean secular. Though the daughter of secularism (besides a secularism begotten by liberalism and consequently not consonant with dogmatism), the Left is not laic. Whether it dresses in red or black or pink or green or white or in all the colors of the rainbow, the Left is confessional. Ecclesiastic. Because it derives from an ideology of religious character. That is, because it appeals to an ideology which claims to possess the Truth. On one side, the Good. On the other, the Evil. On one side, the Sun of the Future. On the other, the Darkness. On one side, the comrades. The blessed ones, the faithful. On the other, the infidels or rather infidel-dogs. The Left is a Church. And not a Church similar to the Church which came out of Christianity, thus open to free-will. A Church similar to Islam. Like Islam it considers itself sanctified by a God who is the custodian of the Truth. Like Islam it never acknowledged its faults and its errors, it considers itself infallible and never apologizes. Like Islam it demands a world as its own image, a society built on the version of its Prophet. Like Islam it enslaves its own followers, it makes them feel stupid even when they are intelligent. Like Islam it does not accept different opinions and if you think differently it despises you. It denigrates you, it punishes you. Like Islam, in short, it is illiberal. Autocratic, totalitarian, even when it plays the game of democracy. For Christsake, isn’t it revealing that ninety-five percent of the Western people converting to Islam come from the Left or the red-black Extreme Left? A ninety-five percent of the Muslims naturalized Italian or French or Spanish or German or British or Scandinavian, by the way. … Like Islam, finally, the Left is anti-West. The cause why it is anti-West can be summarized with a passage of The Road to Serfdom; one of the important essays left to us by Frederick Hayek, the Austrian economist who in the Thirties flew from Vienna and took refuge in England.
“It is not only the principles of Adam Smith and Hume and Locke and Milton which are being abandoned. It is the bedrock of the civilization developed by the Greeks and the Romans and Christianity. Meaning, the western civilization. What is being relinquished is not only the liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries, that is the liberalism which completed that civilization,” it says. “It is the individualism which, thanks to Erasmus of Rotterdam and Montaigne and Cicero and Tacitus and Pericles and Thucydides, that western civilization has inherited. In other words, the concept itself of individualism which through the teachings imparted to us by the philosophers of classical antiquity then of Christianity then of Renaissance then of the Enlightenment have made us what we are. Socialism is based on collectivism. And anyone who denies individualism denies western civilization.”
In a larger context, I would recommend the late Conor Cruise O’Brien’s short and penetrating – and I hope not prescient – “One The Eve of the Millenium”, from 1994.
Of particular power is his concluding chapter, “The Guarded Palace”.
Oriana Fallaci….what a courageous writer. Thanks for the reference. I began reading what she wrote after 9/11. Her courage was born of facing reality and speaking what she understood to be true. Unfortunately this is so rare, whether we are talking about politics (both parties), the church, etc etc.
Michael
Very good passage. ery good indeed. Oriana Fallaci had courage and also the ability to lay out truth in clear arguments.
It is notable that this lucid description of the left is written by a woman no less. The silence of the Western Feminists about Islamic violence and rapes reflects very badly on many women, but just when we give up hope on women along comes a woman like Oriana Fallaci to remind us that there are powerful women of truth who are just as capable as men in distinguishing right from wrong.
“The politically correct deny reality. Islam is a political system with a veneer of religion. It’s about 85% political and 15% religion. Islam is all about domination.”
Spot on … now those %’s will move as necessary to advance Islams “political” agenda.
Strangely that is the genius of it. It can always retreat to religion when pressed politically.
“Why are all the excuses made for Islam?”
Without having read all of the above responses I’ll take a shot and simply note that the following are not mutually exclusive.
1) Islam and the bien pensant power elite of the West both believe that decadent, capitalist, free-market western civ is the source of all the world’s evils. Like the Nazis and the Stalinistas they agree in principle and disagree only about tactics and who should sit at the top of the pyramid. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
2) Islamists punish people with whom they disagree. So the media and the power structure, with nary a single set of testicles among them won’t disagree (Sharyl Atkisson excepted). Makes Bill Maher look a Hell of a lot better, doesn’t it?
