44 thoughts on “Life for Women Under the Islamic State: “I Long for the Time When I Can Take Off the Niqab””

1. I selectively emailed the YouTube of this, from the VT link, a short while ago. Even tweeters won’t be able to say “I didn’t know” because the record will be there forever. Immunity is not an option.

2. 10:21 But now IS (unintelligible)
   What he is saying here is “But now IS is weaker than before” (“Nu aer Isis svagare enn foerr”)

   • They lost a lot of territory. Does that translate to being weaker?

     Also, the foreigners are stealing passports so they can travel. Does that mean they are fleeing the Islamic State, or are they setting up sleeper cells?

     • My intuition says that one of the purposes of the Hijra of 2015 was to get the mujahideen of the Islamic State out of Syria and into Europe before the Russians and the Syrians wiped them out.

3. “I Long for the Time When I Can Take Off the Niqab”

   This can’t be correct. Don’t the feminists keep telling us the wearing of Islamic clothing is a life-style choice for Molem women?

   • 10% of a population will never agree with some other 10% on just about anything. That is a source of manipulation. For some it is a choice. For others they want freedom. Both things are true. It is also true that some are intimidated into wearing it. I do realize your sarcasm. I am just sick of the manipulation of information.

     • Yes I was being sarcastic and I agree with your hypothesis. However, in my opinion, the majority of women feel good if they look good. Having just spent two weeks in a heavily Moslem populated northern British town, I noticed how ‘dowdy’ the Moslem women looked. Covered in mostly black or grey, full length dresses or pantaloons and tunic tops with unpolished heavy duty shoes.
       Considering they live in a post industrial, depressed Victorian town I felt sorry for them and thought how they must yearn to have freedom of choice and some colour in their lives.

4. The narrator says that these women are “covered and protected by their niqabs.” He’s correct to use “protect” because that’s what their wearing of the black shroud signifies: they have submitted and therefore will be protected. But, protected from whom? Here’s where it gets interesting, for the protector also plays the roles of abuser and oppressor. Dr. Bill Warner often refers to Islam as being dualistic—here is a fine example. Depending upon the attire of the woman, the same man can either be violent toward her, or can protect her from . . . himself. Who knew that a piece of black cloth possessed such power?

   • Mohammedans are always claiming to provide protection. They claim women are protected by wearing sack cloths. Who are they protected from? Mohammedans, that is, if the women don’t comply. They claim that dhimmis are protected. Who are they protected from? Mohammedans, that is, if dhimmis don’t comply. They claim that followers of Sharia are protected. Who or what are they protected from? Mohammedans, that is, if followers of Mohammedanism don’t comply. Mohammedanism is a closed, self-reinforcing system of pure evil and is contrary to nature.

     • William,

       Congratulations! You summed up Islam in one single paragraph.

     • I think the three “don’ts” should be dropped. (but I haven’t had my morning coffee yet).

   • Yeah, it’s protection all right– the kind you get from Guido and Luigi.

     We ought to start translating jizya as “protection money” and make it clear what a racket it is.

     For that matter, hit jihadist mosques here in the US with RICO prosecution. Why should they get a pass just because they use the surface forms of religion?

5. Feminists need to wake up to the danger they are putting ALL of us in with their ironically seperate-from-Islam, but equally death-cultish ideology. Here’s a link to an essay I just finished on the subject: http://patricestanton.com/2016/04/01/fracturing-feminist-fairytales-my-essay-on-why-and-how-the-death-cult-of-feminism-will-kill-the-west/

   • Amen, sister, shout it from the housetops– feminism is a cultural Marxism. It focuses not on our right to own property and enjoy the fruits of our labors, but on envy and taking from the haves to give the have-nots.

     And guys, if someone tries to push something called “Red Pill” on you, watch out. It’s a false flag operation of the cultural Marxists. The Marrix allusion is a cover so you don’t see the core of envy and grievance-mongering at the heart of it.

     The end goal of Marxism is to destroy all voluntary associations among people and reduce humanity to social atoms, completely dependent upon the all-powerful totalitarian state. And chief among those associations is the family, so they seek to drive men and women apart by sowing envy and enmity on both sides.

     • I don’t think a conspiracy theory is needed to explain the “Red Pill” stuff. Basically what happens is, if some number of women get excessively sexually manipulative (for example) then some similar number of men will respond with their own manipulation tactics.

       In other words, things like this only emerge when there’s some need for an adaptation. It’s linked and one can’t go away without the other doing the same.

