Beyond the Cusp

June 29, 2017

Selective Considerations by Leftist Women

 

It is known that the feminist movement is very closely attuned to those threats to women in our societies. Any male who steps out of the straight and narrow is quickly brought before the leftist corrective attitude adjusters who demand complete and total compliance. It initiates demands that one become complacent and performs the required mea culpas admitting their serious transgressions. One would believe that this was a consistent series of demands that are universally applied in all situations. Apparently, that is a false assumption. One must understand that these universal laws for appreciating and understanding how one is permitted to interact with those of the fairer sex are not universal as Islam is permitted a pass and is permitted any treatment of women as they have established rules which must be respected. Why are the definitions of Islam sacrosanct while those of Judaism and Christianity are forced to meet constricting definitions of the new age cult of politically correct gender interaction, functions and restrictions? The answer is simple, Islam meets the requirements of the new masters of our societies while Judaism and Christianity are but former rulers of all that is correct and that which is not, but now are tired old religions no longer appropriate to our modern societal needs. The masters of all that is holy and that which is not have a predilection for Islam as it provides those things that society desires above all other choices, iron force of power over function.

 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Nomani

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Nomani

 

The proof of this preference to excuse all the political misguided oppressions over women posed by Islam became undeniably apparent in a recent Senate Homeland Security Committee and Governmental Affairs on the Islamism Treats. The two women who were requested to present the subject for that day’s discussion were Asra Nomani and Ayaan Hirsi Ali talking of the detrimental treatment of women under Islamist rule, under Sharia (entire committee meeting video can be viewed below). These women are two of the most qualified people on the planet on this subject both through their educational experience and through their real life experience having been brought up in strict Muslim families and having suffered the various deprivations first hand. The two women come from conservative and strict though separate Islamic communities with Ayaan are from Somalia and Asra is from India. Both of them were born into deeply conservative Muslim families. Ayaan is a survivor of female genital mutilation and forced marriage. Asra defied Sharia by having a baby while unmarried. They have both been threatened with death by jihadists for things they have said and done throughout their careers where both have bravely spoken truthfully of Islamic practices. Ayaan cannot appear in public without armed guards. One would think that these two women would be taken seriously, especially when speaking of their first hand experiences as well as their extensive studies and research which they have carried out once free of the iron grasp of Islam where they had basically been chattel to be traded or killed as seen fit by their male masters.

 

 

The four Democrat women Senators attending the aforementioned committee hearings were California’s Kamala Harris, North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill. They were remarkably silent, well, except for Senator Claire McCaskill who, taking exception to the entirety of the hearings and specifically the targeted theme, stated, “Anyone who twists or distorts religion to a place of evil is an exception to the rule. We should not focus on religion.” What did have her “worried” was that the hearing was organized by Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin. She further “underline that” the only questions asked of them about Islamist ideologies came from Republicans Senator Johnson and his colleague, Senator Steve Daines from Montana. These were amongst the points brought out in an editorial from The New York Times authored by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Nomani.

 

Senator Kamala Harris of California on Capitol Hill this month. Credit (Alex Brandon/Associated Press)

Senator Kamala Harris of California on Capitol Hill this month.
Credit (Alex Brandon/Associated Press)

 

The two women further explained in their article that they were just as invisible to the Mullahs at the Mosque as they were invisible to the Democratic women in the Senate. They queried as to whether perhaps Senators Heitkamp, Harris, Hassan and McCaskill are simply uninterested in sexism and misogyny as women’s issues. It was noted that these ladies of the Senate had, in the past, given their outspoken support of critical women’s issues, such as the kidnapping of girls in Nigeria and campus sexual assault, that is far from the case. The truth then has to be that when it comes to Islamic treatment of Muslim women, the Senators have no grievances. It very well may be what Asra Nomani said in Georgetown in her conversation with Jewish Civilization Professor Jacques Berlinerblau sponsored by The Georgetown Review where she stated, “We’re still caught in a tribal culture.” What a sad commentary that honestly, the truth may be that though the Democrats believe and feel for the women; yet must not professionally appear to take issue with anything critical of Islam in general and only take issues with acts of terrorism.