3) Minority opinions are always to be respected as valid simply because they are minority opinions. So in the fundamentally Judeo-Christian West, Christians can be excoriated, anti-Semitism can run rampant, but Islam is a minority view which must be given credence regardless of the violence and inhumanity of its expression. Like any good Progressive mindset, the contradictory details will be overlooked so as not to contaminate the narrative. Once again, the enemy of my enemy . . . .
I recall being appalled by Maher’s attacks on Geo. W. Bush during Bush’s efforts in the War on Terror. Nevertheless, we should celebrate Maher’s bold articulation now. He has credibility with the left/liberal side. We need many on that side to become disallusioned with their side on this most important issue. More power to Bill Maher on this.
Michael: Thanks for reminding me or Oriana Fallaci. Like Sharon W, I didn’t “discover” her until post 9/11 and hated to see her go.
And Ms. Fallaci was absolutely correct in that passage you posted.
The only thing I would add in answer to Neo’s question, “Why are all the excuses made for Islam?” is that simple fear has much to to with it. Remember the hue and cry in 2010 when Cartoonist Molly Norris called for a “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!” as a show of courage and protest in the wake of the death threats that were made against the creators of South Park after their episode that featured Mohammed? People advocating censorship were admitting that the were afraid, very afraid.
OF Oriana Fallaci, sorry…
Michael in Pennsylvania,
Outstanding commentary. Oriana Fallaci’s insight into the Western left being a ‘church’ with its own dogma reminded me of this quote; “When people reject traditional religious beliefs, they merely go on to create some other faith-based schema to believe in; whether it be money or power or the various religions of the left; socialism, communism, feminism, environmentalism or anthropogenicism (who believe that humans are the sole root of all evil and thus are the cause of all earthly problems, from weather and climate anomalies to earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and species extinction) etc. human nature demands something larger than itself to believe in.” unknown
Hayek’s observation is equally profound, “Socialism is based on collectivism. And anyone who denies individualism denies western civilization.”
I would add that IMO, collectivism is a perversion of communion. And that, a denial of individuality is a denial of both Judaism and Christianity. There is also IMO no doubt whatsoever that the western left denies the value of classical western civilization and is actively seeking to destroy it.
Instinctively the left recognizes an ally in Islam in its war to destroy the West.
It recognizes that in Islam they have an actual army of fighters (Jihadis).
They also recognize that it is an issue which will polarize the West, giving them the chance to identify and demonize opponents of Islamism.
And because most Muslims are brown skinned and from third world countries they fit neatly into their multicultural ideology.
Also the left are natural dhimmis at their core, whether dealing with communism/multiculturalism or Islam.
And finally there is always the Muslim approach to this, that Allah causes everything to happen, therefore Islam is winning.
What advantage does one have by accusing every person to the right of being a rino, even if they are clearly not one, or ever acting like one?
I’m using that as an example as a broadside attack on Islam.
And suppose that happened. Would you be able to make any sense of someone attacking most people on this board as the rino reps of the Right, even though, clearly most of you are actually opposed to rinoism.
(though I’m not taking issue of the characterization of Islam, just trying to make sense of not recognizing existing groups which seems to be a reality of all religions)
Geoffrey Britain:
My problem with that sort of argument is that I know plenty of leftists who are religious, in some cases very religious. For them leftism doesn’t take the place of religion, it augments it.
Neokettlepot–I’m looking to the “fruit” of Islam and finding it unacceptable. Name one country where it is the predominate belief system where there is anything substantial that can be looked at and judged positively. Western culture is the product of Judeo-Christian belief and teachings. So for me, your comparison to Rino/Right falls short. Apples and oranges.
