Sunday, 11 January 2015

The gunning down of Charlie Hebdo is part of the eternal battle of the sexes

To call the Paris attacks a 'war’ dignifies pointless slaughter The terrorists’ actions in Paris were anarchic adventures by people who wouldn’t know what to do with 'victory’ if it came upon them, writes Janet Daley:

The consensus is that we are at war. Some people call it a war on democracy. Others say, more specifically, that it is a war on freedom of speech. Then Nicolas Sarkozy topped everybody by saying that the attack on Charlie Hebdo was a declaration of war “on civilisation”.

  1. The world is divided between men and women. 
  2. The West is matriarchal and its enemies want to stay patriarchal. 
  3. Matriarchies are without exception declining and primitive societies, and all advanced civilisations are patriarchies. 
  4. A patriarchy runs on marriage the way cars run on petrol.
  5. Everything about feminism undermines marriage.
  6. Feminism encourages women to become sluts because all feminists affirm the right of women to have premarital sex. 
  7. When men say it is OK for women to be sluts, they will become lower than sluts. 
  8. All men in the West are now lower than sluts, including the Prime Minister, the official alpha male of Britain.
  9. The apparently alpha male in the West is the charming sexy man sluts cannot resist.
  10. It is contemptible for the strong, clever and rich to submit to the weak, stupid and poor. 
  11. This clash of civilisations is between societies who want to promote gay marriage and those who don't want their people and societies corrupted by this kind of shit.
  12. How free is speech in France when you can be imprisoned for saying the wrong number?
  13. Muslims have noticed that Jews have been given special status in France because of Holocaust Denial laws.  
  14. Muslims have noticed that the EU is the cat's paw of America and that the only political parties who matter in America are subject to the control of the Israel lobby.
  15. Muslims have noticed that Israel is a colonial outpost of the West.
  16. Muslims have noticed that antisemitism is endemic in the Christian West.
  17. Muslims have noticed that Arabs are also Semites and that the Christian  hatred of Jews and Muslims has its origins in Jews and Muslims denying the Trinity. The Inquisition was all about making sure Jews and Muslims forced by the Catholics to convert to Christianity really really believed in the Trinity and were not just pretending to do so. 
  18. Because the Trinity is so hard to explain and justify, Christians have always always hated Jews and Muslims who so very easily demolish this black box theory   that "explains" Christ's divinity.
  19. Because Christians in the West have been so mean to Jews over the centuries, what they did after WW2 was the equivalent of robbing Peter Muslim to pay Paul Jew, which is the reason why the modern State of Israel is so disputed, bitter and contentious. 
  20. The West is now as Christian as a skeleton used to be human, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury is so theologically ignorant that he does not even know he is supposed to believe in the Trinity.
  21. Christianity is now no different from PC Liberalism.
  22. Muslims have seen what government by pornocracy has done to Western masculinity and don't want their male descendants to become pussy-whipped manginas deprived of their matrimonial homes and deprived of their offpsring or their female descendants to become Slut Single Mothers. or for either to be gayly married, and neither does Putin.
  23. Muslims and rational men do not want beta males to be deprived of the right to choose their alpha male leader without having to factor in the female vote.
  24. Most female voters just choose the most attractive male candidate.
  25. Can feminism cause wars? You betcha.
  26. Can feminism cause social disintegration? You betcha.
  27. Marriage is the pivot upon which true gender balance sits and encouraging women to be sluts and men to be morally-compromised slut-fuckers has tipped the scales in favour of the feminazis.
  28. Feminazism is now so advanced that the criminal standard of proof required to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt has now been consigned to the dustbin of history, and not a single member of the judiciary and legal profession has noticed this let alone seen fit to point this out.  
  29. When the Chinese talk about Yin and Yang, they mean the gender balance and social cohesion that is obtained when most members of society respect the institution of marriage.
  30. Is this a clash of civilisations? You betcha. It is not a war of barbarism against civilisations though, but a war between societies that prefer to be run on patriarchal lines and those who prefer to remain pornocracies. The Bhagavad Gita: "Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil."  
  31. If WW2 was a continuation of WW1, the stupid reason why the British really fought WW1 then WW2 only to lose their empire can be found at 
  32. I am afraid I have come to the conclusion that the West are the bad guys and it is time we acknowledged this possibility or begin to discuss acknowledging this possibility before it is completely trashed. It may already be too late, of course, because I have been saying for years the fatal and inherent design flaw of representative democracy is that it cannot be corrected or reformed as Alexander Tytler declared.