 

 

So, it is terrorism bad and Islam innocent. When we look at things this way it describes and explains much about Democrat treatment of Islamic issues generally. They will decry Islamist terrorism but ignore everything else about Islam which if such should be seen committed by any other religious group, then they would be outraged. We know, where is the example? Well, it just so happens there is a glaring one. In Islam men are permitted to marry up to four women with certain provisos such as the approval of their first wife, which is unlikely to be problematic, but Mormons are not granted a pass on this as in this ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups makes it clear that neither fundamentalist Mormons nor anyone else has an inherent right to multiple marriages. There have been articles and specials on daytime “talk” television shows of polygamous marriages without these men being charged and, from our limited knowledge, the majority claim Islam as their religion. The reality is in the United States, now that same-sex-marriage has been all but generally legalized, the next targets are polygamy and polyandry, or multiple marriages. After that, the push will be to demand for communal marriages with other combinations that include multiple partners of both sexes and possibly sexualities. Beyond such we do not even wish to speculate as it starts getting beyond weird and into disgusting, though we did wonder whether the Japanese man who claimed to be in love with a fine ceramic mannequin was permitted his marriage.

 

Islam has been given a pass on many of the practices permitted by the Quran for reasons we have spoken of before and plan to continue that debate. The reason is that it is different from Judeo-Christianity and has a very separate structure and that makes it something the leftists believe they can hijack and use for their own political aims. Their desire, as we pointed out a few days ago in our article, “But it is All Relative These Days,” the driving force behind much of leftist political war is for the return to what they believe is a more natural life for the human animal, barbarism. They wish to return to a tribal mentality where strength will be defined by their parameters allowing for their elites to rule over fiefdoms and a return to the Middle Ages with royalty and courts of power with positions assigned, though they will likely craft new titles, which will modernize the theme. Their idea is for a smaller population allowing for pockets of civilization surrounded by pristine wilderness, which will be legally made out of bounds like hunting the King’s deer in stories like Robin Hood, and actual laws passed in jolly old England. They have properly noted that Islam is a vertical aligned hierarchy, which is very different from Judeo-Christianity, which believes in a middle class, which have equal rights and a controlled political class, which is chosen by the people. This is what they desire to be rid of, the need for elections as they can go seriously wrong, as in this last election, or so they keep telling us. The leftists desire real and uncontestable power where they can pass all the ecological nonsense, which they believe, is necessary for the continued health of their Earth goddess, “Gaia.” Their brave new societal structure will use electric vehicles because nobody will be permitted to drive beyond the range of their cars, a paltry hundred miles or so. All travel between ecological fiefdoms will be by travel permit and such permits will be far and few between. The people will be relegated to a second-class life if they are fortunate. There will be three main classes; the hierarchy, which will consist of the chosen few and those fortunate to buy into their esteemed position; the technical class, which will reside within the city walls and be well provided for and may even attend some of the royal functions if they earn it through proper groveling; and those relegated to the outskirts who will have menial laborious positions or assist with the farming which will use high yield-small area farming technics such as hydroponics and genetically modified crops. Needless to point out, there will be the outliers who will reside in scrublands which the elite royalty believe is beyond salvage where they will grow GMO free food with free range animals such as chickens, sheep, cattle, pigs and other wildlife. These will be permitted because they will manage these lands in a natural way, natural being the optimum word.

 

Earth goddess Gaia

Earth goddess Gaia

 

Islam works currently, as there is no other force challenging Judeo-Christianity. Before Islam there were the Communists of the USSR and before that there were the Fascists who had the perfect centrally planned society and also desired to return humankind to a state of barbarism as promised by none other than the toast of the town with such supporters as William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Kennedy, Charles Lindbergh, John Rockefeller, Graeme K. Howard, Andrew Mellon, Henry Ford, Prescott Bush, and Thomas J. Watson, before 1938 and that whole Czechoslovakia affair. There were a plethora of American companies in with the fascists of Europe including, but not limited to, US Steel, Alcoa, DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil, Ford, ITT, IBM, National City Bank, Bayer Co., General Aniline Works, Agfa Ansco, Winthrop Chemical Company and General Electric. There was also the small matter of the publication of Henry Ford’s infamous writings in a four part publication called “The International Jew” This was just part of the entirety of the alignment of even the United States Department of State and other departments with some rumors of it reaching into the White House under Franklyn Delano Roosevelt.

 

The International Jew by Henry Ford Original Articles in The Dearborn Independent

The International Jew by Henry Ford
Original Articles in The Dearborn Independent

 

The history of the Progressive Left is one of always seeking to find some means of compromising the Constitution of the United States because of claims that there was too much Christianity and Judaism included in its drafting. The belief was that the Founding Fathers were too religious and believed too deeply in G-d and thus their entire Constitution was mired and confounded by Jewish input and too much dependence upon morality and G-d. The Progressives also believed that the power being granted to the people was a mistake as the people were poor and ignorant because otherwise they would be wealthy and educated. The Progressives believed that only those with a proper education from a proper university, also particular universities, were worthy of ruling and making the decisions necessary for the government to function. Allowing the people to elect Congress and the President meant that at crucial times they could choose the wrong people, not only that, but often the wrong type of people, and they had numerous examples of such people being elected. Power, according to the Progressives and the Leftists had to be removed from the people and handed to their betters. That was what led the Progressive left to find great company with the Fascists and then the Communists and now Islam; each has a structure, which allows for power to be centralized and independent from the desires and voting of the people. Also as part of the Progressive left and the leftists of today is rampant anti-Semitism, something that somehow has never prevented many secular Jews to join these leftists in their desire for absolute power. What is really unbelievable is that these secular Jews who agree that the Bible, like the Constitution, is simply old, dated, out of touch and useless for ruling in a modern world. These secular Jews were the ones who claimed that Hitler did not mean it when he said the Jews were a scourge on society, they simply would excuse this as his meaning those religious Jews, those crazy Jews who were different, were unassimilated. Certainly, he did not mean the secular Jews as they were good Germans and had served in the Great War right alongside of Hitler and his followers. Well, as it turns out, Hitler meant all the Jews including those secular Jews. Meanwhile, in Russia we had the secular, university educated Jews supporting Communism as the cure to societal ills. Of course Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, and their Communist friends were not anti-Semitic, after all Marx and Trotsky were university assimilated Russians before they were Jews. They would hardly ever be found entering a synagogue and were not seen as Jews as much as Russian Communists by their comrades. They were part of the Revolution and thus were not like those shtetl Jews. Those shtetl Jews lived separate and in ghettos and were ignorant and uneducated. They lived as the Jews did back in biblical times, dressed all funny with heads covered and the strings hanging out, they looked absolutely comical, not like the cosmopolitan Jews of the cities. And under Lenin and ever more so under Stalin, they found out that to an anti-Semite, any Jew was a shtetl Jew.

 

Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky

Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky

 

The Leftists of today will prove to be no different from their Progressive, fascist supporting, Communist supporting, and now Islamist supporting comrades of the Revolution. These leftists were called Progressives in the 1020’s and 1030’s until World War II gave the title Progressive an anti-American taste, and rightfully so. This was understood by the Progressives, so one could not find a progressive come the mid 1940s and on through the 1950’s, 1960’s and the 1970’s as the name had become poison. They changed into a new and beautiful butterfly with the new title of Liberals. This upset Libertarians and Classical Jeffersonian Liberals because it tainted their names, especially the latter of the two. Now a Classical Jeffersonian Liberal had to identify specifically and then add that they were not at all like those calling themselves liberals who had nothing in common with liberty. They stuck with the title of Liberals until some point during the time of President Obama when Hillary Clinton decided to distance herself from her former self and the liberals she had stood with because she had noticed that Liberal had become poisonous. Hillary Clinton came out stating that she was an early Twentieth Century Progressive Hillary stated plainly that, “Progressive has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.” Yep, she had ditched liberal in 2007 and returned to being a Progressive, and not just any progressive, but an early 20th century Progressive. She was counting on nobody being alive who remembered who and what were the early 20th century Progressives were. Well, with the Internet and an ounce of curiosity, one can trace the early Progressive movement and realize that it was no different than the Liberals of the 1960’s and 1970’s. The main difference is now the Progressives instead of Fascists or Communists; they are romancing Islamists, just not terrorism, yet.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Advertisements

1 Comment »

  1. Reblogged this on Oyia Brown.

    Like

    Comment by OyiaBrown — July 3, 2017 @ 8:11 AM | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.