Donkatsu
i think your missin gthe point in that if the issue was as great as you say, the problem would fix itself over time… it doesnt. . genetic badness is conserved in those that survive to conceive. if the issue is so ill, then over such a long time, the factors would result in so many negative births that there would be no humungous population of near a billion to worry about…
its a matter of ill and range. we think it ill because the range is the immediate distance, but over a long period of time and such, its not as ill as it is at the point of action…
if it was, then all the breeding programs seeking to resurect the cretures whose numbers dwindled would be doomed from the start, there would be no way to build up the population without destroying it as well.
the first cousin thing only doubles the incidence of such from 1 to 2 percent to 3 or 4 percent, and does not build upon itself… ie. the healthy out of such unions tend to the healthy out of such unions.
nere is an article that did the research among pakistani families in the UK
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/04/marriage-first-cousins-birth-defects
The risk of having a baby with birth defects — usually heart or nervous system problems which can sometimes be fatal — is still small, but it rises from 3% in the general Pakistani population to 6% among those married to blood relatives. The researchers also found a doubling of the risk in the babies of white British women who were over the age of 34. That increased risk, rising from 2% to 4%, is already known.
so the risk is about the same as a feminist having kids near 40… (if she can)
anyway… od the math…
out of 1000 births, 60 of them will be bad
out of those 60, some will die, others will have defects that would result in their not having children the next round.
what your missing is that there would be 940 births that are ok…
even if the only people we were allowed to have children with were cousins, we would still be able to create a huge population of people who would not have the issues your implying.
just do the math…
its a non issue in the terms of the point your making
even more so when you realize that those who do have a genetic issue, do not have 100% children with genetic issues!
that is, out of the 60, maybe a third die, maybe another third are not acceptable for marraige, and the 20 out of a 1000 that remain, when culled back to population will not lead to a next generation with 120 with issues.
it just dont work that way…
Neo
My problem with that sort of argument is that I know plenty of leftists who are religious, in some cases very religious. For them leftism doesn’t take the place of religion, it augments it.
you forget the writing i did on the concept of personal religions… ie. people who call themselves X but actuallyare following a personal faith… those are who your referring to, as those are the people who tweak and negate teachings that would make such an augmentation impossible…
this is how you have a leftist cath9olic who thinks that after divorce they deserve screment. they are not catholic as they are not actually following the tenets of said religion, just the tenets that they agree with, or just parts of it…
personal religions are what you have when you do not follow the groups points.
in this way, perfectly horrid ideologiies and religions can be followed by wonderfully nice people who will say… “thats not in the feminism that i follow”… or i am a catholic byt i belive being gay is ok.
these people are believed to be part of things, but since the person (you) are not holding them to tenets its easy to consider them people who are agumenting their religion or ideas.. when they are not.
a catholic follows all the tenets of catholocism
if not, then at best they are a protestant.
if the protestant religions have no form that they follwo completely, or the form they follow is so far away from the tenets as to gather people over follwoing faith, then you just have a social club that gives them a name that implies religion…
this is why doctrines are so important.
and knowing what you believe is important as well.
Artfldgr:
No, I certainly did not forget.
I just don’t agree that in order to be called religious, for example, a Catholic must follow every single tenet of Catholicism. I know some very devout Catholics who go to Mass every Sunday, are very active in their churches (even teach classes there) and who do not believe in every single precept of the church re birth control, for example. I consider them religious for the purposes of the discussion where someone says that leftists are substituting leftism for religion.
I realize that you disagree.
Artfldgr,
Not sure the Lancet study covers the full scope of problems associated with consanguinity. For example, israeli researchers have noted a number of other problems that appear later in the offspring of consanguinous unions: http://unitedwithisrael.org/israeli-researchers-uncover-disease-connected-to-first-cousin-marriages/ – developmental, metabolic, among others.
I accept that genetic testing before marriage can obviate many of the risks noted by Israeli and other researchers. But this sort of thing does not happen in the target communities.
Illuminati
It is difficult to conceive why the Jews were expelled during the Reconquista. It would be interesting to read a well researched study into contemporary Spanish culture with emphasis on this event. Religion certainly played a part although it was probably not a complete explanation since Jews were still welcomed in other Christian countries.
