Burqa @ MindSay 
The Debauchery Of American Womanhood
By Henry Makow, Ph.D.
On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka. Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing nothing but a bikini.
One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of so-called "civilizations."
The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping Arabs of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a bikini.
I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am defending some of the values that the burka represents for me.
For me, the burka represents a woman's consecration to her husband and family. Only they see her. It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic sphere.
The Muslim woman's focus is her home, the "nest" where her children are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her children, providing refuge and support to her husband.
In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is auctioning herself all of the time.
In America, the cultural measure of a woman's value is her sex appeal. (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with appearance and plagued by weight problems.)
As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than to demand patient courtship and true love. As a result, dozens of males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable to love, she is unfit to receive her husband's seed.
The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and prey. It is based on aggression and reason.
Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in "oppression" and that she should convert to male behavior instead. The result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother.
This, of course, is the goal of the social engineers at the NWO: undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the "brave new world," women are not supposed to be "nest" makers, or progenitors of the race. They are meant to be neutered autonomous creatures that indulge in sex for physical pleasure, not for love or procreation.
At his press conference on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld said that Iranian women and youth were restive under the rule of the Mullahs. He implied that the US would soon liberate them. To Britney Spears? To low-rise "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for sexuality in America?
Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God's surrogates: creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for marriage. We are to remain stunted: single, sex-starved and self-obsessed.
We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are to remain lonely and isolated, dependent on consumer products for our identity, in a state of perpetual courtship.
This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent," she is not likely to find a permanent mate. Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making marriage and family her first priority.
Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam.
I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it represents, specifically a woman's consecration to her future husband and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails.
----------
The above is an article I recieved by email from a friend and the views expressed herein are entirely that of the author. The write-up is posted for interesting reading. Comments are welcomed from readers.
Today’s Times reported on a new Dutch proposal to ban wearing the burqa in public. Meanwhile in nearby Mastersland…
Masterians move to prevent terror
By BOKUNU ÇIKARMAK
MERDATHEN, Mastersland, 17 November - Mastersland’s Minister for Immigration and Culture, Vita Dronker, announced here today a bold proposal to combat terrorism in the tiny state, beleaguered by asylum seekers wishing to maintain the cultures of their countries of origin while enjoying the protection of Masterian society. Some refugees were also suspected of terrorist inclinations.
The proposal has two aspects.
First, Ms Dronker announced, ‘all residents and visitors to the country will be issued ‘smart’ identification cards.’ A chip embedded in the card will enable authorities equipped with card readers to identify the holder by fingerprint or iris scan, while a conventional photograph will adorn the front of the card.
Furthermore, ‘The chip will also hold data on the holder’s net worth and available credit. A nationwide wireless network will keep the credit data up to date at all times in accordance with work done and the performance of investments. Retailers and service providers will debit cards when cardholders make purchases.’
The second aspect of the proposal will ban all garments. ‘This will ensure than no unauthorised person carries a weapon or explosive and will make the country entirely safe from the threat of terrorism,’ Ms Dronker stated.
All opaque backpacks, handbags, briefcases, and the like, will also be banned, although the Minister was quick to point out that, ‘everyone will be permitted to carry a transparent plastic bag around their neck, containing their smart card and a tube of sunscreen, in case it stops raining.’ It will also be permitted to carry a bottle of sports drink in one hand, but not both sunscreen and a sports drink, in the interests of security.
An earlier version of the proposal entailed installation of xray machines at the entrances to all buildings and public vehicles and along all thoroughfares. However, ‘in the interests of public health,’ she went on, ‘to avoid excess exposure to radiation, everyone will instead submit to body cavity searches on entering and leaving buildings and public conveyances, as well as at intervals elsewhere.’
The Minister was confident that everyone would be delighted to accept this small inconvenience in the interests of security, ‘After all, better safe than sorry,’ she said.
‘Furthermore, the initiative will mean that people don’t go around emphasizing their differences by wearing different kinds of clothing. In Mastersland, we are all equal, after all,’ she concluded.
Masterian legal experts have already determined that the new arrangements are in strict accord with international human rights standards and encouraged their adoption by all civilized nations.
OK, what about ‘the veil’?
British poodle, Tory Blain and prominent ‘Labour’ ex foreign minister, Jack Straw, have made headlines lately with their remarks about veiled women. Straw claims the veil is a ‘visible statement of separation and difference’. Well, duh. Straw’s views on the kilt were, curiously, unreported.
Yesterday Al Jazeera reported a West Yorkshire teacher who lost her discrimination case when she was suspended for refusing to remove her veil. The report doesn’t mention what she was teaching. As I point out later, in my view, it makes a difference, although not to whether it is discrimination or not.
It wouldn’t surprise me if there were schools in England, even within the Kirklees council’s jurisdiction, including Headfield Church of England Junior School in Dewsbury itself, that actually require girls and boys, even male and female teachers, to dress visibly differently. Well might anyone wonder why they are promoting such separation and difference.
If the objective is to promote secularism, it is entirely counterproductive to exclude veiled women, or anyone practicing what they believe their religion requires of them, from secular institutions, as they did in France last year. Even if this were not intuitively obvious, Turkey has banned the veil for 80 years and look where it’s got them. Aishah Azmi’s case in Dewsbury, though, is irrelevant to this issue – after all, what would a Church of England school have to do with promoting secularism?
According to the veiled women I have asked about it, their motivation for ‘dressing modestly’ is to avoid arousing male lust. This is the case whether or not they cover their hair, or their faces. They all think they are dressing modestly. It hardly seems to make any sense at all, however, given the avowed purpose, to cover everything else but to leave their sexy eyes exposed. But then, if religious beliefs made any sense, they wouldn’t be religious beliefs, now would they? Ironically, those wearing a full burqa actually accomplish what they claim to set out to do.
There may in fact be a correlation between the amount of skin a society considers it acceptable for women to expose and some measure of women’s rights or equality. But even if such a correlation exists, it is not evidence of a cause and effect relation, much less which is the cause and which the effect. It is a big mistake to think that a miniskirt is either a sign of liberation or a strategy to achieve it.
If a veiled woman wants to work as a dentist, a bricklayer, an engineer, a chef, or what have you, this is entirely unobjectionable. I do have a concern, however, about a language teacher who will not allow students to observe what they do with their vocal apparatus. Don’t laugh. I had a veiled woman in one of my classes studying to be an English teacher.
Addendum: In a big surprise, today's NYT had an op-ed by one Paul Cruickshank, arguing that criticizing veiled women was counterproductive!