     • I agree with your assessment of ” the end goal of Marxism”; however I do not agree that red pill is a Marxist false flag. Once the Feminist agenda was set in motion it was understood that an equal and opposite reaction would occur naturally. It`s really just the one plan in full bloom. After lop sided divorce courts, no fault divorce of which 70% are initiated by the women, abortion on demand, false rape allegations, leftist voting tendencies of women, and the vilification of men ( esp. white men ), mas import of non compatible foreigners, and growing rates of miscegenation it was certain to generate a backlash. I am aware this does not represent the majority of women or men, but many good men were ignored, and isolated due to feminism. Now it only stands to reason that a great many good women will be equally damaged in the backlash.

       • We can see the beginnings of the backlash as far back as the DAW Gor books, which were published while the Cold War was still going on. However, the current Red Pill movement bases its claims upon a theory of sexual haves and have-nots that shows some pretty strong Marxist fingerprints.

         Marxism posits that the inequalities between haves and have-nots are the result of theft on the part of the haves. Thus the world becomes divided up into oppressor and victim classes, and the victim classes should rise up and force the oppressor classes to return what is rightfully theirs.

         Classical Marxism focused upon socioeconomic class — the capitalist class made a profit by stealing the surplus value of the labor of the proletariat. That theory was pretty much discredited with the fall of the Soviet Union, and we thought we’d thrown Marxism into the dumpster of history.

         But it metastasized, reappearing in the form of critical race theory and gender theory. And thus we got grievance studies, microaggressions, safe spaces for victim classes, and all white men are evil. So of course we’re going to get pushback — but this particular form of it looks suspiciously like the old trick of destroying something by creating a problem, and then selling a “solution” that makes the problem even worse, in a way that can discredit the entire institution that’s being targeted.

         It is possible that it’s just the product of Marxism’s Long March Through the Institutions — when the intellectual environment becomes saturated with Marxist language and assumptions, people absorb it without noticing and come to think that this is how you talk and write to sound professional. So the Red Pill writers use the language of Marxism without realizing its origins because they’ve learned that’s how you signal intelligence and education.

         However the repeated theme of “women are denying you sex that is your right and due as a man, and here’s how to take back what is rightfully yours” sounds suspiciously like turning the Marxist feminist tables and redefining men as a victim class and women as an oppressor class. Whether deliberate or not, it just perpetuates the envious rift in a new iteration instead of discrediting the fundamental assumption of “there are victim and oppressor classes” that lie at the root of Marxist feminism.

         • That is interesting. I hadn’t really read enough about the “red pill” stuff to notice any pattern beyond the “us vs them” mentality. But I can see how it would start taking on Marxist “class struggle” attitudes especially with such attitudes being reinforced in academic institutions.

           The thing that worries me about the Marxist philosophy is that it seems that certain things like zero-sum tribalism are instinctive assumptions and the philosophy, rather than try to get people past primitive thinking, just tries to exploit it by codifying and justifying it. That’s not helpful, but then again the people out there who are mostly trying to exploit and control people aren’t really interested in being helpful.

     • I had to go look up what the Red Pill phenomenon is. Interesting, we now have women rejecting their traditional role in society of being mothers, and men rejecting their traditional role of being fathers. This all sounds very dysfunctional.

       • And the saddest thing is that everything started with attempts to solve legitimate problems. When traditional gender roles are regarded as inflexible scripts that you get handed at birth by the Director, misfits get hurt. But the efforts to carve out exceptions for individuals whose talents and inclinations didn’t match the traditional scripts got hijacked by the Marxists and turned into another version of the Oppressors and Victims narrative.

         And when the inevitable pushback comes, they manipulate the situation by selling the Marxist narrative of Oppressors and Victims to the guys. Marriage has been poisoned. Fatherhood has been poisoned. So these guys don’t want a partner; they want a serf. Once they’ve drunk the Marxist kool-aid about women denying them their rights and oppressing them, they become ogres and tyrants, which the Marxists can then use to prove that traditional marriage is an institution in which the Patriarchy gives unfettered power to abuse and tyrannize to the man, and strips the woman of her rights and her humanity.

         Add to that the Marxists’ habit of stealing words through the art of the Big Lie, and I don’t know how to break free of this mess. If you say you’re feminist, you’re aligning yourself with the Marxists. But if you say you’re not feminist or reject feminism, you get lumped with the people who want to turn the clock back to 1850, to legal coverture and all the ills that came with it.