Better said that “Jews were still welcomed in SOME other Christian countries.” Jews had been expelled from France and England in 1290 and France in 1394. The Christian kingdoms of Medieval Spain during the Reconquista period and before the 15th century, were generally more tolerant of Jews than their counterparts in the rest of Europe. For proof of this assertion, turn to A History of the Inquisition of Spain; vol. 1, by Henry Charles Lea, courtesy of Project Gutenberg.
By the time of Isabel and Ferdinand, this had changed. As others said, follow the money.
What I found interesting is that while Muslim Spain is often cited as an example of religious tolerance towards the Jews, much the same could be said about the Christian kingdoms of Spain during the same period. Yet no mention is made of this in the conventional narrative. This is not the first time I have noted distortions of Spanish history by those, like me, who are not from Spain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_France#Middle_Ages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England_(1066-1290)
Correction:
Jews had been expelled from England in 1290 and France in 1394.
Gringo:
And their greater acceptance and presence in Spain was exactly why the Jews’ expulsion from that country was a much bigger deal.
Neo, I see reasons for the expulsion as mainly three-tiered
Immediate reasons;
1. Cancel the debts for the final project of the Reconquista.
2. Triumphalism associated with the above.
Long term reason:
3) Set Spain’s policies toward the Jews more in alignment with those supported by governments in Western Europe, such as those in England and France, and by the Roman Catholic Church in Rome. This evolved over several centuries.
That this reversal could have occurred in a country that had previously been fairly tolerant towards Jews shows that progress is not inevitable. Among other things. Or: not all change is good.
A neighbor who is Tejano- ancestors in TX before 1800- found out that he had Converso ancestors. Many Conversos flocked to the farther reaches of the Spanish empire, where they could still speak Spanish but be as far away from the reach of King and Church as possible. Monterrey Mexico and later Texas, in the case of my neighbor. Northern New Mexico was another such place. [Interesting that people from Monterrey have the reputation for being entrepreneurs and for being tightwads. Do we know of any other groups stereotyped thusly? 🙂 ]
It’s my understanding that Jews served both Muslim and Christian lords during the centuries of Moorish occupation.
I know that the Muslims provided what amounted to a hall pass for ‘their’ Jews — who settled in such locations as Bosnia — under the Ottomans.
For the modern reader, money lending in the middle ages was restricted to pawn or to the peerage… typically the sovereign, alone.
Real estate could not be foreclosed upon/ transferred into common or Jewish hands.(usually) Consequently real estate had absolutely no collateral value for lenders.
Lending in pawn was pretty much it. One had to pledge portable property right on the spot to get a cash advance. If nothing else, this made jewelry valuable. You may notice the term: jewelry. It’s a direct reference to the fact that Jews had THE absolute monopoly on the jewel trade.
So the ONLY player that had a shot at a cash advance would’ve been a sovereign, literally above the law.
While a sovereign would never pledge his crown — he certainly had an unlimited claim on his nation.
But, somehow I don’t figure Queen Isabella running up a huge tab. When it came to launching Columbus — she tossed in her jewels. Columbus was launched — in pawn!
If she was funding Columbus with a jewelry pawn — then she had no open account — and probably long held a dim view of Jews. IIRC, Isabella was considered strongly anti-Semitic even in 1492.
IIRC, the Sephardic Jewish community were famed as the purveyors to the Crown, especially in all manner of textile goods. (the rag trade)
On the whole, they weren’t making a buck lending, they were feeding the court vanities of the Spanish peerage. (Jewelry, fashion, shoes, etc.)
If so, they were replicating the Jewish economic dynamic seen in pharaonic times. King Tut’s death mask was, and is, classic Jewish gold planishing. This was the exact same skill that had Moses upset: the idol. It’s not a technique you pick up over night!
I submit that the true reason for the harsh expulsion of Sephardic Jewry probably turns on some secret prayer that the Queen offered up should God favor her on the field of battle. Such pledges would be entirely typical of a monarch in such a situation. If she’s asking the Lord’s blessing for religious-territorial sanction against the Muslims… Well the conclusion is obvious… If God smited the Muslims, then the Queen would have to smite the Jews.
