Insane Saudi Sheik/Cleric/circus freak interviewed by Leftard hack Paul asshat Auster, rather ironically on the right. [See the second article by Caroline Glick titled the Lefts Assault On Language.]Dig, I dedicate this post once again to the truly great women who run
stophounourkillings, and to the women at the slightly peculiar
rawa org, who nonetheless have a vast resource with serious insight into worthy essentials. You know the drill.
In the tedious MSM, Arab religioso head geeks and freaks, are laughably referred to as
"top clerics" or
"spiritual leaders" either of the Saudi or other wasteland stripe, and they are.
All one apparently needs to qualify for such a drooling moniker, is gross intellectual and emotional retardation, a mindset permanently attuned to the criminal as normal and thus possessing of the required and relentless psychopathology.
Basically, one must be stark raving mad, or you'll fail the interview.
Dig the teeth. He’s borrowing them from his camel. I have a whole hideous gallery of these mutilation pics and this, yes this vile crime and standard cultural practice is one of the least repulsive. Nope, I don’t mean the emotional and mental spastic on the left, who is a major advocate for the mutilation on the right.
Now it’s a well known fact that not a single lip licking advocate of depravity without limits via the genital mutilation of female children, has demanded that someone slice off
their wanger with a blunt razor. Though I’d be willing to do a free consultation for any dirty Imam shit Sheik or other faux titled criminal butcher and Islamist psychopath.
"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Pope Benedict, 2006. Groovy link via moonbatcentral.
Why millions of Muslims are inbred, irrational and beyond reach dysfunctionals. Via
Yahoo news.Edited extract: “Saudi Arabia's most senior cleric was quoted on Wednesday as saying it is permissible for 10-year-old girls to marry and those who think they're too young are doing the girls an injustice.
Sheik Abdul-Aziz Al Sheikh, grand mufti, said during a lecture that those who say women should not marry before the age of 25 are following a "bad path," according to the pan-Arab Al-Hayat newspaper.
...about parents who force their underage daughters to marry, the mufti said: "We hear a lot about the marriage of underage girls in the media, and we should know that Islamic law has not brought injustice to women."
"For it to be said that it's not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger is wrong," Al Sheikh was quoted as saying.
"A female who is 10 or 12 is marriageable and those who think she's too young are wrong and are being unfair to her." The mufti said a good upbringing will make a girl capable of carrying out her duties as a wife.
"Our mothers and before them our grandmothers married when they were barely 12," said Al Sheikh, according to Al-Hayat.
...it's also not clear whether these unions are on the rise or whether people are hearing about them more now because of the prevalence of media outlets and easy access to the Internet.
Activists say the girls are given away in return for hefty dowries or as a result of long-standing custom in which a father promises his infant daughters and sons to cousins out of a belief that marriage will protect them from illicit relationships”.
"The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political Left, is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the Left concentrated in institution's where ideas do not have to work in order to survive". Thomas Sowell.Colonel Neville: Think unversities, government, activist groups, unions, Hollywood, music and celebrity and so on.
Extract: "Our World:
The Left's Assault on Language by Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST Nov. 3, 2008.
THE LEFT's co-optation of the language of law and democracy is not limited to geopolitics. It extends to issues of cultural politics as well. Take feminism for example. Education Minister Yuli Tamir fancies herself a great champion of women's rights. She has written about feminism and the need for women to have mandated equal representation in both public and private forums.
In all of her work on behalf of women's issues, Tamir has been clear that a society's refusal to mandate full equality for women goes hand in hand with militarism and other violent and anti-liberal tendencies. And yet, in 1996, while a visiting professor at Harvard, Tamir authored an article defending female genital mutilation in the Arab world.
In the Islamic world, girls are forced to undergo clitoridectomies to deprive them of sexual pleasure and so "preserve" their "modesty." Yet Tamir argued in her article, "Hands off Clitoridectomy," published in The Boston Review, it is wrong to oppose the practice because doing so requires a rejection of multiculturalism.
As she put it, opponents of the barbaric practice, "intentionally widen the gap between our culture and those in which clitoridectomy is practiced, thus presenting those other cultures as incommensurable with ours. The effect of this distancing is to disconnect criticism of their practices from criticism of our own, and turn reflection on other cultures into yet another occasion for celebrating our special virtues."
Celebrating Western virtues is a no-no for Tamir, because doing so makes us likely to defend those values at the expense of her leftist appeasement agenda. If the West judges Arab societies that mutilate women and girls objectionable, it is likely to judge appeasing them as objectionable and so reject the political message of Tamir and her comrades. And so, as she sees it, it behoves "feminists" like her to defend clitoridectomies, which she did in that article.
As far as Tamir is concerned, cutting out a girl's genitalia is no different from pulling her teeth. As she put it, "Removing a tooth is also a painful procedure, often imposed on children, and if performed in non-hygienic conditions, it can produce permanent damage." Tamir then went on to say that criticizing female genital mutilation is itself an act of misogyny because by expressing concern for the practice, critics objectify women. They reduce them to mere sexual objects.
So for Tamir the feminist, rejecting the superiority of Western culture - which allows her to freely express her views, vote, run for office, own property and control the fate of her genitals - over Islamic culture - which allows her to do none of these things - is more important than defending women. Indeed, she is willing to empty the rhetoric of women's rights of all intrinsic meaning to advance the interests of her radical leftist ideological platform against its rightist rivals who trenchantly criticize the mutilation of women and girls.
AND, OF course, Tamir is not alone.
In the US presidential race, American feminists have lost all credibility as champions of women's rights in their support for the often pornographic, openly misogynist and unabashedly chauvinist assaults against Governor Sarah Palin. Kim Gandy, the leader of the National Organization for Women, has argued that due to Palin's opposition to abortion, she is not a woman. [
Dr Sanity on the how and why of the appalling criminal treatment of Sarah Palin. The groovy
Deborah Gyapong picked it up too.]
Ignoring her record of service and achievement in Alaskan politics, leftist commentators and politicians have attacked her clothes, her shoes, her hair, her glasses, her children, her figure. They have insinuated perverted sexual proclivities and they accused her of everything from harlotry to illiteracy.
In an interview with Yediot Aharonot on Friday, the
leftist American novelist Paul Auster, [GREAT link via rovianconspiracy on Auster the Leftard pervert and closet rapist] said of Palin, "There is something erotic about Palin that attracts people to her. Someone said that she reminds him of a strict schoolmarm, who wears a stripper's costume under her modest clothing.
I know this might sound funny, but I think that a lot of men are attracted to her and fantasize about being with her in bed. Particularly because she is conservative and far from all these erotic descriptions, the fantasy becomes even more powerful."
Auster then warned that if Palin is elected vice president, "a lot of good values will disappear from this country and we will become an evil, ugly country."
It apparently never occurred to him that his "funny" statements about Palin are the very epitome of ugliness and the absence of values like decency, tolerance and respect for women. And that's the thing of it.
THE ESSENCE of liberal democracy - the edifice on which liberalism and the democratic form of government were built - is reasoned discourse. Reasoned discourse can only take place when words like "values," "democracy," "law," "rights" and "equality" have intrinsic meanings that all members of society accept. When the Left empties these terms of their fundamental meaning and uses them only to enhance its political power at the expense of the Right, reasoned discourse is abandoned in favour of propaganda.
When equal rights are the exclusive privilege of leftist women rather than the natural right of all women, no woman can ever trust that her rights will be preserved. When the rhetoric of law is abused to advance the political power of the Left instead of defending the cause of blind justice, the rule of law is sacrificed in the name of leftist tyranny. When the cause of a nation is ignored in the interest of the fortunes of a faction, the fortunes of that faction will be advanced at the expense of the nation.
Auster told Yediot that the political discourse in the US has become so charged that dialogue is no longer possible between leftists and rightists. In his words, "We have reached a point where the two sides are no longer capable of speaking to one another, and I view this situation as a sort of civil war. There are no weapons or shooting. This is a civil war of ideas and separate ways of thinking, and often a war of ideas is the worst sort of war."
Auster's statement is true, and it applies to the entire Western world. But it is also true that one side bears the brunt of responsibility for the absence of discourse. The side that has destroyed the meaning of democracy, liberalism, feminism and racism to castigate and criminalize its political opponents is responsible for the absence of dialogue. And until the Left is compelled to acknowledge the intrinsic meaning of words rather than use vocabulary as a tool of political warfare, it is hard to see how this situation will improve.
caroline@carolineglick.com
The character Syme discussing
Newspeak with Winston Smith, in the George Orwell book 1984 via
Hotair."It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms.
After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take “good”, for instance.
If you have a word like “good”, what need is there for a word like “bad”? “Ungood” will do just as well — better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of “good”, what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like “excellent” and “splendid” and all the rest of them?
“Plusgood” covers the meaning, or “ doubleplusgood” if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already. but in the final version of Newspeak there’ll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words—in reality, only one word.
...Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year".
