Very interesting and provocative idea. It's clear that some women prefer the current state of affairs in cultural Islam. My read of the situation is that, while living in an inherently patriarchal society (here I'm referring to laws of inheritance that favor males and cultural norms and practices along those lines, etc.), some muslim women have done what they can to subvert that using less than explicit means while generally staying within the bounds of sharia. Quite effectively, as you've pointed out.
Yes, exactly. The power of a woman is letting a man think he’s got the power when indirectly, and in every way that matters, she is the one that actually has the power. Consider how a woman is her man’s greatest expense. That alone should ring alarm bells.
Freedom is difficult and most don’t know how to function with freedom; they would rather be told what to do……it can seem easier. But I knew someone that was a contractor over in Afghanistan, he told me about a scene he had to investigate…….a teenage girl in a shallow grave, her born child still attached to her by the umbilical cord…….her crime…….being raped by her uncle, became pregnant and was killed to maintain the honor of the family………I wonder why some Eastern men feel it’s ok to diddle little girls…..oh, that’s right…….their prophet married a child and had sex with her when she was 9.
I think you touched upon something deep and profound with this. If you have ever seen the sharia modesty police (which are women) beating the living crap out of teenagers who are not wearing an abaya properly, then you know they enjoy doing this, then you know how evil these bitches really are. Just like the rainbow flag waving, purple haired feminazis of western leftist movements. They revel in ugliness, mediocrity and are devoid of any skill or talent or charisma that would make them any kind of force to be reckoned with in the free market place of ideas and creativity. May the lot of them drown in pools of their own excrement, a fate befitting the vileness of these harpies.
I remember watching the Stacey Dooley program about FGM and being shocked that it was inflicted by woman on young girls, the men involved seemed to be accomplices rather than protagonists. When Stacey was explaining the procedure to young men of that culture they were horrified.
What an astounding insight into the psychological background that keeps Islam firmly in place.
It makes sense in so many ways. And in the era you spoke of where there were 4 women to one man, (any references for that?) the jealousy and competition for men would have been off the charts. I recall an opinion about why there was so many beautiful women in Russia being explained by an imbalance in the ratio of men to women, and the competition for men ensuring only the most beautiful women were procreating and so the percentage of great looking women increased. Food for thought.
Hi, thank you for your comment, and for your insight. In nature, you'll find that, at least in advanced mammals, females consistently outnumber males. Male infant mortality, male infighting and hazardous male occupations tend to make sure of that. Perhaps it's not natural for human societies for roughly one female to correspond to one male. I theorize that this is the problem with modern society that has largely solved male infant mortality, and has made wars less fatal. A 1:1 sexual marketplace ratio means that most men will be outcompeted. We see how easy men settle for a woman, and how all women compete for only the best of the best males. The 80-20 rule could not be better applied: 1 male takes 4 women. What are your thoughts?
You raised some really interesting points that I haven't thought much about before this. It's interesting that advanced mammals have a higher ratio. I have found myself in the past thinking about polygamy, and then I read that polygamous societies are often extremely violent due to the lack of women available as they go to those with the greatest resources! The argument was that the rule of 1 for 1 makes modern society more equitable and therefore less likely to be as violent.
What do you think is the ideal? Do you think we should have polygamy, as practiced through the majority of history, especially by the 1% - Where I live, Thailand, it's common as. Still. What works for society?
On another front, because you're a great thinker, I've come to the conclusion we need a major shift in the focus of humanity, and to borrow from the 1%, and reapply it for the benefit of the majority I think we need the following:
1. New philosophy - The Humanitarian Manifesto
2. New Religion - one that helps people to be their best mind, body and soul, in this lifetime not the next
3. New institutions of every type.
4. New communities model - self-sufficiency communities combining the best of the Amish, the Kibbutz (Israel) and Oriania (South Africa.)
Thank you for honouring me as a great thinker! I’m more of a great over-thinker.