         How can we get to a place where marriage is a partnership instead of a Marxist class battleground, where traditional gender roles are valued as frameworks and guidelines, but not turned back into inflexible scripts, tight rigid boxes into which each individual must squeeze at whatever cost? Because one thing is for certain — if Western culture self-destructs because we fight among ourselves at the Marxists’ goading, Islam will pick up the pieces, and the lights will never come back on.

6. Having been produced by Expressen in Sweden, this will be very effective propaganda to keep the gates open and continue letting everyone from Syria relocate to Sweden. The average Swede will see this, and now will feel like they have to let every single Syrian in to save them. Not that many people have thought otherwise, but just in case you might be having doubts of this flood of people…..As sad a situation as those women are in, I only see the dark motive behind the making of this film.

   • I think you’re exactly right. You don’t want to destroy yourself because you feel sorry for someone on the outside.

     The situation is exacerbated because it is NATO, US and the West who actually created the Islamic State and set up the conditions for it to expand. We toppled, or tried to topple, the relatively stable, authoritarian or totalitarian governments in the area, and supported the rebel groups in Syria that pushed back the Syrian government and allowed the Islamic State to become installed.

     In fact, the drooling, senile Republican idiots like John McCain, John Kasich, and the evil neo-cons, not to mention the current administration diplomats, are still trying oust the Assad government…and for what? What did Assad do that the other governments in the area didn’t?

     I think Israel probably had a hand in the destabilization of the Syrian government. Our government and politicians seem to either spit on Israel or treat it as a holy entity. Israel is a country, very close to our ideals, but an independent country with its own interests. The US can maintain support, while maintaining its own vision of the area. On the matter of Syria, the US is entirely too compliant. On the matter of Iran, the US very obviously made a horrible deal (shades of Trump), but ignored the very rational arguments of Netanyahu, who nevertheless, in my opinion, had no business addressing the US Congress.

     • Hi Ronald,

       I left an answer to your last comments at our previous conversation. You may find that interesting, particularly the links.

       Incidentally, you touched here, in this post, again the issue of NATO/US and its support for Islam. Indeed, I share your concerns, I do believe that the US in particular is beholden to Saudi policy/interest. Note here the Yugoslavian war and my comments 20th March to your post 19th March: https://gatesofvienna.net/2016/03/viktor-orban-the-time-has-come-for-opposition-and-resistance/#comment-442631

       As you can see there, I am in full agreement. Note in my post above that **NATO/US established 3 Muslim states in central Europe**.

       As far as the Arab dictators are concerned, Iraq, yes, there might have been Israeli interest involved. Though, I don’t think that’s likely, since at that point in time Iraq no longer posed a threat. Assad? I think the Israelis rather deal with the devil they know – and more or less want to see him holding power. Don’t think they are keen on rockets coming in from the north too. Libya? No threat for Israel at all, in fact he began to toe the western line. And fulfilled all western demands. Bottom line here, I think Israel wants and needs peace, not more trouble around its borders.

       But these three are definitely hated by SA and its gulf allies. Correction loathed.

       Assad is an eye opener, for those who want to see. Peoples are trying to flee to him, they are fleeing from the Sunnis! Palmyra has been retaken; and guess what, the refugees (genuine ones) want to and begin to return.

       I think that NATO/US/EU are prostitutes to SA as far as Muslim politics are concerned. The European and American public are simply taken for suckers, can’t find a better word.

       • Hi DFD,

         Yes, I enjoy and read your comments. I have bookmarked our lengthy discussion, and revisit it regularly to see if you left any additional comments. I will look at your Yugoslavian comments again, although I may have already read them.

     • I will never defend the right for someone like Assad or Saddam Hussein, or even the Saudi monarchy the right to exist. They support terrorists, and utilize religious extremism as a form of warfare against the west. In a lot of ways chaos in the middle east is ultimately a solution, as it brings the extremists out of the closet where they can be killed by us or each other. I for one would actually be happy if there was a Shia-Sunni conflict between the Saudis and Iran. Let them suffer the consequences of all their rhetoric. The only problem I see is that usually nothing moderate is ever the result of such conflicts there. Suffer enough casualties and a moderate voice eventually comes out. Why did Japan and Germany become moderates after WWII? They ended up suffering so much that they had no other option left to them. Become a moderate or die. Kill them off, and only the meek shall remain.

       • “Let them suffer the consequences of all their rhetoric. ”

         . . . except that the West (Europe in particular) is suffering the consequences of the neocon-stoked wars. Where do you think the momentum for the refugee crisis came from? As for Germany and Japan: They are (were?) civilized and secular . . . with people longing for pretty much the same things as the Allied populations. They could see reason. You cannot say that for the adherents to Islam. We are not in a struggle that can be measured in body counts and property damage. This is a war of ideas . . . and [what used to be] the West is losing badly.

         The enemies are not some CIA-armed scum in the Middle East. The real enemies are in you capitals. You voted for them. You will do so again. Look in the mirror. You are the guilty one.

         • Like we have any real control what the elites in Washington do. No guilt here, I’m just a wage slave.

       • I don’t think your post reflects the correct picture.

         By saying people like Assad or Hussein do not have the “right” to exist, do you mean that we should be indifferent to their fate, or that we should actively depose them?

         By toppling Hussein and Gaddafi, and nearly toppling the Egyptian military government and Assad, the US set in motion forces that are hugely and possibly fatally, harmful to the US and its European allies. I don’t just mean instability in the Middle East, although my conscience does feel some responsibility for making the lives of so many people worse, for no benefit to the US. I emphasize “for no benefit to the US”.

         We should keep in mind that even a short-term benefit to the US may be harmful in the long run. The overthrow of a democratically-elected (though a socialist) Prime Minister of Iran in 1953 solely by the CIA has given us the Islamic Republic of Iran, which may yet throw nukes at us. So, often the best long-term action by the US is neglect, benign or otherwise.

         I emphasize again: it is not our place to replace brutal or monstrous rulers in the Middle East (or anywhere) if they are not a direct threat to us. The duty of our leaders is to keep those people in their own lands: not to try to influence their politics, which are largely incomprehensible to us anyway.

         • Besides, in that region your only choice is between Thug 1 and Thug 2 — there aren’t any others. “Democracy” becomes simply a new way for a different (and possibly worse) thug to bully and intimidate and manipulate his way into power.

           Israel being the exception, of course.

         • Western style democracy is a system of governance that could only have sprung from countries that directly experienced the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

           It is simply not possible to install our system of governance into countries that lack the requisite cultural and intellectual foundations.

           It is stunning how our supposedly educated elites repeatedly fail to comprehend this point.

         • Your hindsight is fantastic, how is your foresight? Can anyone say with any certainty where the world situation would currently be if Saddam was left in power? No they cannot, because history has taken a different path. I can envision multiple scenarios where leaving him in power would make things a lot worse for the U.S. The opposition can only see fault with taking him out of power, but they have no clue what would of happened by doing nothing. Engaging in pointless discussions about possible scenarios is worse than useless. It’s like Jimmy Carter listening to Brzezinski discuss foreign policy. All doom and gloom and predictions of possible horrible outcomes, which leads to total inaction out of fear of taking action. At some point it is just better to react and deal with the fallout. Over analysis can also be fatal. You say overthrowing these dictators is bad, and that may be true in the short term, but all of this has not played itself out yet.

     • It is surprising how many conservative commentators want to see the hand of Israel in U.S. invasions in the ME. Israel was against Bush’s invasion of Iraq; Israel’s rationale was that such a war would destabilize the area, (which it did) and that IF one were going to take such a big risk, one should attack the most dangerous player in the area, Iran.

       I agree that, in general, Israel’s attitude is “better the devil you know.”

       As to Netyanyahu’s addressing congress: Congress is SUPPOSED to be a co-equal branch of government and didn’t congress invite him?

       I think we all know that when dealing with the Muslim Middle East, there are two general choices: one is bad and the other is worse (did the Baron say this?).

       • p.s. One more thing: whether or not Netanyahu “should” have addressed congress, remember that to say that the Muslim countries around Israel are a true existential threat to Israel is a gross understatement. Netanyahu was and is dealing with an enemy of Israel (Obama) and was desperate to make his point to the American people.

         In my opinion, Obama is also an enemy of the American people.

         • Independent said: “….In my opinion, Obama is also an enemy of the American people.”

           May I correct you slightly? Obama is an enemy to all of Christendom, including Israel. His “Aunt” (for lack of a better word/description) Merkel is an enemy of Germany, and by extension or consequence, of all Europe.

   • Yes, there wasn’t a single word against islam in the whole thing. The illusion continues that ISIS have ‘nothing to do with islam’. The woman longed for the day she could take of the niqab, not the day she could leave islam.

