Decorating Chains

Tags

Amazon, American Liberty, Ban the Burka, BBC, bukr, Burka, burkha, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, coffee coffee, Defend the modern world, defend the modern world blog, DTMW, dtmw dtmw, Facebook, Islam, islamic women, Islamic world, Masculinity, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rape, sexuality, Twitter, women and islam, women's rights in Islam

Pierre Berge, influential fashion pioneer and co-founder of the Yves Saint Lauren designer firm, (I’d never heard of him either), caused an outcry last week when he boldly condemned the fashion industry’s growing embrace of Sharia-compliant clothing. Addressing the concept of the ‘burkini’ – a piece of swimwear designed to cover the body and head of the wearer, Berge remarked that “Designers are there to make women more beautiful, to give them their freedom, not to collaborate with this dictatorship (Islam) which imposes this abominable thing by which we hide women and make them live a hidden life…These creators who are taking part in the enslavement of women should ask themselves some questions.”

Since the remarks were made, numerous comment pieces have been published, both for and against. In the ever-reliable Guardian newspaper, columnist Remona Ali stated frank disagreement with Berge’s sentiment. “A burkini to cater for wider audiences?” she wrote “How dare they! Stop them! In the name of freedom, don’t let women wear what they want! Seriously, though, it’s time to grow up…I really don’t get the urge to disempower Muslim women over and over again. The only person who should have ownership over a woman’s body is her. If I want to buy a burkini from M&S, I bloody well will. If anyone else wants to buy a bikini, well guess what, that’s available in stores too. Bergé bangs on about freedom, yet taking freedom of choice away is where enslavement begins. But I think the irony is lost on him…”

Voices sympathetic to Berge’s sentiment were largely confined to the secular and international press. Atheists inevitably lined up to agree that burkinis (as well as other cultural compromises with Sharia) are a step too far, that they oppress women and represent a capitulation of modernity to the forces of regression.

Fully body coverings in the Muslim World

You’ll be able to guess my own standpoint. I think the burkini (since it has no relation to the Burkha, it should really be called the ‘Hijabi’) is an insult to the women unfortunate enough to be expected to wear it. We in the West should be encouraging Muslim women to break their chains, not decorating those chains with a veneer of elegance and choice. In the 21st Century West, women should be free to dress in whatever way they please. No-one has the right, nor should anyone have the inclination, to judge a free human being ‘virtuous’ or ‘dishonourable’ by their clothing alone. It is barbarism. It is primitivism. It belongs in the primitive world.

Despite the heat she has subsequently taken for it, the French minister who compared Sharia-compliant women to the ‘negroes who supported slavery in America’ hit the issue wonderfully on the mark. Just as abolitionists rightly ignored the opinions of negro ‘uncle toms’ who were hopelessly devoted to the whims of their ‘Master’, so can we feel comfortable in ignoring the bleatings of women who are so institutionalized by Islam, so broken by it, that they have come to support their own imprisonment. These poor women are warped. They have been brainwashed by time and cruelty.

And how dare we excuse their condition? We, who have all the blessings of freedom and individuality, who think it entirely pedestrian to go for a drink with someone of the opposite sex, who never have to worry about morality police or ‘honour’ killings; how dare we intimate that this is appropriate for other human beings to endure.

I have always been particularly enraged by those airhead liberals who excuse the mistreatment of women under sharia by saying ‘it’s their tradition’, or ‘it’s their culture’. It is not ‘culture’ at all! It is anti-culture – the resistance of pre-civilization to civilization. Culture is exactly what is being denied these poor souls.

The ‘Burkini’

While it’s probably not possible for a man, let alone a man in the free west, to imagine what life is like for a Muslimah in the Muslim world. we can at least ponder the question. How can it feel to walk around in a Niqab? How does it feel to know that if you are raped, you may be raped as a punishment for being raped? How does it feel to read a holy book that describes you as biologically, socially and intellectually ‘inferior’ to half of humankind? It must be a condition of misery. I will accept no other answer.