I think the ideal ratio for men and women was given to us by nature, definitely much fewer men as compared to women (male infant mortality made sure of that). We also see how women are geared to only consider the top 10% of men, and then settle passive-aggressively for the runner ups, but will never ever consider the lower casts. Maybe this means that women adapted to only what the top men because throughout history there were much fewer men to go around? Maybe the men’s scarcity made them more valuable in the eyes of women? Now too many men compete for the same top50% women. All men, regardless of value, pursue women, but not all women are int he game. The lowest casts of women stay out of the sexual market place. So in reality we have more men competing for fewer women. Of course women will feel entitled and sick of too much male attention.
I am against any social engineering efforts. Let life be. It wasn’t natural for humans to live beyond 50 but here we are. It doesn’t always have to be about what is natural for our species. Technology isn’t natural. Or you may philosophise and say that, if we naturally made it, then it’s natural.
Your welcome -it is your habit of being an "over-thinker" that makes you a great thinker! I'd classify myself with your phrase as well.
I agree with your point being 'against any social engineering efforts. Let life be."
Actually everything about the political power systems of the Crown Monarchy Imperial which has ruled us from the last x,000 years, is all about social engineering. So called 'civilization' is simply the domestication of man along with the animals into organized societies that extract value from the majority, the land, and the resources, and transfer it up to the ruling elites.
From what I understand about the average lifespan I think it is normal enough to live long beyond 50 years, but the average age when infant mortality was so high was low, but it was just the average. If you survived into adulthood you have a good chance of living a long life, presuming you were not cannon fodder, which lowers expected lifespans as well.
How do you define 'technology.' I think that what sets humans apart is our ability to create tools. We are prone to the trap of thinking that it is technology that ruins the planet - and while it is true it is engaged, I think the real cause of the destruction created by technology is the monopolization of technology - patents, and the monopolization of political power and the Money Monopoly put the power in the hands of the few who use it to rape, pillage, and plunder the world.
A world free of patents is a much fairer world and a lot harder for people to use the monopolization of technology to create large fortunes and the power that goes with it that distorts the economy, society and creates so much poverty.
Just look at the insane distortions crated by the fake climate change narratives, and the distortions of the use of capital to manufacture Green Energy - solar panels, electric cars, and wind turbines - all driven by the international bankers and their partners in the CCP and their billionaire puppets. Do you know who owns 40% of BYD the "Chinese" EV maker? Warren Buffets company. Next 10% BlackRock. Who owns Tesla. Same crowd.
It's global Monopoly Capitalism that is the distorting evil.
And then there is the 1951 Inventions Secrecy Act that allows the Federal Govt in the USA TO STEAL AMERICANS PROPERTY - it's been used for the last 75 years to shut down all dramatic improvements in fuel efficiency and energy efficiency or free energy. This is the abuse of monopoly power.
And who look at the damage that Silicon Valley is doing with AI, to increase their profits!!! It goes on and on and on.
I think technology is a force for good. But not under monopoly systems.
I favor polyandry. Women get as tired of spending life with only one man as men get of being with only one woman.
Re: women competing for only the cream of the males? 😂😂 You evidently don’t know a lot of women. And I hear some sour grapes.
I’m amazed at how frequently fellow women choose super average guys or guys who just make you scratch your head and wonder, “what could she possibly see in HIM?” . Sometimes it’s because she’s lazy and he’s just an easy catch and keeper. Sometimes it’s because she’s got low expectations of herself and life in general, so she settles. Sometimes it’s because she has little confidence in herself, so she goes after either the overly controlling jerk who provides the strength she lacks, or the man with even less to offer than she has so she feels better bout herself. And not infrequently, she possess some personality flaw or archetype that draws her to flawed men. Last but not lest, sometimes she just becomes infatuated with something about the guy, and don’t see all the warning signs that he’s going to become a big disappointment.
Equally, I see men pursuing shallow bimbos with abandon and then acting surprised and aggrieved when the bimbo turns out to not be the stable, mature, sensible, nurturing mommy substitute on whom he can lean to have all his needs met. But in his mind, the problem is never his own appetites or lack of judgment. Oh, no! The problem is that she’s a lying, demanding bitch.
Personally, I think a lot of the guys being defined by women (and therefore, by their fellow men) today as “top males” leave much to be desired. But then, maybe not a lot of other women would be attracted to the types of guys who are tops in my book. Like tends to favor like. There are an awful lot of couples out there about whom I can only say, “They deserve each other!”
I think you made some very persuasive points in this article - definitely food for thought. I don't know enough to say how correct you are but I imagine no one will say you are way off the mark. Things are normally not black and white anyways.
Thank you for your comment. Yes, indeed, things aren’t black and white. If the tone of the article implied that, it’s not the intention. Rather, it’s to stress this particular perspective. The cartoon you shared sure does provide perspective
Sorry I think my comment could have been a little clearer.
No the tone of the article didn't imply things weren't black and white. I guess what I was trying to say was that even if not all Muslim woman were operating the way described by you, I reckon there is in any event a large amount of it going on because the arguments you have put forward makes a lot of sense.
The balls AND brains in this one… the hardest, loudest CLICK that I’ve heard in a while. I tip my hat, sir. (not sure if you’re a dude or if it is even relevant in this case)
Have you read Yasmine Mohammed's memoir? While I'm not sure if she would agree with you, her book also makes it clear that in radical Islamic families, mothers are often very abusive to their children, and in particular, their daughters. Yasmine's relationship with her mother reflects much of what you say here (and Yasmine is quite attractive).
Thank you for the added context. Yasmine’s memoir makes sense, especially since it takes a quite attractive woman to notice how less attractive women sabotage her so indirectly. One way is through abusing their sons so that they oppress attractive women… what do you think?
You argument also partially explains callous indifference of Western "feminists" to the rapes of Israeli women by Hamas on October 7 and the plight of female Iranian activists against the Iranian regime -- Israeli and Persian women are frequently very beautiful.
I mean, yes, this too, but my takeaway from the book is that girls are mistreated far worse (by both parents, but perhaps especially mothers). Yasmine's mother was horrible to her -- and there's even a scene where she repeatedly tries to seduce Yasmine's husband (a terrorist she was forced to marry and later fled to protect their daughter from genital mutilation).
Your points about feminism are also very apt. I have a long essay that is partially about how feminism stems from a more "androgynous" mind (dominated by the left hemisphere) and both misogyny and misandry arise from "negative androgyny" (low healthy masculinity and femininity in the same person). As well, child abuse and emotional neglect would disproportionately affect right hemisphere development (for various reasons, I'll link to the essay below as it explains), so it makes sense that in cultures with high rates of child maltreatment, the right hemisphere would be dysfunctional, the left hemisphere would take over (or at the very least not be well integrated with the right -- via corpus callosum damage, likely), and thus higher rates of both misogyny and misandry. I use Germanics (and Anglos) as an example (high rates of historic child abuse, current high rates of child emotional neglect -- I have other essays about this), but the Arabs would also likely be a relevant example; I just know far less about them and have far less ancestry from them, so didn't feel I could make as strong an argument there.
Back in 1990, when I was a student at Damascus University, I believed that the only way to eradicate this ignorance and stupidity in Arab mentality was to go back to the pre-Islamic Arabian era, when women had a lot of financial independence, were free to marry more than one man, could advertise for mercenary husbands when they wanted children, had the authority to dismiss their husbands whenever they wanted, and occasionally had female gods, queens, and matrilineal lineages in Arab tribes.
Good post. I would put your argument in these terms: Islam like all religions is another form of collectivism; Muslim women reject freedom and demand to be equally oppressed. Why? Because it levels all women, the beautiful and the plain, by hiding their physical attributes (nothing can make plain women beautiful). It is hatred of the good for being the good. (Credit: Ayn Rand)
I think you're on to something. I've made a similar connection in the past.
***
None of the Muslims at the top are "ideological Muslims" because they understand that Islam is not a religion, it’s a political ideology. It’s just like Marxism, there are no ideological Marxists at the top, because Marxism is just a method to achieve power, it’s not an "ideology," not for those in charge, it’s just simply a power structure.
Islam is like Marxism 1.0, it’s the same thing effectively, only much older.
Indeed, Islam is more of a political ideology than a religion, or a political ideology masquerading as a religions. Islam is shame-based and matriarchal in its nature for the reasons I laid out in the post.
Very interesting and provocative idea. It's clear that some women prefer the current state of affairs in cultural Islam. My read of the situation is that, while living in an inherently patriarchal society (here I'm referring to laws of inheritance that favor males and cultural norms and practices along those lines, etc.), some muslim women have done what they can to subvert that using less than explicit means while generally staying within the bounds of sharia. Quite effectively, as you've pointed out.
Yes, exactly. The power of a woman is letting a man think he’s got the power when indirectly, and in every way that matters, she is the one that actually has the power. Consider how a woman is her man’s greatest expense. That alone should ring alarm bells.
Freedom is difficult and most don’t know how to function with freedom; they would rather be told what to do……it can seem easier. But I knew someone that was a contractor over in Afghanistan, he told me about a scene he had to investigate…….a teenage girl in a shallow grave, her born child still attached to her by the umbilical cord…….her crime…….being raped by her uncle, became pregnant and was killed to maintain the honor of the family………I wonder why some Eastern men feel it’s ok to diddle little girls…..oh, that’s right…….their prophet married a child and had sex with her when she was 9.
Accurate comment
I think you touched upon something deep and profound with this. If you have ever seen the sharia modesty police (which are women) beating the living crap out of teenagers who are not wearing an abaya properly, then you know they enjoy doing this, then you know how evil these bitches really are. Just like the rainbow flag waving, purple haired feminazis of western leftist movements. They revel in ugliness, mediocrity and are devoid of any skill or talent or charisma that would make them any kind of force to be reckoned with in the free market place of ideas and creativity. May the lot of them drown in pools of their own excrement, a fate befitting the vileness of these harpies.
Thank you for your contributing comment. This is exactly what I wanted to convey. I’m glad more and more people are catching up to it
I remember watching the Stacey Dooley program about FGM and being shocked that it was inflicted by woman on young girls, the men involved seemed to be accomplices rather than protagonists. When Stacey was explaining the procedure to young men of that culture they were horrified.
This is a perfect example of what I am asserting in this post. Thank you for adding it here.
What an astounding insight into the psychological background that keeps Islam firmly in place.
It makes sense in so many ways. And in the era you spoke of where there were 4 women to one man, (any references for that?) the jealousy and competition for men would have been off the charts. I recall an opinion about why there was so many beautiful women in Russia being explained by an imbalance in the ratio of men to women, and the competition for men ensuring only the most beautiful women were procreating and so the percentage of great looking women increased. Food for thought.
Hi, thank you for your comment, and for your insight. In nature, you'll find that, at least in advanced mammals, females consistently outnumber males. Male infant mortality, male infighting and hazardous male occupations tend to make sure of that. Perhaps it's not natural for human societies for roughly one female to correspond to one male. I theorize that this is the problem with modern society that has largely solved male infant mortality, and has made wars less fatal. A 1:1 sexual marketplace ratio means that most men will be outcompeted. We see how easy men settle for a woman, and how all women compete for only the best of the best males. The 80-20 rule could not be better applied: 1 male takes 4 women. What are your thoughts?