We ARE talking about a sole-source decision, are we not? It was not put to a staff or committee meeting. The Queen simply proclaims it out of the blue. I have no doubt that the court was gobsmacked at the time.
Modern Soviet/ Communist/ Socials revisionism is not helpful. In this instance, we’re dealing with a True Believer, Queen Isabella.
Her luck didn’t pass on to her daughter, as things worked out. King Henry was virtually sterile. (Weight and spine, oh my.)
Sharon W says
Neokettlepot—I’m looking to the “fruit” of Islam and finding it unacceptable. Name one country where it is the predominate belief system where there is anything substantial that can be looked at and judged positively. Western culture is the product of Judeo-Christian belief and teachings.
What do you do with people like Malala Yousafzai who has not rejected her religion? But decides to act heroically.
“And anyone who denies individualism denies western civilization.”
This.
The Leftists/Totalitarians in academia are attacking “rampant individualism” now — and seeing its root cause as “hyper-masculinity.”
“Hey, hey, ho, ho,
Western Civ has got to go!”
chanted the drooling morons, the nation of fools
And wasn’t it Yale “University” that turned down a gigantic bequest to endow a chair in Western Civilization? ($20 million): yet they have no problem taking millions from the oil ticks.
Despicable.
kettlepot….
Islamists make her life a moot point.
She was a goner.
%%%%
Of course, in truly primitive societies, a woman formally educated is less that useless. Her marriage prospects are quite simply ruined.
No man, certainly no Muslim man, would consider marrying a women more highly educated than himself.
In case you’re slow to come up to speed: most Muslim men can’t read or write.
Mo’ didn’t.
Mullah Omar can’t.
The entire effort to educate Muslim girls is horrifically misplaced. Countless girls have been maimed and murdered because do-gooders from the West have decided to meddle in Muslim culture.
Back in the real world: EVERY society has advanced by educating MEN first. A woman’s education is merely a nice thing. A man’s education determines the larger success of his society.
And I come from an extended family that has in its legacy the highest educated women in this or that state of our nation. It’s a family over run with MENSA IQs.
Even though my fore-mothers were brilliant, they scarcely made use — in economic terms — of their advanced educations. All that was proved was already known: they were brilliant women.
I have a genius niece. She has every attribute of genius you’d care to point to, and the scholastic record to match. She even crushes other valedictorians. Estimated IQ — in orbit — probably 160+ — and the typical family super-memory. Yet, she has not produced anything for anyone beyond test scores and parental smiles.
When I was as old as her, I had a list of impact achievements that stand even to this day. They are too great to list. I’d embarrass myself over my vanity.
The difference in the sexes is stark. Her personal priority is birth and children. It overwhelms all other interests, and hers are great.
Her future is bleak. She’s lusting for a superior male to marry. She’s never going to find a man more accomplished than her. They exist. They’re just too rare for her to run into.
She’s going to have to settle for some great guy who is not as brainy as her.
Her Hollywood good looks are no help, either. Her best prospects must consider her unobtainable.
&&&&
So there you have it. An over educated woman even has trouble in the US of A.
All women want to marry UP.
In primitive societies, an education takes that happiness away from them.
This tragedy is brought to all of us by those brainiacs working to the best of intentions — even if they haven’t a CLUE as to how the human animal really ticks.
And the very first to give such advice — are educators — ‘talking their book.’
This impulse has been taken to such extremes that it imperils the international economy.
— Just for the record.
Christianity and Judaism have violent teachings in the Old Testament, but these have been abrogated by subsequent teachings that mitigate the harshness of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Islam calls these teachings blasphemous innovation. Indeed, the whole point of Mohammed was to restore the tone of the early Old Testament. This is why shari’ah has such an Old Testament tone to it’s punishments.