   • I also see the efforts of the Quilliam foundation and Maajid Nawaz as a similar thing. It reinforces in the minds of liberals the idea of a collective universal humanity that share a common core culture and values, which feeds into their self reinforcing stereotypes as to the nature and existence of a peaceful islam. The problem is that his entire audience is not composed of muslims, but of liberal leftists, who desperately want to believe this. What muslims actually want is confirmed by Pew polls and other samplings of their true beliefs. This actually constitutes the belief system, and not the opinions of reformists. All something far from the peaceful islam presented in the propaganda. This is just some more beautiful propaganda that does not reflect the most common nature of the religion, and focuses on a outlier in the population. I find it very hard to have any sympathy for her problems, other than she is the victim of fascists. She probably spent all her life identifying as a muslim, and is now reaping the consequences.

     • I think your post betrays the real Western values. I’ll paraphrase John Adams: the US will be a friend and well-wisher to all seekers of liberty, but an ally of none. Our contribution is our example, not our intervention, which will be the engine of our losing the very values we cherish.

       In other words, we feel sorry for Muslims and wish that they would throw off their awful “religion”. But yet, we leave them where they are, leave them alone, and bring no harm to them if we can help it. What they do to each other is not our business, as long as they stay in their countries and do it there.

       It is also not our business to provide refuge to abused and unhappy Muslim women. Syria was a pretty secular society, with the fanatics kept under control. She may or may not be a believing Muslim, but there is no incentive for us to take a chance.

   • I agree….a leftist thinking mind will not be able to look at this and draw healthy conclusions. Only the emotional response will be pricked. The objective viewer will see the danger of importing this culture and thus the objective response is pricked. There is the dilemma. Of course it is exacerbated by psychopathic self absorbed western leaders that cause one problem to use against it`s own people to generate yet another problem. This is the true face of evil and most want to bury they`re head as if it is not happening.

7. Here’s a lady who understands “Life for Women Under the Islamic State” Niqab? Watch her handbag – and enjoy.

   https://youtu.be/3JBmIRqbf60

   • DFD- I wonder if that “woman” hitting the “musloid” was a man…. If you look closely, the way s/he carried itself, didn’t see, totally like a woman. And plus, I honestly question if a euro woman would actually go that far to defend herself.

     • Any of number of people have said that s/he is a tranny. But I don’t know if that’s true.

       • Dear Baron,

         I don’t know either, but as I said to Anne: ..it worked. Even if the ‘she’ was a ‘he’, the right action was taken regardless.

     • Anne – I don’t know for sure either; But it worked. Even if the ‘she’ was a ‘he’, the right action was taken regardless.

       You seem to have the fairly common attitude about Europeans being meek, in your case particular about “Euro women’. There’s a lot going on in Europe, individual groups… Regular bonfires and floodings of asylum centers, both, in Germany and in Sweden. In Germany the first subimachine gun was used end of February, see http://www.mdr.de/sachsen-anhalt/dessau/schuesse-auf-unterkunft-100.html

       A Swedish General warns about war in Europe and Sweden/the Swedish army has to prepare – hmh, neutral Sweden? Doesn’t sound neutral. Maybe he means something else… go to: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=swedish+general+warns+about+war+in+europe&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=_lUBV8K2BsG6UcuFuOAL

       Further, the lynch pin is going to be Germany, it’ll blow, Probably Summer 2016, latest next year, elections.

       I had a lengthy conversation about this, which began with a comment by another poster about Germany falling. It wont. The situation I described for Germany, and by extension for Europe, will, so I believe, be worse in the US. On account that the Muslims in the US can get easily resupplies of ammunition, whilst for Europe that’s practically impossible. What is “intriguing” is that in the US the number of killings by Muslims seems to be far greater than in Europe. Also, in the US the attacks on the military, personnel etc., occurs at a higher frequency than in Europe.

       It’s a complex and lengthy issue. If you want to know more, go to: https://gatesofvienna.net/2016/03/tatjana-festerling-on-the-soros-brokered-migration-deal-between-europe-and-turkey/#comment-443461

       But be warned, it’s a long conversation. Be that as it may, I think if Europe goes up, it will trigger it in the US too.

     • All kinds of legal possibilities here. We know the Muslim social in-stinks well enough now to successfully carry out some serious bate and switch. Again – legal and endless.

Comments are closed.