We should care about this, not just for moral reasons, but because Muslim women are vitally important to any effort to diminish or destroy Political Islam. As the iconoclastic commentator (and devout atheist) Johann Hari noted “One of the central tenets of this ideology (Jihadism) is the inherent inferiority and weakness of women… If you haven’t spoken to (Jihadis), it is hard to explain just how obsessed with sexual apartheid they are. At least two of the London bombers (on 7/7) refused to make eye contact with women outside their families. Image the sheer effort and repression that required…The best way to undermine the confidence and beliefs of jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women, their mothers and sisters and daughters.” (Italics added).

Hari is surely correct here. Islamic women are (if you’ll excuse the implied misogyny) the soft underbelly of the Islamic religion. They are ‘soft’, not because they are weak, but because they are more rationally inclined to apostasy when presented with the opportunity that Islamic men are. Muslim women are also more important to Islam’s future prospects than men. Should we succeed in triggering the rebellion Hari suggests, we would halve both the present problem and the problem’s next generation. Muslim women are viewed as little more than talking wombs by their partners. They are weapons factories, producing a constant supply fight-ready believers to replenish the ranks diminished by infidel technology. Remove the women and you disrupt the supply of Jihadis. This is surely the last thing the Islamists want, and the thing they fear the most.

Islamism relies on excessive reproduction

How might we go about triggering this rebellion? Hari suggested two things in his article: a boycott of oil, and a Western programme to lend capital to Muslim women who wish to start their own businesses. I’m afraid I find both of these suggestions quite unsatisfactory. These measures might well improve the lot of individual women, but neither has the potential to topple the patriarchy (and for once this word is merited) ruling Islamic society. This patriarchy itself must be toppled before women can be empowered. They cannot be empowered before that point.

A better strategy would involve reaching out to Muslim women directly and encouraging them to quit Islam. This can be very safely and easily done online – by making videos for YouTube, setting up groups on Facebook, sending personal messages and tweets, and so on. Make it a movement; a large-scale, organised campaign. Muslim women currently resident in the West have very few places to turn if they wish to be liberated from Islam. Existing apostate groups like the well-meaning CEM (Council of Ex-Muslims) do not presently offer the kind of protection necessary to make female apostasy a desirable prospect. To rectify this, organisations – preferably citizen-based – should be set up with the specific purpose of providing safe shelter and funding for those women who wish to leave the religion of peace. Though the number of women using this kind of service would be small at first, this would quickly change as successful escape stories fill up the international and religious press. We have to do something. It would be scandalous to carry on pretending there isn’t a problem to be solved.

The burkini row is not nearly as funny or light-hearted as some commentators seem to have decided. It represents at its base a life-or-death struggle between slavery and freedom for half of the world population. Chains should not be decorated. They should not be beautiful. They should be as ugly as the purpose for which they exist.

D, LDN

Advertisement

The Clash of Sexualities.

Tags

American Liberty, Britain First, cab driver, ceri, ceri linden, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, EDL, English Defence League, Islam, Islamisation, masood, masood mansouri, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Protests, Rape, Rotherham

One night last August, 20 year old Ceri Linden stood waiting for a taxi at the side of well-lit street in Broughton, Cheshire, having spent the afternoon with friends. Finding none to be available, she then walked to a car parked near-by with its lights on, assuming it to be a private service. Inside the car was Masood Mansouri, an Iranian migrant.

Linden was promptly welcomed inside and asked where she wished to go. Whatever she said after that was ignored and Mansouri drove her instead to his house, some miles away. There, she was violently raped and dumped back out onto the street.

Traumatised almost beyond words, Ms Linden later contacted local police and agreed to record a video statement to be used in court. Less than 48 hours after doing so, she committed suicide, swallowing an overdose of prescription pills.

This story, expounded in detail in the national press last week, has shocked and saddened the entire country. People are asking questions like ‘why?’, ‘who would?’ and ‘how can?’

But despite the heart-breaking details of this tragedy (and its enormity in the perspective of Linden’s family), it is but a microcosm of a continent-wide horror show; the clash of the barbaric and civilised sexualities.