Moreover, much of The Old Testament violence is contained in stories about violence, some commited by Israelites as they regained their ancestral homeland. The Qur’an has many similar stories PLUS direct exhortation, from Allah himself, to the reader to commit violence in the name of Islam. There’s nothing remotely similar to this in the Bible
NeoKettlepot, I no more judge Islam by the individual than I do my own religion, Catholicism. The fruit is historical and present. The reality is that western civilization is a product of Judeo-Christian moral truth and belief. I distinguish between the micro and the macro. In the micro, I am sure there are wonderful Muslims and horrible Christians & Jews. In the macro, the Christians and Jews are responsible for creating a society I value….not so much the Muslims.
blert – Sultan Bayezid II on Ferdinand & Isabella’s explusion of the Jews: “You venture to call Ferdinand a wise ruler,” he said to his courtiers – “he who has impoverished his own country and enriched mine!” Bayezid even send his own ships to pick them up and bring them to the Ottoman Empire.
blert — there were many famous jewelers who were not Jewish in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. And there was certainly commercial lending outside of pawn — cf, The Merchant of Venice.
The reasons that Jews being financiers were 1) Judaism permits the assignment of debt, which Christianity at the time did not, and 2) trust. Moshe in Tours could write to his cousin Yaacov in Mainz and tell him to credit Sir Geoffrey de Dancy 10 livres from Moshe’s account, because Sir Geoffrey had credit with Moshe. These were the first bills of exhange, which became drafts, which became checks. Hence, banking.
Richard…
Christian courts were famed for stiffing Jewish lenders.
This was WHY lending against pawn was the norm.
In most Christian jurisdictions the passage of land title to even Christian commoners was prohibited.
One of the great breakthroughs with the American Revolution was that ones religious standing had no bearing upon such issues.
The Jews, without a doubt, invented virtually ALL of the norms of Western banking, with Dutch Jewry at the forefront. The list fills textbooks.
The record is clear: the vast bulk of Jewish lending was to sovereigns — very much like it still is today with central governments dominating all borrowing.
What would make all moderns uncomfortable would be the terms and purposes of these transactions. With rare exception (there were some) sovereigns only ever borrowed to make war — with the occasional ransom being consequent to battle reverses.
The single most infamous case was the Spanish Crown. Philip II was the single worst deadbeat in Western financial history. The sole and only purpose for his massive borrowings was warfare — in Europe.
His enablers were the biggest Jewish banking houses in Europe — with the lead syndicate bank of Genoa. His borrowings were so massive that practically every Jewish banking family was in the syndicates.
This sad saga went on and on. Paying his nut was one of the primary reasons why the Spanish went crazy in the New World.
Like a Lotto winner, the King went insane — spending.
Being such highly visible enablers of the Spanish Crown in its martial endeavors made for ‘bad optics.’
It did pay off huge in the wallet.
One 20th Century economist estimated that the Spanish Crown — regardless of monarch — shunted ALL of the New World’s precious metals off to Northern Europe — and China. (Tea, you bet.)
In the meantime, the Spanish farming economy was allowed to go to Hell. (Damn those sheep!)
The Jewish lending of the middle ages was not at all like 20th Century lending in America. Most of it was ‘blood money’ one way or another: warfare, ransoms, etc.
It’s of a bygone age. I don’t care much to defend or attack any of the players. Certainly by modern standards of moral conduct, everybody looks bad.
blert
After the Spanish crown got involved with the Hapsburgs, they had lots of places to fight. I saw a map of that situation. Looked as if somebody had taken a map of Europe and splattered ink at random. Every splatter, large or small, was a new opportunity, responsibility, or Crown ego thingy.
I recall during the fuss about Chik Fil A and the boss’ fondness for the traditional family. Asking the foaming self-righteous about whether they’d boycott a business run by a Muslim—have you checked the local mosque’s doctrine on gays [of course they hadn’t]—and got more foaming self-righteousness.
Muslims have, unlike any other group, managed to combine, seamlessly, the threat of violence with victim status.
And so lefties aren’t going to say boo, double standards notwithstanding.
Somebody said that if the left didn’t have double standards they wouldn’t have any standards at all.