Libertarian Commentary, 17 JAN 2016, #16-03A by Nathan Barton
In Part I (HERE), we discussed the rash of sexual and other attacks on New Year’s Eve, the response to those attacks, and the context: the massive immigration especially of Muslims and particularly of Arabs, and the decline in native European populations.
Why is this context important? The Fifty States have had many millions immigrate from all over the world, but we have not seen the massive outbreak of violence. Indeed, in the Fifty States, violence of this sort has declined significantly in the last four decades even as migration has grown.
The source of immigrants is one key, as is the fact that these immigrants come not just from a totally different religion and social climate, but also from lands brutalized by decades of war: The Arab-Israeli wars, Indian-Pakistani wars, Iran-Iraq, internal civil wars, and of course nearly two decades of Iraqi, Al-Qaeda and now Caliphate wars. And, of course, because these migrants have NOT assimilated over the decades and generations. Added to this is a massive trend, worldwide, of Islamic “fundamentalism” – returning to ancient customs and interpretations of the requirements of their faith, especially as related to religious law, dress, and women.
Always an issue, even when European nations actually controlled (never really “colonized”) most of the Muslim world, the Ummah, was the attitude towards women. As European empires folded and withdrew, at least politically, from the Dar Al’Islam, and as European society “modernized” and became “post-Christian,” this attitude has hardened. Islamic doctrine preaches that at MOST women are to allow hands and face to be exposed outside of the immediate family. Many other limits are placed on women as well. Where there was a strong Western (Euro-American) influence in the Ummah, these limits were ignored until the 1980s: you can find pictures on line of Muslim women (Egyptian, Persian, Turkish, even “Palestinians” and Algerians) with short skirts, bare arms, uncovered hair, and in social and business settings from which they are restricted by Shari’a law. In Europe itself, as well as on the vacation beaches frequented by Europeans in Muslim countries, Muslim women wore “Western” styles: probably more modest than the average Western woman (longer skirts, higher necklines, etc.) but still not “Islamic.”
But that has changed. In recent years, Muslim women have been attacked and killed for wearing Western dress: the wearing of shapeless, totally-covering garments even on Euro-American streets is very common. multiple Muslim clerics and other prominent Muslims have publicly warned the US time and again that Western women are “exposed meat” or “uncovered meat” who are an irresistible attraction to Muslim men (in the same way that a cat should not be blamed for eating meat if humans leave the meat uncovered within view or smelling distance of the cat). (Remember, Muslims don’t use dogs for such examples, since dogs are “haram”, that is, (literally) evil and unclean and anathema.)
In other words, to Muslims the WOMEN are to blame for their being attacked: fondled, groped, and even raped because they do not dress in hijabs (that is, they expose MORE than face and hands), or because they wear visible jewelry or perfume. (For a good explanation FROM a Muslim point of view of what Muslims consider “modest,” you can visit a Russian (English language) website . Not even Amish women are “modest” by Muslim standards.) And because they were celebrating the western New Years holiday. (It is considered haram by many Muslims, especially the strict Sunni, Shi’a, and Wahhabi sects, because of its pagan and “Christian” associations, as well as the drinking and other activities.) In essence, the claim is that these women WANTED to be molested, and demonstrated their desire by how they dressed, and their presence at a forbidden activity.
German girls and women in MANY communities have been molested in various ways, including beatings, AND rapes, in recent months: one of the many reasons Germans are attempting to arm themselves and resisting government efforts to accept more “refugees.” Too many German officials, even local ones, agree with the Muslim clerics and have told their young women that THEY are to blame because of how they dress and behave. Apparently, the Islamic men are not capable of controlling their “natural” urges (or perhaps, their “religious” urges to punish the women for being wrongdoers).
At the same time, the Green is inadvertently correct: as I pointed out above, it is not JUST the “refugees” of 2015 that are an issue. These Muslims include many who have failed to integrate into the larger society, just as has been the case in Belgium, France, and the Netherlands. There are large areas of German cities (including Koeln) that are virtually autonomous Muslim communities which are unsafe for ethnic and cultural Germans to enter, particularly women. The predominantly young, male “refugees” are apparently radicalizing the established communities, which have been sources of “anti-social behavior” (to use a Brit term) for many years. And have forced “modern” Muslim standards on their own communities with great vigor and success.
The situation in Europe HAS gotten much worse in the past year, especially, as millions more have “fled” to western and northern Europe from the chaos and battle zones of the Middle East and North Africa. The fact that many of these are males of military age, with relatively few women and children (unlike the “standard” refugee population fleeing from war zones, and consisting virtually entirely of children, women, and the elderly) has alarmed many people, encouraging talk of a hajira (a planned and/or encouraged movement by Muslims to colonize an area not under Muslim control). (This is no doubt a subject for yet another column.)
Whether intentional or not, the situation in Europe is very bad, and this current level of violence is likely to increase, just as ancient migrations triggered decades or even centuries of war (examples: the Exodus from Egypt by Israel, the Phoenician and Greek colonization of the western Mediterranean, the movement of the Goths and then the Franks into the western Roman Empire, the migration of Saxons, Angles, and Danes into Britain, and of course, the Euro-American colonization of the Americas.) Evil and wrong and just plain bad this may be, it is very much the record of history: it is what humans DO.
So, in Part III, I shall endeavor to provide a solution to this problem, at least in the short term.
Like this:
Like Loading...