You raised some really interesting points that I haven't thought much about before this. It's interesting that advanced mammals have a higher ratio. I have found myself in the past thinking about polygamy, and then I read that polygamous societies are often extremely violent due to the lack of women available as they go to those with the greatest resources! The argument was that the rule of 1 for 1 makes modern society more equitable and therefore less likely to be as violent.
Indeed, the 1:1 ration does pacify societies but it also feminizes males. Good for thought…
What do you think is the ideal? Do you think we should have polygamy, as practiced through the majority of history, especially by the 1% - Where I live, Thailand, it's common as. Still. What works for society?
On another front, because you're a great thinker, I've come to the conclusion we need a major shift in the focus of humanity, and to borrow from the 1%, and reapply it for the benefit of the majority I think we need the following:
1. New philosophy - The Humanitarian Manifesto
2. New Religion - one that helps people to be their best mind, body and soul, in this lifetime not the next
3. New institutions of every type.
4. New communities model - self-sufficiency communities combining the best of the Amish, the Kibbutz (Israel) and Oriania (South Africa.)
Any thoughts?
Thank you for honouring me as a great thinker! I’m more of a great over-thinker.
I think the ideal ratio for men and women was given to us by nature, definitely much fewer men as compared to women (male infant mortality made sure of that). We also see how women are geared to only consider the top 10% of men, and then settle passive-aggressively for the runner ups, but will never ever consider the lower casts. Maybe this means that women adapted to only what the top men because throughout history there were much fewer men to go around? Maybe the men’s scarcity made them more valuable in the eyes of women? Now too many men compete for the same top50% women. All men, regardless of value, pursue women, but not all women are int he game. The lowest casts of women stay out of the sexual market place. So in reality we have more men competing for fewer women. Of course women will feel entitled and sick of too much male attention.
I am against any social engineering efforts. Let life be. It wasn’t natural for humans to live beyond 50 but here we are. It doesn’t always have to be about what is natural for our species. Technology isn’t natural. Or you may philosophise and say that, if we naturally made it, then it’s natural.
Your welcome -it is your habit of being an "over-thinker" that makes you a great thinker! I'd classify myself with your phrase as well.
I agree with your point being 'against any social engineering efforts. Let life be."
Actually everything about the political power systems of the Crown Monarchy Imperial which has ruled us from the last x,000 years, is all about social engineering. So called 'civilization' is simply the domestication of man along with the animals into organized societies that extract value from the majority, the land, and the resources, and transfer it up to the ruling elites.
From what I understand about the average lifespan I think it is normal enough to live long beyond 50 years, but the average age when infant mortality was so high was low, but it was just the average. If you survived into adulthood you have a good chance of living a long life, presuming you were not cannon fodder, which lowers expected lifespans as well.
How do you define 'technology.' I think that what sets humans apart is our ability to create tools. We are prone to the trap of thinking that it is technology that ruins the planet - and while it is true it is engaged, I think the real cause of the destruction created by technology is the monopolization of technology - patents, and the monopolization of political power and the Money Monopoly put the power in the hands of the few who use it to rape, pillage, and plunder the world.
A world free of patents is a much fairer world and a lot harder for people to use the monopolization of technology to create large fortunes and the power that goes with it that distorts the economy, society and creates so much poverty.
Just look at the insane distortions crated by the fake climate change narratives, and the distortions of the use of capital to manufacture Green Energy - solar panels, electric cars, and wind turbines - all driven by the international bankers and their partners in the CCP and their billionaire puppets. Do you know who owns 40% of BYD the "Chinese" EV maker? Warren Buffets company. Next 10% BlackRock. Who owns Tesla. Same crowd.
It's global Monopoly Capitalism that is the distorting evil.
And then there is the 1951 Inventions Secrecy Act that allows the Federal Govt in the USA TO STEAL AMERICANS PROPERTY - it's been used for the last 75 years to shut down all dramatic improvements in fuel efficiency and energy efficiency or free energy. This is the abuse of monopoly power.
And who look at the damage that Silicon Valley is doing with AI, to increase their profits!!! It goes on and on and on.
I think technology is a force for good. But not under monopoly systems.
We all have the natural right to copy.
There should be no patents. No monopolies.
I favor polyandry. Women get as tired of spending life with only one man as men get of being with only one woman.
Re: women competing for only the cream of the males? 😂😂 You evidently don’t know a lot of women. And I hear some sour grapes.
I’m amazed at how frequently fellow women choose super average guys or guys who just make you scratch your head and wonder, “what could she possibly see in HIM?” . Sometimes it’s because she’s lazy and he’s just an easy catch and keeper. Sometimes it’s because she’s got low expectations of herself and life in general, so she settles. Sometimes it’s because she has little confidence in herself, so she goes after either the overly controlling jerk who provides the strength she lacks, or the man with even less to offer than she has so she feels better bout herself. And not infrequently, she possess some personality flaw or archetype that draws her to flawed men. Last but not lest, sometimes she just becomes infatuated with something about the guy, and don’t see all the warning signs that he’s going to become a big disappointment.
Equally, I see men pursuing shallow bimbos with abandon and then acting surprised and aggrieved when the bimbo turns out to not be the stable, mature, sensible, nurturing mommy substitute on whom he can lean to have all his needs met. But in his mind, the problem is never his own appetites or lack of judgment. Oh, no! The problem is that she’s a lying, demanding bitch.
Personally, I think a lot of the guys being defined by women (and therefore, by their fellow men) today as “top males” leave much to be desired. But then, maybe not a lot of other women would be attracted to the types of guys who are tops in my book. Like tends to favor like. There are an awful lot of couples out there about whom I can only say, “They deserve each other!”
I think you made some very persuasive points in this article - definitely food for thought. I don't know enough to say how correct you are but I imagine no one will say you are way off the mark. Things are normally not black and white anyways.
Sidenote :your article made me think of this cartoon (sorry if I clean up link it doesn't work, not sure why) - https://www.open.edu/openlearn/cc/ef/ccefa439e94572f403068eb563ee3455ddce7c9f?response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D%22a332_ol_f4.jpg%22&response-content-type=image%2Fjpeg&Expires=1722264480&Signature=Qcns4e2J5O6c957bQL9Eos9gM3txP8B-XXiUyah7YIwMYO~8zqVI3ESE154JYag774393HgL~sWdgXuFqHOWAFKBt9jKd0CLqppwF7PcbAlY0Iw-n1poP97jOBEpmQQSXa1dhLitbs3NsHk-qmyXjm7oLY7ofjAmBjDw9jqa-RWGWlbZoAdJlVUjzQ4wklnkn2zJcKa9CYq2sp7S13nqHkDOw0DrCzMdVty5jOYGuOmsGSY4xRJUe4bxZ3WJT2oK9hSQpXeXzCnJSDXxvnr3udjspt5Hmsq9hHRuqaxCaSlwnMT38pZ6YpEmZI-q9mlCEmgN4LsLphimntkGn2lUsg__&Key-Pair-Id=K87HJKWMK329B
Thank you for your comment. Yes, indeed, things aren’t black and white. If the tone of the article implied that, it’s not the intention. Rather, it’s to stress this particular perspective. The cartoon you shared sure does provide perspective
Sorry I think my comment could have been a little clearer.
No the tone of the article didn't imply things weren't black and white. I guess what I was trying to say was that even if not all Muslim woman were operating the way described by you, I reckon there is in any event a large amount of it going on because the arguments you have put forward makes a lot of sense.
Yes, this is what I thought you meant. I think I was the one that should have commented clearer. :)
Shame is a core etiological element of narcissism
Interesting…
Um… that is sensational
The balls AND brains in this one… the hardest, loudest CLICK that I’ve heard in a while. I tip my hat, sir. (not sure if you’re a dude or if it is even relevant in this case)
Thanks. It’s not relevant, but I’m a guy, yes.
Have you read Yasmine Mohammed's memoir? While I'm not sure if she would agree with you, her book also makes it clear that in radical Islamic families, mothers are often very abusive to their children, and in particular, their daughters. Yasmine's relationship with her mother reflects much of what you say here (and Yasmine is quite attractive).
Thank you for the added context. Yasmine’s memoir makes sense, especially since it takes a quite attractive woman to notice how less attractive women sabotage her so indirectly. One way is through abusing their sons so that they oppress attractive women… what do you think?
You argument also partially explains callous indifference of Western "feminists" to the rapes of Israeli women by Hamas on October 7 and the plight of female Iranian activists against the Iranian regime -- Israeli and Persian women are frequently very beautiful.
Interesting.
I mean, yes, this too, but my takeaway from the book is that girls are mistreated far worse (by both parents, but perhaps especially mothers). Yasmine's mother was horrible to her -- and there's even a scene where she repeatedly tries to seduce Yasmine's husband (a terrorist she was forced to marry and later fled to protect their daughter from genital mutilation).
Your points about feminism are also very apt. I have a long essay that is partially about how feminism stems from a more "androgynous" mind (dominated by the left hemisphere) and both misogyny and misandry arise from "negative androgyny" (low healthy masculinity and femininity in the same person). As well, child abuse and emotional neglect would disproportionately affect right hemisphere development (for various reasons, I'll link to the essay below as it explains), so it makes sense that in cultures with high rates of child maltreatment, the right hemisphere would be dysfunctional, the left hemisphere would take over (or at the very least not be well integrated with the right -- via corpus callosum damage, likely), and thus higher rates of both misogyny and misandry. I use Germanics (and Anglos) as an example (high rates of historic child abuse, current high rates of child emotional neglect -- I have other essays about this), but the Arabs would also likely be a relevant example; I just know far less about them and have far less ancestry from them, so didn't feel I could make as strong an argument there.
https://thecassandracomplex.substack.com/p/the-androgynous-mind
Back in 1990, when I was a student at Damascus University, I believed that the only way to eradicate this ignorance and stupidity in Arab mentality was to go back to the pre-Islamic Arabian era, when women had a lot of financial independence, were free to marry more than one man, could advertise for mercenary husbands when they wanted children, had the authority to dismiss their husbands whenever they wanted, and occasionally had female gods, queens, and matrilineal lineages in Arab tribes.
My latest post is relevant to your comment: https://sotiris.substack.com/p/abrahamism-must-end
Thanks! Will read.
Good post. I would put your argument in these terms: Islam like all religions is another form of collectivism; Muslim women reject freedom and demand to be equally oppressed. Why? Because it levels all women, the beautiful and the plain, by hiding their physical attributes (nothing can make plain women beautiful). It is hatred of the good for being the good. (Credit: Ayn Rand)
Interesting. I provide additional context in my latest post: https://sotiris.substack.com/p/abrahamism-must-end
I think you're on to something. I've made a similar connection in the past.
***
None of the Muslims at the top are "ideological Muslims" because they understand that Islam is not a religion, it’s a political ideology. It’s just like Marxism, there are no ideological Marxists at the top, because Marxism is just a method to achieve power, it’s not an "ideology," not for those in charge, it’s just simply a power structure.
Islam is like Marxism 1.0, it’s the same thing effectively, only much older.
Islam and Marxism are for the Proles.
***
Only I never tied the female aspect to it.
Indeed, Islam is more of a political ideology than a religion, or a political ideology masquerading as a religions. Islam is shame-based and matriarchal in its nature for the reasons I laid out in the post.
Most people including Muslims have no clue what Islam really believes or on what shaky historical ground it stands.
The just listen to their Imams
The female of the species is more deadlier than the male.
oftentimes
You got my attention with the picture, which as it turned out proved the point of the article.