Civilised sexuality, predominant in Europe, East Asia and America, involves a fair contest of emotions, courtship, charm and tact. Barbaric sexuality, predominant in the world of Islam, involves power, and nothing else. Whoever can overpower a woman thereby wins the right to have sex with her. The fundamental incompatibility of these moral systems is barely worth remarking upon, but remark upon it we must, if this long, gruelling trend is to be in any way abbreviated.

It is my belief that western women must be taught (from a young age) what the real danger is, where it comes from, what it looks like. To fail to do so is to leave them unprotected against the worst kind of experience imaginable.

Since we at war, a ‘war mentality’ must be developed, complete with wartime hyper-vigilance. The enemy is predatory, committed and unhindered by regular moral consideration. He lurks where women are plentiful and men are few. To face down the sex-jihad women must therefore become manly, adopting virtues from the heroic; virtues like sheltering the weak, providing comfort and protection to the vulnerable, giving offence where necessary and using force when required.

Remember that this wave of rape is distinctly political. It is committed for political ends, even in the micro. Civilisations don’t have to be weakened by atom bombs. Papercuts can do as much damage when numerous enough. With enough small incisions, the body is veiled in sheets of blood. Whole civilisations may perish this way.

For evidence, just look at Rotherham, a formerly proud and important industrial town, famed for its working-class brashness, and yet now seeming so emasculated, bruised and tamed.

The enemy is not going away any time soon. It is high-time our national resolve made an appearance.

D, LDN.

Fakir the Bacterium.

Tags

Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Drugs, DS, Fakir, Islamophobia, ITV, Jeremy Kyle, Jeremy Kyle Show, Kyle, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Rape, Scroungers, Wife-beating

I was passing time on YouTube the other day, when I noticed a link in the sidebar to a clip of the Jeremy Kyle Show.

For those who don’t know, the Jeremy Kyle programme is (while ostensibly a talk-show) really a crude exhibition of the trashiest members of British society airing each morning on the ITV channel. In a typical episode, members of the English underclass (some of them astonishingly unkempt) are wheeled on to defend their benefit-fuelled affairs, hit-and-run impregnations and habitual drug abuse. The host (Mr Kyle) is an aggressive moral-majority type, with (for all his faults) a commendable bravery in confronting his subjects.

The clip I was directed to featured a young Northern man who was charged with beating his pregnant girlfriend, at times kicking her in the stomach. The male was a Muslim (probably of Pakistani origin) called Fakir, and in the course of the show (link below) he revealed himself to be of the purest evil imaginable.

When questioned whether he beat his (White) partner, Fakir didn’t bother to deny the charge. In fact, he found it hard to stop laughing at the issue, apparently surprised at the swelling chorus of hatred within the audience. When pressed to elaborate, his excuses never extended beyond a claim his girlfriend (who throughout the course of the programme appears utterly broken in spirit) had ‘annoyed’ him.

This isn’t the kind of programme to ordinarily affect my emotions. Shows like the Kyle programme are usually too fake, too orchestrated, too manhandling of the viewer’s mood to take seriously. But when I studied Fakir – his facial expressions, posture and accent – a host of thoughts began to swarm around my mind, quite foreign to my personality. Goulish thoughts – like how satisfying it would be to hurt that man; to kick him, or beat him into a deep coma.

His giggling evil; his skinny, pathetically unmanly frame; his complete lack of conscience or moral orientation… These elements all combined to light the fire inside me.

I’m aware that such thoughts should never be entertained. The law is surely the only protection we have left against bacteria like Fakir. But never let it be argued that the hostile sentiment amassing against Muslims in Britain is a purely native initiative. Brits would scarcely be human to avoid feeling burning revulsion at these creatures. They are constructing their own detention centres. They are energising their own tormentors and preparing the conditions for their wholesale removal.

I have no idea if Fakir will ever read this. But on the off chance he googles himself and finds this blog, let me say this: We are rapidly losing patience with this kind of abuse. There is only so much we will take, and you will not be forgotten when the time comes to arrange a lasting justice.

D, LDN.

Can Finland Rescue Scandinavia?

Tags

Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, FInland, Islamization, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism, Rape, Sweden riots, True Finns

Much to the bemusement of friends, I’ve long been fascinated with the nation of Finland. So strange is it apparently considered to admire this country in particular that some people – upon hearing of my interest for the first time – reply with…

“Are you sure you don’t mean Sweden?”.

I’m perfectly sure, I tell them, but my affection does broaden out to Scandinavia as a whole. Like many others in Britain, I’ve often been taken in by the magical propaganda of the Nordic tourism industry, according to which Sweden is a glistening socialist paradise replete with green fields, cut-diamond fjords, and blonde temptresses emerging from clearwater lakes.

It’s not like that of course, and nor is Denmark or Norway, sadly. While it’s true that these were once very coherent and unusually peaceful societies, they have over time succumbed to the same programme of ethnic displacement and eventual Islamisation as everyone else.

But there are gradations to this general malady. Finland remains the most well-preserved of Nordic societies, and currently has a better (by which I mean lower) Muslim population percentage than New Zealand, America, Australia and even Japan. Naturally I’m keen to visit the country, if only to see what has been lost in its neighbouring states.

Part of what fascinates me about Suomi is the famed resilience of its population. Finland was the only nation in the world to successfully defend itself against both Nazism and Communism. The victory of the Finnish ‘ghost army’ against the Soviet Union has now become legendary. A small yet brilliantly talented country saw off the full-might of the Red Army, unaided, and in the most extreme physical conditions imaginable.

So splendored and morally clean is modern Finnish history, that Finnish Marxists have never been able to degrade let alone wipe out Finnish patriotism. In Finland, it is still considered perfectly rational and non-‘hateful’ to be proud of ones ancestors. Compare this to the situation in Sweden, Denmark or (especially since 2011) Norway.

As I viewed the news yesterday, and saw the flickering embers of what used to be called ‘Stockholm’, my thoughts were drawn to Sverige’s Eastern neighbor, and to the question of what Finns think about when they see these riots. Are they sympathetic or chauvinistic? Do Finns feel an innate affiliation with other Scandinavians, or do they view themselves as a Finno-Ugric nation apart? Throughout this piece, I have referred to Finland as a ‘Nordic’ country. But this in-itself is controversial with many ethno-nationalists. Adolf Hitler, that humourless Austrian meth-head, believed that Finland wasn’t even part of Europe and only granted it ‘honorary Aryan’ status in his foreign policy. Since I despise ethno-nationalism and all its confusions, I’ll stick with ‘Nordic’ just to confuse them further.

Sweden, unlike Suomi, has a much-advertised problem with Neo-Nazism. As ever with claims originating from Left-wing publications, I can’t be sure whether these are always true, but I have seen some disturbing (photographic and literary) evidence of Swedish affection for the National Socialist idea online. In Finland this is rarer, and for good reason. For the majority of Europe, common memory of the Nazis has them as reprehensible but nevertheless impressive conquerors; something quite easy, then (if one sees nothing wrong with doing so) to romanticize. Not so in Finland. For Finns, the Nazis were both despicable and militarily inferior. The Finnish army drove the Nazis out of Lapland in 1944.

But it’s not just bravery that sets the country apart. Finland’s culture too is worthier of note than countless examples of greater fame. The Finnish language is (or should be) a European treasure, being one of those rare Western dialects that not only sounds seductive and intelligent, but also looks as or more beautiful when written down.

I notice that in the midst of the Islamisation of Europe, people often try to console themselves by mentioning fake ‘sanctuaries from Islam’ like Switzerland, Belgium and even Russia, to which presumably Europeans could flee in a time of crisis. As you’ll know, educated reader, these places are in even worse straits than Britain or France.

Finland by contrast, remains today what it was in World War 2, an island of strength and refusal, a relic of archaic health;

And, in the context of the future, perhaps a spacious lifeboat for those fleeing less courageous nations.

D, LDN.