Alas, in the U.S. we are experiencing the rise of the celebration of weakness. Strength and confidence are suspect while the tremulous and pathetic are venerated. This turn can be traced back to many origins. Men in general and white men in particular are held in very low esteem, assumed to be members of an oppressive patriarchy, rather than the workers, hunters, gatherers, and protectors we used to respect and rely upon.
In my opinion, the Covid lockdowns contributed mightily to this new definition of the American Spirit. Where we used to be bold, adventurous, and courageous (Live Free or Die, By Valor and Arms, The People Rule, Justice for All), we now celebrate the timid, weak, and withdrawn (hide under your beds, stay home, they're in "My Bubble," "Stay Safe!").
We still haven't fully emerged, wall-eyed and blinking, into the sunlight post-Covid. Let's just all work from home! Who needs marriage and children?! I'm not going back to school! Let's close the public square and leave it to the looters! Stay Safe!
Soft men make hard times. Hard times make hard men. Hard men make soft times. And soft times make soft men. We're in a period of hard times created by those soft men. We can only hope and pray that hard men are on the horizon. But things will get worse before they get better.
The author's use of "partner" rather than "husband" (or "boyfriend") betrays a squeamishness that has a causal relationship with her problem.
A refusal to claim that anything is "good" or "bad" or "better" or "worse" allows evil to proliferate unmolested, and the "partner" fad exists for the sole purpose of saying "no arrangement is any better than any other!". If people are afraid to NAME distinctions, they certainly can't discriminate based on them in the ways that we need to.
A similar problem exists with other forms of NewSpeak, including the preference for generic terms when more specific ones apply, such as "religion" when talking about "Islam". You're covering up meaningful distinctions, and that has consequences.
We just can't be afraid of being labeled with the 'x-obe' or 'x-ist 'or 'x-ism' any longer. Living in truth means accepting that you'll be criticized. That is the minimal amount of courage required to maintain a free society.
This ideology precedes American wokeism. It’s a combination of Islam religion/ identity and Marxist philosophies/ techniques. We first saw this in the Algerian War of Independence against France in the 1950s, which was inspired by Asian communist revolutions and utilized horrific terrorist acts and fighters embedded in civilian centers to great success. The Algerian war was widely supported by Western leftists who viewed it from the lens of Marxism. Franz Fanon participated in it and his writings, which were essentially a defense of terrorism, drew from it.
Europeans are most afraid of being called “Islamophobes,” and Americans are most afraid of being called racists. But the red-green alliance of Islamists and far-left activists is a veritable tag team of totalitarians hiding behind racial and religious bigotry, each one running defense for the other. It makes it very difficult to penetrate the wall of defense they’ve built, but not impossible. You just have to be prepared, and willing, to have them hurl the “Islamophobe” and “racist” epithets at you, because that is their only defense: accusing others of bigotry, as they rally the most virulent armies of Jew-haters since WW II.
In Germany, the police are instructed not to categorize suspects by their religious affiliation or country of origin. So, a Muslim rapist/murderer from Afghan or Chechnya, who probably constitute the majority of rapist/murderers in Germany, is referred to as a "southerner". When a people are too afraid to name the problem, they are not capable of solving the problem.
A clear distinction must always be made between a perfectly normal faith (Islam 25% of world population, approx 10% in France are Muslim) and the current hijacking of that faith to excuse, even promote a most dangerous, deadly worldwide jihad (holy war) whose UNIQUE goal is to replace all other perfectly normal faiths.
The problem I see is that most people who are absolutely free to follow their Muslim faith are not standing up to denounce the unacceptable use of their own faith for unacceptable, murderous ends.
You may be right. The reality is all religions were borne out of a need and desire to control people. As someone who was raised Muslim (now agnostic), I can tell you that most Muslims are not thinking of world domination, but that doesn’t mean some aren’t. And like all extremists, unfortunately, they happen to be the loudest, nastiest, and the most violent.
The “Christian right” is correctly condemned by the media although it’s produced virtually no contemporary violence. We do not see that with Islamic extremism despite the measurably common violence.
What about the abortion clinic bombings, the doctor assassinations, and the human fences preventing women from entering clinics for their abortions in the 80s and 90s and 2000s?
Certainly all bad and rightfully condemned by the media, but by your own assertion they essentially stopped 20 years ago and were a blip (despite us constantly receiving breathless reporting about the threat today). Meanwhile, radical Islamists have been continuously striking civilians in the west since the 1500s (see the siege of Malta and Mediterranean slave trade to start), and journalists lead you to believe that this is a middling, non-threatening ideology. 9/11 alone killed nearly 3,000 people - are there any comparative contemporary events from the “Christian right”?
TLDR: extremists of any religion are weirdos but none objectively compare to the violence of extreme Islam, which can be quantified, and yet we are told this is not the case and it’s “islamophobic” to believe what we can see happening
I don't know if you'd call it 'comparative' (Christianity's violent heyday certainly tapered off a few hundred years ago) but there've been some hints of Christian violence in some of the wars we've fought. Not outright "Christians vs the Infidels" but Bush II got a little religious on the whole thing (I'm pardoning his 'crusade' slipup, I think it was an honest mistake). My problem is I don't think that violent tendency has ever left the sicker portions of the Christian body politic and I think there were some semi-hidden religious overtones on Jan 6th. I'm hoping it *stays* hidden but Goddess only knows what will happen with either Trump or Biden returned to office. I mean, the left is getting pretty violent now too.
1,700 years of Christian violence before today, remember...Christians were real ratbastards back in the day. And religion is always a great excuse to start a war on your heathen neighbours (although in the end it's always about taking other peoples' stuff).
Ok. I guess the real point of all this is why we in the West (really the media and intelligentsia) have no trouble acknowledging the dangers of one radical religion but deny the larger existence and real violence of a another religion? I’m aligned with the sentiment of most of what you said above, and I reckon your biggest concern (based on username) with the Christian right is the pro life movement. But do you believe Bush and 1/6 protesters are more oppressive to women than any middle eastern theocracy, let alone terrorists? I just want to see reality reflected in the news and broader cultural narrative.
Islam and Christianity (Baptists) are both religions that make exclusivity claims. However, in the New Testament, religious conversion is an inner spiritual rebirth (not something that can be forced on someone else). Baptists in particular have emphasized this point, which is why religious freedom has always been a core belief for Baptists as well as separation of church/state. The Baptists were the first religious group in America to found a colony with religious freedom (Rhode Island).
The wolves in sheep's clothing are here waving Hamas and Hezbollah and Palestinian flags shrieking "Intifada Revolution", "From the River to the Sea", "Free Palestine", etc. I am not talking about the useful American idiots but their handlers and indoctrinators. And our elites let them in.
Islam is incompatible with Western civilization. Funny but where there is Islam there is Islamism.
Alas, in the U.S. we are experiencing the rise of the celebration of weakness. Strength and confidence are suspect while the tremulous and pathetic are venerated. This turn can be traced back to many origins. Men in general and white men in particular are held in very low esteem, assumed to be members of an oppressive patriarchy, rather than the workers, hunters, gatherers, and protectors we used to respect and rely upon.
In my opinion, the Covid lockdowns contributed mightily to this new definition of the American Spirit. Where we used to be bold, adventurous, and courageous (Live Free or Die, By Valor and Arms, The People Rule, Justice for All), we now celebrate the timid, weak, and withdrawn (hide under your beds, stay home, they're in "My Bubble," "Stay Safe!").
We still haven't fully emerged, wall-eyed and blinking, into the sunlight post-Covid. Let's just all work from home! Who needs marriage and children?! I'm not going back to school! Let's close the public square and leave it to the looters! Stay Safe!
Soft men make hard times. Hard times make hard men. Hard men make soft times. And soft times make soft men. We're in a period of hard times created by those soft men. We can only hope and pray that hard men are on the horizon. But things will get worse before they get better.
Time to wake up and decide who we want to be.
I fear for Paris ( as you ) during the Olympics. There is no greater stage for these terrorists to exploit. May I be 100% wrong!!
Your courage in the face of such loss is remarkable
The author's use of "partner" rather than "husband" (or "boyfriend") betrays a squeamishness that has a causal relationship with her problem.
A refusal to claim that anything is "good" or "bad" or "better" or "worse" allows evil to proliferate unmolested, and the "partner" fad exists for the sole purpose of saying "no arrangement is any better than any other!". If people are afraid to NAME distinctions, they certainly can't discriminate based on them in the ways that we need to.
A similar problem exists with other forms of NewSpeak, including the preference for generic terms when more specific ones apply, such as "religion" when talking about "Islam". You're covering up meaningful distinctions, and that has consequences.
Or, the author is merely French and has different mores than you.
WTF are you talking about? Who cares how she is related to the person...try to upgrade the level of your ignorance of how folks interact...
We just can't be afraid of being labeled with the 'x-obe' or 'x-ist 'or 'x-ism' any longer. Living in truth means accepting that you'll be criticized. That is the minimal amount of courage required to maintain a free society.
This ideology precedes American wokeism. It’s a combination of Islam religion/ identity and Marxist philosophies/ techniques. We first saw this in the Algerian War of Independence against France in the 1950s, which was inspired by Asian communist revolutions and utilized horrific terrorist acts and fighters embedded in civilian centers to great success. The Algerian war was widely supported by Western leftists who viewed it from the lens of Marxism. Franz Fanon participated in it and his writings, which were essentially a defense of terrorism, drew from it.
Europeans are most afraid of being called “Islamophobes,” and Americans are most afraid of being called racists. But the red-green alliance of Islamists and far-left activists is a veritable tag team of totalitarians hiding behind racial and religious bigotry, each one running defense for the other. It makes it very difficult to penetrate the wall of defense they’ve built, but not impossible. You just have to be prepared, and willing, to have them hurl the “Islamophobe” and “racist” epithets at you, because that is their only defense: accusing others of bigotry, as they rally the most virulent armies of Jew-haters since WW II.
Anyone who claims to espouse enlightened, liberal values and at the same time who is not an Islamismphobe, is living in denial.
In Germany, the police are instructed not to categorize suspects by their religious affiliation or country of origin. So, a Muslim rapist/murderer from Afghan or Chechnya, who probably constitute the majority of rapist/murderers in Germany, is referred to as a "southerner". When a people are too afraid to name the problem, they are not capable of solving the problem.
Thank you for speaking out. I cannot fathom why we should NOT be afraid of Islamism!!
A clear distinction must always be made between a perfectly normal faith (Islam 25% of world population, approx 10% in France are Muslim) and the current hijacking of that faith to excuse, even promote a most dangerous, deadly worldwide jihad (holy war) whose UNIQUE goal is to replace all other perfectly normal faiths.
The problem I see is that most people who are absolutely free to follow their Muslim faith are not standing up to denounce the unacceptable use of their own faith for unacceptable, murderous ends.
Disagree. This is a world domination plan masquerading as a religion.
You may be right. The reality is all religions were borne out of a need and desire to control people. As someone who was raised Muslim (now agnostic), I can tell you that most Muslims are not thinking of world domination, but that doesn’t mean some aren’t. And like all extremists, unfortunately, they happen to be the loudest, nastiest, and the most violent.
Disagree. The Christian right is a world domination plan but not all Christians agree with them.
The “Christian right” is correctly condemned by the media although it’s produced virtually no contemporary violence. We do not see that with Islamic extremism despite the measurably common violence.
What about the abortion clinic bombings, the doctor assassinations, and the human fences preventing women from entering clinics for their abortions in the 80s and 90s and 2000s?
Certainly all bad and rightfully condemned by the media, but by your own assertion they essentially stopped 20 years ago and were a blip (despite us constantly receiving breathless reporting about the threat today). Meanwhile, radical Islamists have been continuously striking civilians in the west since the 1500s (see the siege of Malta and Mediterranean slave trade to start), and journalists lead you to believe that this is a middling, non-threatening ideology. 9/11 alone killed nearly 3,000 people - are there any comparative contemporary events from the “Christian right”?
TLDR: extremists of any religion are weirdos but none objectively compare to the violence of extreme Islam, which can be quantified, and yet we are told this is not the case and it’s “islamophobic” to believe what we can see happening
I don't know if you'd call it 'comparative' (Christianity's violent heyday certainly tapered off a few hundred years ago) but there've been some hints of Christian violence in some of the wars we've fought. Not outright "Christians vs the Infidels" but Bush II got a little religious on the whole thing (I'm pardoning his 'crusade' slipup, I think it was an honest mistake). My problem is I don't think that violent tendency has ever left the sicker portions of the Christian body politic and I think there were some semi-hidden religious overtones on Jan 6th. I'm hoping it *stays* hidden but Goddess only knows what will happen with either Trump or Biden returned to office. I mean, the left is getting pretty violent now too.
1,700 years of Christian violence before today, remember...Christians were real ratbastards back in the day. And religion is always a great excuse to start a war on your heathen neighbours (although in the end it's always about taking other peoples' stuff).
Ok. I guess the real point of all this is why we in the West (really the media and intelligentsia) have no trouble acknowledging the dangers of one radical religion but deny the larger existence and real violence of a another religion? I’m aligned with the sentiment of most of what you said above, and I reckon your biggest concern (based on username) with the Christian right is the pro life movement. But do you believe Bush and 1/6 protesters are more oppressive to women than any middle eastern theocracy, let alone terrorists? I just want to see reality reflected in the news and broader cultural narrative.
Islam is "perfectly normal" the way a hard core Baptist church is – intolerant of just about everything outside their narrow faith.
The difference is that in Islam, extreme intolerance is the norm, whereas in Christianity and Judaism, tolerance is the norm.
Islam and Christianity (Baptists) are both religions that make exclusivity claims. However, in the New Testament, religious conversion is an inner spiritual rebirth (not something that can be forced on someone else). Baptists in particular have emphasized this point, which is why religious freedom has always been a core belief for Baptists as well as separation of church/state. The Baptists were the first religious group in America to found a colony with religious freedom (Rhode Island).
Roger Williams not Sayyid Qutb
You left out Sarah Halimi who was also killed by an Islamist.
Yes, yes it can. Especially when an enabling press controls the current narrative and enabling educators selectively alter history.
Beautiful and powerful piece. We should call out radical Islam at every turn, and disavow it in every way.
The wolves in sheep's clothing are here waving Hamas and Hezbollah and Palestinian flags shrieking "Intifada Revolution", "From the River to the Sea", "Free Palestine", etc. I am not talking about the useful American idiots but their handlers and indoctrinators. And our elites let them in.