Clearly, what all of this is intended to mean is that the situation is as serious as it is possible to get: that the West will now treat the cause that these multiple terrorist atrocities represent as an official global enemy rather than a sporadic affliction to be dealt with on an ad hoc basis. But this is not war – not in any recognisable sense of the word. By which I do not mean that it is something less grave or catastrophic. The last thing I would be inclined to do – as a Jewish journalist married to a cartoonist – is to imply that the events in Paris are somehow more trivial than they appear to be. What I am suggesting is that, by using the word “war”, we are dignifying this pointless slaughter.

War is not all fighting all the time. There are truces, negotiations and longeurs before the next engagement. Ask any soldier if war is a lot of waiting around. How long can a war take? Well, there was The Hundred Years' War and a civilisation can take centuries to fall.

The "Second Thirty Years' War" is a disputed periodization sometimes used by historians to encompass the wars in Europe from 1914–1945. It is used emphasize the period as a whole. Just as the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) was not a single war but a series of conflicts in varied times and locations, later organized and named by historians into a single period, the Second Thirty Years' War has been seen as a "European Civil War" fought over the problem of Germany exacerbated by new ideologies such as communism, fascism and nazism.

War, in modern understanding, has rules of engagement, comprehensible objectives (such as the seizing of territory) and recognisable chains of command. Its conduct is, at least in principle, governed by international law – which is why it is possible to try people for “war crimes”. Its combatants, when captured, must be treated not as common criminals, but as prisoners of war to be protected by the Geneva Conventions. (When George W Bush declared his “war on terror”, he placed himself in the ambiguous position of possibly having to accept terrorists as legitimate military fighters.)

Even in its variant forms – wars of national liberation or civil conflicts between internal rivals – there must be some sense of what it would mean to win and how one might contemplate a negotiated peace. If you are at war with an enemy who has an intelligible goal and identifiable leaders, you have some understanding of the tactics that victory would require – and a vision of what might occur if you lost.

But most significantly for the present context, a real war holds out the possibility of conciliation and the conditions for an arbitrated conclusion. If we take that as a model for the Paris terror strikes, what sort of concessions – what kind of accommodations for peace, or even truce – might we be prepared to consider? Banning satirical images? Monitoring all media for disrespectful references to Islam? Forbidding women who are “immodestly” dressed from appearing in public? Would any of these things be negotiable?

It is disingenuous to pretend that Muslims want to ban satirical images or references disrespectful to Islam when it is pretty clear that all they want is the right not to be gratuitously offended. As for what constitutes gratuitous offence, it can easily be defined as going "over and beyond what is necessary to make a point with the intention of causing gratuitous offence".

As for what a woman many be allowed to wear in public, my suggestions can be found at I do not think they would be oppressive even to the Western woman, except for those who actually want men to look at their cleavage and other bits.

To the extent that the terrorists have stated their idea of definable victory, it is the establishment of sharia in the West and the eradication of secular democracy. Are we likely to contemplate putting those things on the table in any discussion of settlement terms? Does the enemy even begin to imagine that such a “victory” is conceivable? If not, in what sense is this “war”, rather than just nihilistic, indiscriminate murder? If nothing is up for grabs that the enemy appears to want, must we then just exterminate every follower of the cause in a campaign that will look suspiciously like genocide? (There may soon be political voices in Europe calling for something close to this.) Those are the choices that are available if you call it “war”.
Maybe you find this semantic discussion irrelevant or, at least, less than urgent in the present circumstances. But I would argue that this sort of confusion is critical in countries that need to find some way of coming to terms with what they must begin to see as permanently volatile minorities. 

Muslims may not know this, but what they want is really Secular Koranism.

  1. If Islam is "Judaism Lite" then Secular Koranism is "Islam Lite". 
  2. Secular Koranism is the antidote to Islamism and Feminism.
  3. Belief in God and His commandments, or at the very existence of laws that forbid and punish extramarital sex is necessary to make most people respect the institution of marriage.
  4. Marriage is eugenic, bastardy dysgenic.
  5. The West is degenerate, and understandably Muslims living in the West do not wish to be similarly infected by this degeneracy when they already know better than to worship the right to have extramarital sex and therefore be lower than sluts after seeing what feminism has done to Western masculinity and femininity and to general standards of morality. Understandably, they want to protect themselves, their children and their descendants from this dsygenic ideology and this toxic ideology.
  6. The imposition of Secular Koranism in the West and in Israel should be enough to appease these radicals. 
  7. Who is in a position to discuss the viability of Secular Koranism? Any qualified lawyer who has read the Koran and heard of Donoghue v Stevenson

A monumental effort is being made to claim that there is scope for real debate here: that the Western principle of free speech should be defended as if it were being challenged in a moral philosophy seminar rather than attacked with Kalashnikovs. There certainly is a legitimate argument to be had over, for example, whether respect for religious belief might be a worthy exception to the principle that freedom of speech is indivisible. (After all, we do actually have laws to prevent incitement to certain kinds of hatred.) But that dispute is academic in both senses of the word: it has nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with killing people. Some well-meaning commentators are saying that these instances of mass murder make it necessary for us to engage in an exercise in cross-cultural understanding so that we may reach some sort of accommodation with the religious sensibilities of other peoples. This is dangerous nonsense.

What is the harm of having a law that forbids causing gratuitous offence to those of religious sensibilities, and of going over and beyond what is necessary to make a point?

Yes, indeed, it is certainly a good thing to reach out to minority communities in that way: getting people to talk to each other is almost always advisable. But the place of religion in a secular state, what limits (if any) there may be on free expression, and the need for integration of migrant groups are neither here nor there in a struggle with murderers. Their actions are part of no debate, just as they are not part of any coherent strategic plan for military conquest. They are anarchic adventures grounded in fantasy, carried out by individuals who would not know what to do with “victory” (whatever that means) if it came upon them. It may be no bad thing to use this terrible historical moment to reinvigorate our belief in our fundamental values, but all the protestations of solidarity with the victims – whether they are at a satirical magazine or a Jewish supermarket – will not defeat or dissuade the terrorists. It is an exercise for our own edification, not theirs. There is only one principle that is pertinent here: that it is wrong to kill people. And on that, there is no room for argument.

As far as I know, not even terrorists are demanding the right to gun down people with impunity. These men fully expected to die for what they did and this was what in fact happened. If these two men had been caught alive, it should be borne in mind that the death penalty was abolished in France as long ago as 1981. They committed their crime and paid for that with their lives, which is more than what they would have paid if they had been caught alive. So what is the problem? Are any Muslims saying that these terrorists should not be punished? NOPE. Not even Al Qaeda are saying they shouldn't be punished if caught. SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM THEN???

Most important, to conflate these things is to pull the whole Islamic population of Europe into guilt by association. Even those Muslims who are prepared to say that they are shocked or offended by caricatures of the Prophet are not ipso facto part of the terror problem: they are genuinely engaging in argument rather than in violence. It would be deeply wrong (and profoundly illiberal) to conjoin them in any way with those who kill, supposedly out of rage at the publication of such images.

There are plenty of non-Muslims who derive a deal of grim satisfaction from the Paris shootings. Does this amount to saying that terrorists should not be punished, or inciting others to commit acts of terrorism or being inspired to do a spot of copy cat terrorism oneself? NO.

Daley is just appalled and disgusted that not everyone is as appalled and disgusted as she is, because she has not seen the light yet, as I have.

All acts of terrorism are caused by bad government policy. To condemn terrorism is a distraction from condemning bad government policy, and I do not wish to be distracted from this. 

Finally, the outcome was almost as satisfactory as could be hoped in the circumstances. And it was handled by the police as criminal behaviour should be. The terrorists may have gone out in the way they had hoped – or not. Who can say what they expected? But they did not get their day in court, so we were spared any display of exhibitionistic fanaticism. Whether their potential followers see them as glorious martyrs or as futile losers is anybody’s guess. Hopefully, the fact that they did not opt for death by planned suicidal means may help to devalue their “achievement”: in the end, they were killed by the enemy, having become hopelessly trapped. That ought to be ignominious enough to take away some of the “glamour”.

Amedy Coulibaly 'Martyrdom' Video Released Online

If the point of the exercise was to instil fear and loathing, it has probably accomplished more of the latter than the former. However much criticism there might be of the security services that should have seen this coming, the French police operation at the climax was quite stunning. The techniques that are gradually being perfected for dealing with this psychopathic crime wave will eventually be even more decisive, as will the security measures that have shut down so many of these operations before they hit the ground. This situation is not hopeless – and it is not war. It is more dangerous than that. But it will only be a threat to freedom, or “civilisation”, if we allow it to be.

If this is clash of civilisations is part of the eternal battle of the sexes, then it started a long time ago, with Adam and Eve.

What is this war about? It is about imposing feminist hegemony worldwide.

Who is this war between? Between those who want to spread gay marriage worldwide and those who don't want this shit to come near their people and turn them into degenerate sluts and effeminate bastards afraid of sluts.

If you want to desecrate marriage you can do no better than turn it into a sex toy and give to gay couples to play with, except perhaps to forbid people who are actually capable sexual reproduction not within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity from marrying.

Who is the West rattling its sabre at? At Russia and Islamic State who regard gay marriage as an abomination.

Was it male or female MPs who overwhelmingly voted for gay marriage?

83% of female MPs voted for gay marriage while only 48% of male MPs did

Res ipsa loquitur.

Man created God to protect him and his civilisation from his susceptibility to sluts.

No comments: