Give Women the Right to Defend Themselves

Nederlands: Geert Wilders op campagne in zwolle

Nederlands: Geert Wilders op campagne in zwolle (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is from Geert Wilders and Machiel de Graaf writing for the Gatestone Institute.

“Cultural enrichment” has brought us a new word: Taharrush. Remember it well, because we are going to have to deal with it a lot. Taharrush is the Arabic word for the phenomenon whereby women are encircled by groups of men and sexually harassed, assaulted, groped, raped. After the Cologne taharrush on New Year’s Eve, many German women bought pepper spray. Who can blame them?

A culture that has a specific word for sexual assaults of women by groups of men is a danger to all women. The existence of the word indicates that the phenomenon is widespread. Frau Merkel, Prime Minister Rutte and all the other open-door politicians could and should have known this.

The Islamic world is steeped in misogyny. The Koran explicitly states that a woman is worth only half a man (Suras 2: 228, 2: 282, 4:11), that women are unclean (5:6), and that a man can have sex with his wife whenever he wants (24:31). The Koran even says that men are allowed to have sex slaves (4:24), and that they have the right to rape women whom they have captured (24:31).

The hadiths, the descriptions of the life of Muhammad, the ideal human being whose example all the Islamic faithful must follow, confirm that women are sex objects, that they are inferior beings like dogs and donkeys, and that there is nothing wrong with sexual slavery and raping female prisoners.

Taharrush is quite common in Islamic countries. Women are frequently surrounded by men and subsequently abused. The Egyptian website Jadaliyya points out that it also happens to veiled women. Women are victims simply because they are women and not because they have provoked the men by their conduct or “provocative” clothing. It can happen in the streets, public transport, supermarkets, or during protest demonstrations. […]

The solution is not that our women keep an arm’s length from the male barbarians, but that the government keeps these men thousands of kilometers away from us. Until that happens, other measures are needed. It is irresponsible to turn our country into a jungle and subsequently send women unarmed into the jungle. They must at least have the right to defend themselves. Contrary to countries such as Germany and France, in our country it is illegal to carry pepper spray. With the Netherlands now being overrun by men who see women as inferior sex tools, it is time to legalize pepper spray in the Netherlands as a weapon against taharrush.

via Give Women the Right to Defend Themselves.

The only real problem that I have with this is this. Women, like men, have an inherent, God-given, right of self-defense, not to mention the duty to defend others. It is simply the right to life. It is illegitimate for any government to think it has any right at all to preemptively remove this right from any member of society. Pepper spray (and tasers and the like) are an OK stopgap. But the only way to stop animals like this is to put them down, and therefore, lethal self-defense is the answer.

Yes, for most of us that means guns. Not for nothing, in the Old American West, was it said that God created men and women, but Colonel Colt made them equal. How else is an 110-pound woman going to defend herself from 2 dozen or so young men? The answer is, she isn’t.

It’s far too late, in Europe certainly, but here as well, for half measures. Either we allow our women (and men, incidentally) to defend themselves, or we allow them to massacred at the will of the insurgents. That is the bottom line decision we have to make.

Lacking conviction?

code pink on Iran

Neo and I have sometimes quoted Yeats’ lines from The Second Coming:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst   
Are full of passionate intensity.
This is because they seem as relevant to our times as they did to the 1930s. T.S. Eliot expressed it less pithily but with more exposition in his Idea of a Christian Society which was written around the time of the Munich Crisis of 1938. He, like many, was shaken by what had happened, and penitent and critical. But as he explained:

It was not…a criticism of the government, but a doubt of the validity of a civilization. We could not match conviction with conviction, we had no ideas with which we could either meet or oppose the ideas opposed to us. Was our society, which had always been so assured of its superiority and rectitude, so confident of its unexamined premises, assembled round anything more permanent than a congeries of banks, insurance companies and industries, and had it any beliefs more essential than a belief in compound interest and the maintenance of dividends?

Those words are I think even more relevant now than they were then. Back in the 1930s our civilization retained many of its Christian characteristics, and its morality and standards were those of our Judeo-Christian heritage – we did, in short, as we found in 1940, have some ideas to pitch against those of the Nazis, as we would, for the long Cold War, against the Communists. But what have we now?

I’m struck and penitential about the way in which so many feminists are quiet about what has happened in Cologne and elsewhere – it is clear that for them fear of being called ‘racist’ outweighs the principles they claim to stand for. Their ideas are not held with as much conviction as those of ISIS sympathisers. But they are hardly alone. Our governments do, indeed, seem to care only for banks and profit and not for anything higher. It leaves us, literally, vulnerable against those who hate our civilization and all it stands, or stood for. The reason I singled out feminists a moment ago was that they at least know, passionately I thought, what they stand for, but it is easy to be passionate when faced with an ‘enemy’ which isn’t really that. Western men can be misogynistic, but that fades when compared to the attitude of many Muslims – but best not cross them because unlike Western men, they will turn round and harm you. Is it cowardice? Or is it just that they are not that passionate?

It sometimes seems as though the effort of staying alert for so long against the enemy of Communism has sapped us of our energy. Was it too much for too long? No doubt it would be nice if the world was a better place where we did not face real enemies, but those liberal pieties are not true, they are a delusion. Perhaps Eliot was right, and we do not have values which will stand when the wind blows? But so it seemed in the 30s – and when the moment came, so too did the man – Churchill. We shall have to hope there’s one in the wings.

Buy Ammo

We talk about problems almost everyday here, and most of them, while we (and you) may know at least some of the answers, nobody is likely to ask us. Not least because the correct answers would probably cost them, at least, some of their mostly ill-gotten gains (Yes, you can easily read rent-seeking and corruption here).

Still if enough of us yell about it, and take what actions we can, we may well improve the situation. Donald Trump is an indication of that. Personally, I detest the idea of him as President, it’s almost like a third term of Obama in my mind, just like Clinton. But that’s me, I can remember when the Constitution stood for something, and that something was real equality, equality under the law. Which is the only kind of equality government can legitimately provide. All else is theft of one kind or another. But he has certainly changed the debate in the last year.

But, in many ways, the president is constrained by Congress and the courts, and that will be more true, not less, for a president who seeks to rule constitutionally. And America (Europe, as well) has embarked on a journey into uncharted territory, we are only a stone’s throw from catastrophe. Or as Kurt Schlichter puts it, walking a tightrope over chaos.

And so, I think Kurt has one of the answers for what we, individually, can do. It’s an important piece of the puzzle, and one that perhaps more than any other, separates America from the rest of the world: Buy Ammo.

Why is that important, Because the American people, almost alone in the world, have reserved sovereignty to themselves. Everyone else, even it seems, the British, who taught us, have sold their freedom to the government for a little temporary safety. They will (and in fact already are) finding they now have neither. Sad, but that was their (actually their grandparents) choice. Seems the Brits can’t even figure out that fleeing the sinking ship of Europe is a good idea. But we, who have done more to defend Europe in the last hundred years than anyone, know better. I doubt we will try again, three strikes and you’re out, you know.

In the last analysis, as Americans, it is up to us to defend our friends and families, our communities, and yes, our country and our Constitution. There is no one in the world to whom we can turn to for help, as an organization, although we will find many people, as the scales of propaganda fall from their eyes, who will cheer us on, and help individually, but it is up to us, each of us, individually, to decide if America, the dream, and the promise, of the last 250 years is worth keeping alive. Buy Ammo!

Here’s the Colonel:

I have never, ever had anyone tell me that he had too much ammunition.  Not in a combat zone, not in a civil disaster, not even in peacetime.  Never.  Nor have I lived through a time where our governing class was so deeply corrupt, so utterly foolish, and so dangerously focused on the perpetuation of its own power that it risked bringing down everything we have built not merely in the United States but in the entire West.

Right now, if you are watching the news, you have questions about the future.  And the answer to all of them is to buy ammo.

Buying ammo is a no-lose proposition.  Look, the worst thing that happens if you buy more ammo is that you have more ammo.  Plus, much of our consumer ammo is made by hardworking Americans, and many of those ammo makers are located in red states where the right to keep and bear arms is celebrated and respected.  So you’re helping fellow conservative Americans, which is good.  And you’re infuriating people like that sanctimonious, Second Amendment-hating incompetent infesting the White House, which is great. […]

Now, many of our urban liberal friends will not understand why we insist on ensuring that we have plenty of guns and ammo.  They are, not coincidentally, the same urban liberals who don’t understand how creating economic and political chaos by screwing up the economy, coddling crooks, allowing unrestricted immigration, refusing to defeat our enemies, and frittering away the rule of law all act to undermine this wonderful island of relative peace and stability we call the United States.  The über-beta editor of a well-known liberal website once chided me on Twitter for pointing out the fact that civilization walks on a tightrope over a chasm of chaos, telling me I was essentially nuts for thinking this could all fall apart much faster and much more violently than any of us imagine.  But I was not nuts.  I was remembering.  I was remembering Los Angeles on fire during the Rodney King riots.  I spent three weeks on the streets with the Army during that little life lesson based out of an armory south of I-10 and east of the 405.  Let’s just say that it was a looty, shooty area.  So I don’t need chaos lessons from some tweedy femboy, nor do you.  It may not be apocalypse now, but it could very well be apocalypse soon.