The Price of Liberty 
Uncovered Meat: Islamic Wars in Europe and the West, Part II of III Analyzing the Problem
Libertarian Commentary, 17 JAN 2016, #16-03A by Nathan Barton
In Part I (HERE), we discussed the rash of sexual and other attacks on New Year’s Eve, the response to those attacks, and the context: the massive immigration especially of Muslims and particularly of Arabs, and the decline in native European populations.
Why is this context important? The Fifty States have had many millions immigrate from all over the world, but we have not seen the massive outbreak of violence. Indeed, in the Fifty States, violence of this sort has declined significantly in the last four decades even as migration has grown.
The source of immigrants is one key, as is the fact that these immigrants come not just from a totally different religion and social climate, but also from lands brutalized by decades of war: The Arab-Israeli wars, Indian-Pakistani wars, Iran-Iraq, internal civil wars, and of course nearly two decades of Iraqi, Al-Qaeda and now Caliphate wars. And, of course, because these migrants have NOT assimilated over the decades and generations. Added to this is a massive trend, worldwide, of Islamic “fundamentalism” – returning to ancient customs and interpretations of the requirements of their faith, especially as related to religious law, dress, and women.
Always an issue, even when European nations actually controlled (never really “colonized”) most of the Muslim world, the Ummah, was the attitude towards women. As European empires folded and withdrew, at least politically, from the Dar Al’Islam, and as European society “modernized” and became “post-Christian,” this attitude has hardened. Islamic doctrine preaches that at MOST women are to allow hands and face to be exposed outside of the immediate family. Many other limits are placed on women as well. Where there was a strong Western (Euro-American) influence in the Ummah, these limits were ignored until the 1980s: you can find pictures on line of Muslim women (Egyptian, Persian, Turkish, even “Palestinians” and Algerians) with short skirts, bare arms, uncovered hair, and in social and business settings from which they are restricted by Shari’a law. In Europe itself, as well as on the vacation beaches frequented by Europeans in Muslim countries, Muslim women wore “Western” styles: probably more modest than the average Western woman (longer skirts, higher necklines, etc.) but still not “Islamic.”
But that has changed. In recent years, Muslim women have been attacked and killed for wearing Western dress: the wearing of shapeless, totally-covering garments even on Euro-American streets is very common. multiple Muslim clerics and other prominent Muslims have publicly warned the US time and again that Western women are “exposed meat” or “uncovered meat” who are an irresistible attraction to Muslim men (in the same way that a cat should not be blamed for eating meat if humans leave the meat uncovered within view or smelling distance of the cat). (Remember, Muslims don’t use dogs for such examples, since dogs are “haram”, that is, (literally) evil and unclean and anathema.)
In other words, to Muslims the WOMEN are to blame for their being attacked: fondled, groped, and even raped because they do not dress in hijabs (that is, they expose MORE than face and hands), or because they wear visible jewelry or perfume. (For a good explanation FROM a Muslim point of view of what Muslims consider “modest,” you can visit a Russian (English language) website . Not even Amish women are “modest” by Muslim standards.) And because they were celebrating the western New Years holiday. (It is considered haram by many Muslims, especially the strict Sunni, Shi’a, and Wahhabi sects, because of its pagan and “Christian” associations, as well as the drinking and other activities.) In essence, the claim is that these women WANTED to be molested, and demonstrated their desire by how they dressed, and their presence at a forbidden activity.
German girls and women in MANY communities have been molested in various ways, including beatings, AND rapes, in recent months: one of the many reasons Germans are attempting to arm themselves and resisting government efforts to accept more “refugees.” Too many German officials, even local ones, agree with the Muslim clerics and have told their young women that THEY are to blame because of how they dress and behave. Apparently, the Islamic men are not capable of controlling their “natural” urges (or perhaps, their “religious” urges to punish the women for being wrongdoers).
At the same time, the Green is inadvertently correct: as I pointed out above, it is not JUST the “refugees” of 2015 that are an issue. These Muslims include many who have failed to integrate into the larger society, just as has been the case in Belgium, France, and the Netherlands. There are large areas of German cities (including Koeln) that are virtually autonomous Muslim communities which are unsafe for ethnic and cultural Germans to enter, particularly women. The predominantly young, male “refugees” are apparently radicalizing the established communities, which have been sources of “anti-social behavior” (to use a Brit term) for many years. And have forced “modern” Muslim standards on their own communities with great vigor and success.
The situation in Europe HAS gotten much worse in the past year, especially, as millions more have “fled” to western and northern Europe from the chaos and battle zones of the Middle East and North Africa. The fact that many of these are males of military age, with relatively few women and children (unlike the “standard” refugee population fleeing from war zones, and consisting virtually entirely of children, women, and the elderly) has alarmed many people, encouraging talk of a hajira (a planned and/or encouraged movement by Muslims to colonize an area not under Muslim control). (This is no doubt a subject for yet another column.)
Whether intentional or not, the situation in Europe is very bad, and this current level of violence is likely to increase, just as ancient migrations triggered decades or even centuries of war (examples: the Exodus from Egypt by Israel, the Phoenician and Greek colonization of the western Mediterranean, the movement of the Goths and then the Franks into the western Roman Empire, the migration of Saxons, Angles, and Danes into Britain, and of course, the Euro-American colonization of the Americas.) Evil and wrong and just plain bad this may be, it is very much the record of history: it is what humans DO.
So, in Part III, I shall endeavor to provide a solution to this problem, at least in the short term.
Share this:
Like this:
About TPOL Nathan
Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.