Do you think our elite is going to protect you during the next “uprising?”  Remember, it’s a “riot” only if elite liberals are at risk like they were when Beverly Hills got threatened; it’s an “uprising” if only you are.  Remember that “stand down” order in Baltimore?

Do you think the Iranians and our other enemies haven’t been watching Team Feckless in inaction and thought about popping off a hot rock or two a hundred miles above Kansas City to fry all our wonderful electronic gizmos with EMP?  A couple days after our logistics networks go down those urban hipsters are going to learn what really constitutes a “food desert.”

And this:

But deterrence is a wonderful thing.  An armed, trained populace is not only prepared for when things go bad, but the fact that it is armed and trained makes it much less likely that things will go bad in the first place.  Last year, Americans voted for liberty by buying well over 15 million new guns.  That’s roughly 40,000 a day, every day.  That’s enough to arm three infantry divisions.

Every.  Single.  Day.

Just don’t forget to buy ammo.

via Buy Ammo – Kurt Schlichter – Page full.

I call that

A good start!

Multicultural Appeasement In Cologne

There’s really not all that much to add to this, from Daniel Hannan, MEP. I suppose I could say that I’ve said all this as well, I have, and so have others. But until we act on it, it doesn’t really matter.

What was your reaction when you heard that there had been a series of organized mass sexual assaults across German cities? Sympathy for the victims? Anger at the perpetrators? Concern about the future? If so, you’re evidently not a German official.

Ralf Jaeger is the interior minister for North Rhine-Westphalia, where the worst attacks happened. He was in no doubt about what the real outrage was. Not the assaults and rapes, but the online comments by his political opponents.

“What happens on the right-wing platforms and in chatrooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women,” he said. It’s the “at least” that is so staggering here. The police logged 516 criminal offenses in Cologne’s main square on New Year’s Eve, 40 per cent of them sexual assaults. But Herr Jaeger is less fussed about women being groped and robbed than about some skinhead loser posting obnoxious comments online.

I wish I could tell you that Herr Jaeger’s bizarre sense of moral priorities is unique, but he typifies his caste. Let’s recapitulate what happened in front of Cologne’s mammoth railway station that night. There was an orchestrated mob sexual assault of a kind not seen in Europe in centuries.

It has been seen before, however, in Tahrir Square. Egyptians even have a name for it: “Taharrush game’a.”

The Cologne police were overwhelmed. “The situation threatened chaos or serious injury, if not fatalities,” said their internal report. They attempted to clear the square but were “repeatedly bombarded with fireworks and bottles”. All the while, tearful women complained of assaults.

How did the police, in their public statement, summarize those monstrous events? “Ausgelassene Stimmung” – “Exuberant mood.” I suppose that’s one way of putting it.

In the days that followed, details began to leak out online. It transpired that almost all the men involved were Arabic-speakers, and that many of them had entered Germany as asylum-seekers. It emerged, too, that there had been similar organized attacks on women in cities across the country. And yet Germany’s police, politicians and pundits said nothing. The state broadcaster ZDF willfully ignored the story, later admitting that it didn’t want “to spread a bad mood.”

The mayor of Cologne, Henriette Reker, who has campaigned vocally for refugees, told her female constituents that it was up to them to keep men at arm’s length when walking in public. Meanwhile, German MPs pushed ahead with a law to ban hate speech against migrants.

Think about that for a moment. The German state lacks the resources to protect its female citizens from sexual assailants, but it has the resources to prosecute people who insult the assailants.

via Multicultural Appeasement In Cologne | PA Pundits – International.

What is politics for?

Gladstone quote

America, as we’ve commented before here many times, is unique in being a country based on an idea, and that idea was most famously expressed by Abe Lincoln as ‘government by the people and for the people’. It was to secure that that ideal did not perish that the Civil War was fought, and it has been in its defence that the USA became the defender of the free world. Despite George Washington’s farewell address, post world war II America discovered that if it did not go abroad to slay them, the dragons might well get to place from which they could do it serious harm.

That huge effort, entailed real dangers for the nature of the US political system. As Commander in Chief, the office of the President assumed greater important in time of war, POTUS had to be more than just first among equals, but with that came the trappings of what came to be called the ‘imperial presidency. A huge defence budget created what Ike called ‘the military-industrial complex’ which, in many ways, was the opposite of government by the people and for the people; it was government on behalf of the defence of the people, which carried with it the real risk of depriving the people of some of its freedoms in order to defend others.

Allied to that danger was another which is inherent in all democracies – that of the debauching of electoral politics by pork-barrelling. At its least harmful (which is still harmful) this was a matter of Congressional districts getting something in return for the way a Congressman voted; at its worst it becomes systematic bribery in which politicians promise to tax one group for the benefit of the other – what ion other walks of life we’d call robbing Peter to pay Paul; as long as Pauls outnumber Peter, you win: the problems tend to kick in when you run out of Peter’s money – which always happens.

We like to think that politics is the pursuit of the national interest, but how is that defined and who defines it? On the level of war and peace you can do it with a pretty broad consensus – not many want the USA to be conquered or weakened (though some seem unable to see these things might follow from their preferences), but when it comes to domestic politics, interests are harder to define. Some will not want big government, others might if they get told it is going to look after all their needs, and some would reject it even with that bribe because they don’t believe that in this life you get something for nothing.

Political decision makers reflect a variety of assumptions, some stemming from their own education and social and political biases, others from what they suppose the public wants, or can be persuaded to votes for. The temptation to cultivate popular prejudices for political gain is so hard to resist and so prevalent that one might doubt some politicians even know they are doing just that half the time. We all want politicians to be decent, honest and truthful, but as electors, we tend to reward them when they are not. Civic virtue rests with ‘we the people’ and if we won’t exercise it, then I guess we can’t expect our politicians to do so either.

You can correct me here, but I think Harry S Truman was the last POTUS to leave office without being a very rich man (query Gerald Ford here?). It’s true some of them were rich before they were President, but as the career of Bill Clinton has shown (and Obama’s will show) you can make a pot of cash after the Presidency.  In such a world, money becomes the touchstone, and in that world, where cash is king, civic virtue tends to leak away.

It was Churchill who popularised the saying that democracy is the worst form of government – except for all of the others. He was, as so often, right, but if we don’t insist on a straight and clean politics, then we’ll get what we have. It is this feeling of disenchantment which fuels the cynicism that is such a threat to our democracy.

Clash of Civilizations: Islamic vs. Judeo-Christian

OK, gang, I give up for now, I’m fighting a cold and writing isn’t going well. But here’s a friend of mine. And Dan is right.

Judeo-Christian civilization has nothing in common with, and nothing to gain from, Islamic civilization as it now exists. They have been clashing for centuries. Now, Islamic civilization appears to be winning in much of the European Union and, to a lesser degree, in America. 

Can anything be done to slow and then to halt the spread of fundamentalist Islam? Ayan Hirsi Ali hopes there is and that Muslims will do it. I also hope they will, but am quite dubious that it will happen in the foreseeable future.We need to take other steps promptly. […]

Fundamentalist Islam is a culture of compulsion and hate

Americans should learn far more than we have from the recent experiences of Sweden, Germany, England, France and other European Union countries in welcoming Muslims to Islamise their cultures. I posted a lengthy article on that on December 13th. If you haven’t read it yet, please do so now. It provides very helpful background for an understanding of the clash of Judeo-Christian and Islamic civilizations.

Here is a lengthy video by Walid Shoebat, once an Islamic jihadist and now a Roman Catholic opponent of Islam. Born in “Palestine,” he imbibed the Islamic culture of hate and compulsion as a youth, as did most of his acquaintances. Eventually, he changed from what he was to what he now is.

via Clash of Civilizations: Islamic vs. Judeo-Christian | danmillerinpanama.

And see that’s the thing, whatever you believe, you have a much better chance of NOT dying for your belief under Christianity. But I also know this: If we don’t defend our culture, we will lose, and Islam will win. Not only will we (as Christians) lose, but the relativists, who don’t understand belief in God, will lose even more badly than we will, for unlike them, we are, at least, ‘People of the Book”. and may survive (by submission) if we wish. Them, not so much.

%d bloggers like this: