Dressing Islam For Western Exploitation

 

COLLABORATING WITH INFAMY TO GET OIL.

Abstract: As the French National Assembly passed at near unanimity a law against covering the face of women against their will, another pseudo intellectual, pseudo feminist, thought controller of the University of Chicago, goes off the deep end, with big words and hollow ideas, calling France “unworthy”.

Wildly misinterpreting history, actuality, European law, democracy, Islam, professor Nussbaum makes a fool of herself, defending mandatory face covering for women and girls.

But Nussbaum’s real aim was to remind common Americans that European democracy was bad… And thus, implicitly, that American plutocracy was more "liberal", and is the superior model of civilization. When the truth is that the thirst of the USA’s "intelligence” agencies for oil is behind the Literalist Fundamentalist mess that a lot of countries with Muslim majorities have become. Nussbaum says that the burqa is good, but all she knows is that it helps to get oil.

***

AMERICAN HOLIER-THAN-THOU:

Dr. Nussbaum, somebody paid and honored by the powers-that-be in the USA, is an American "philosopher" and professor of American style "ethics" at this temple of plutocracy, the University of Chicago. As a salaried thinker, paid for having the thoughts that please the higher ups, she wrote in the New York Times, in "The Stone" series, that: "The proposed bans of the Muslim burqa in Europe are unworthy of liberal democracies." Ah, Europe, such an unworthy democracy… And what is a "Liberal" democracy? By contradistinction to what? “Illiberal” democracy? Plutocratic "democracy"?

I hold, instead, that it is racist to hold women in bondage, on the pretext that they are Muslim, and that wrapping all and any women below a tent is a form of cruel bondage. By making women stupid, hiding every parcel of their skin makes children, even sons, who are educated by women, also made less intelligent and autonomous than they would be otherwise. Thus bondage of women makes entire Muslim societies easier to exploit.

[Why should I not do like Glen Beck and, instead, attack the previous head of the "Black Panthers", who ordered to kill the "blue eyed babies"? Because that very bad man, this Hitler, as Beck said correctly, is not writing major editorials in the New York Times, and is not a respected American intellectual, a master American thinker, as Nussbaum is.]

The niqab, or burqa, the integral "veil" is a tent put on women, leaving only some spaces or holes so that they can see where they are going. It is often forced onto women through various threats and coercions. People who are NOT familiar with Islam, such as the pontificating Doctor Nussbaum, believe that to put a tent upon women is a command of Islam. But it is not.

The Qur’an only admonishes the wives of the Prophet to dress modestly, which was probably a veiled attack against Aisha, beloved child bride, and widow of Muhammad, who contested the veracity of the Qur’an which had been unfaithfully invented (she said) 20 years after her husband death. In the end, she led an army against the Qur’an. She was very clear that the Qur’an was sexist, and Muhammad was not (she was married with him at 6, consumed at 9, but loved him tenderly… albeit with some very independent practices which would get her stoned right away by today’s fanatics).

The French national Assembly voted by 335 votes, against one, a measly one, a crushing unanimity, to outlaw the imposition of ambulatory tents on women.

More exactly the law made unlawful to hide one’s face without any good reason (150 Euros fine, if the contrevenant persists, after being told to remove her face mask). Much more severe penalties await those who force women to be integrally covered up.

Burqas have been used to kill hundreds of people throughout the Middle East, just in the last year, because terrorists can hide weapons below them; but of course Ms. Nussbaum, European critique beyond the call of reason, probably secretly applauds terrorist attacks in Europe…. Nussbaum advocates burqas in Paris, I don’t see her advocating them in Tel Aviv! Some people would call that blatant racism.

Only one French MP voted against the burqa ban, indeed (and more than 70% of the French population wants a ban). Most green, socialist and communist MPs abstained (but 20 joined the conservative majority, including one prominent socialist and one prominent communist). The text is now going to the French Senate. Then it will go to the president. Then the French Constitutional Court and various European institutions will have a look at it. Individual European citizens can always complain DIRECTLY to the French Council of State, or the European Supreme Court, if they don’t like it. Because so can French citizens directly complain, avenues which are not open to American citizens.

The USA has no Council of State, no Constitutional Court, and access to the Supreme Court is neither direct, nor guaranteed, (and it’s not really a constitutional court anyway).

So when Nussbaum talks grandly about "liberal democracy", maybe she should analyze the lack of PLAIN democracy in the USA first. The lack of recourse of citizens. Anyway, what is a "liberal democracy"? An euphemism for "plutocracy"? In California the republican candidate for governor spent 91 million dollars of her own plutocratic money to hypnotize the people in believing in her worthiness. And this, more than four months before the election, already!

The proposed French law against the burqa imposes up to one year in jail and 30,000 Euros fine for anyone forcing a woman to hide her face, and double of both, if the imposition is on a minor.

What is it not to like, except if one is a hater of France, Muslim women and girls?

In the rest of this essay, I systematically demolish Nussbaum’s unworthy, hypocritical considerations. Her arguments are so ridiculously weak that they can easily skipped by rushed readers (they are in italics). I accuse her of collaborating with the plutocratic way to oil and war. To spice things up a bit, I bring higher perspectives, here and there.

***

PLAYING WITH FIRE: LITERALIST ISLAM AS FUNDAMENTAL USA POLICY.

This put matters Islamist in American perspective. Ever since the extensive meeting between USA president Roosevelt and King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia, the USA has made a pact with the evil of Literalist, Fundamentalist Islam. Literalist Islam was the successor of fanatical fundamentalist Christianism, which devastated the Roman empire, and made it a place of anti-intellectualism, a sorry episode known as the Dark Ages (an aftershock of which was the Crusades).

The American government computation was simple: send us your oil, and we will control your population with obscurantism (in this case Literalist, Fundamentalist Islam). There was an opening, because France and Britain, which had controlled the Middle East, had been devastated by the war against Hitler (and were immensely indebted to their belated rescuer of sorts, the USA, which had timed it just right).

 

The plot thickens. Ibn Saud (center) meets with FDR (right) and American brass, for about a week on USS Quincy, after the Yalta Conference.

***

France and Britain had been leery of Islam, which they had pretty much left to its own devices (a major mistake). (P/S 1).

France, which had taken a very strong, forceful secular stance, finally expropriating the Christian Church in 1905, left Islam alone. France had incorporated Judeo-Christianism in a "Concordat" (churches are the property of the state in France, which then takes care of them). But not Islam. France is actually only now incorporating Islam on an equal basis with Judeo-Christianism (so many municipalities, including Strasbourg, are building mosques, and provide help to do so. The mayor of Strasbourg protested that the proposed minaret was too short; just to relax everybody, and on purely aesthetic grounds, let me point out that I also support the tallest minarets).

The manipulation of Literalist, Fundamentalist Islam by the USA government resulted in many coups (Iran, 1953), intolerable Muslim Fundamentalist dictatorships (Pakistan, 1961), and wars.

In particular, the Afghanistan war started in the 1970s at the instigation of Pakistani intelligence, supported by the American CIA, and brought the Soviet intervention of 1979; in turn the Americans brought in bin Laden and his rich boys, propelled by Saudi money; from an Afghan nationalist perspective, Pakistan and the USA have been waging war inside the country for 40 years.

It ought to have become obvious to all that supporting Fundamentalist Literalist Islam backfired on 9/11. But the American public opinion was made to believe other things, such as the ludicrous assertion that American policy had nothing to do with it.

In this governmental processes of making people believe that what is, is not, and what is not, is, American intellectuals play a crucial, supporting role (European intellectuals instead know that they pretty much will amount to nothing, historically speaking, if they agree with their governments, and they are taken seriously by the European populations as a check and balance for governmental power: Nazism and Stalinism, if nothing else, showed that intellectuals supporting the Party line are at best corrupt idiots).

Europe, long in denial, is finally understanding that it has a Muslim problem. French president De Gaulle tried to cut France off its Muslim link. Although Algerians had overwhelmingly voted for the new French secular constitution, many metropolitan French were closet racists, in leftist, social, human rights disguise, so they wanted nothing to do with Algeria, and de Gaulle dumped Algeria.

Unsurprisingly, that did not work, because Islam still occupies the half of the Roman empire it conquered in a few years (640 CE to 710 CE). That means that Islam is geographically glued to Europe.

The problem with Islam is that it is a superstition that wants to rule. Everything. Under "God". Serious Islam Fundamentalists divide the world in two pieces: THE "HOUSE OF SUBMISSION, AND THE HOUSE OF WAR". And that is why Islam was the best excuse and organizing principle to conquer by the sword about half of the accessible world in a few years. Unsurprisingly, ever since, Islam, a war theology, has run out of juice (not to say Christianity, the parent of Islam, was not a war theology either!) The Golden Age of Islam was mostly because of a number of accidental factors… first of which being that islam ruled over a Judeo-Christian majority freed from Roman religious oppression… and was killed by Literalist Islam itself.

Many intellectuals, and not all of them American, have subscribed to a Mickey-Mouse view of Islam, perfectly coherent with the view of American conservatives that the American Constitution is an implementation of the Bible. Actually implementing the bible was Muhammad’s fundamental program and call. So, fundamentally, American neo-conservatives are strict followers of Muhammad. Somebody ought to tell them.

The USA is at a strange juncture. Many Muslims have realized that Literalist, Fundamentalist Islam was used against them, by the USA and allied plutocrats such as the Saudi family princes. Bin Laden was, for two decades, the CIA’s most prominent collaborator. But no more. Bin Laden’s way out of that manipulation has been to call it for what it is, out-literalize it, and out-fundamentalize it. So the USA finds itself in a situation Rome had known many times, when a mercenary turns against the imperial hand that made him. More deeply, the very strategy of encouraging Islam, long the USA’s plutocracy preferred weapon against European colonialists and Middle Eastern progressives, has now become a weapon against the USA.

My overall opinion is that manipulating superstition is conduct unbecoming a powerful secularist civilization. Islam ought to be treated strictly identically to Judeo-Christianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism. Secularism is the religion, superstitions are tolerated within bounds.

To claim that outlawing the imposition of the Burqa is against democracy is grotesquely sexist, and aims at keeping obscurantism strong, so that plutocracy can be strong too.

***

LONG LIVE ISLAM, LONG LIVE WAR:

On one hand, Obama comes around, and lauds Islam. On the other hand, he bombs the heck out of Muslims, with robots, and supports with billions of subsidies Israel’ s intemperate policies of building all sorts of giant walls (emotional, conceptual, and physical). OK, Obama did not invent the last policy, and he seems to genuinely disagree with Israel’s excesses. But he went full out into Afghanistan, and this, even Bush was not stupid enough to do.

This is where it starts to make a weird sort of sense. Bush held back going full blast into Afghanistan. It is hard to attribute sophisticated reasons to Bush, but the fact that Afghanistan has a Fundamentalist, Literalist interpretation of Islam as the core of its constitution, may have given him pause: he had already got what the USA wanted.

In any case, if NATO is going to have an army of more than 150,000 in Afghanistan, supposedly to protect the Islamist constitution, one has to love Islamists and the constitutions they come up with.

***

DECONSTRUCTION OF NUSSBAUM’S UNWORTHY RAMBLE:

Nussbaum says in the New York Times online edition:

"a proposed ban on the Muslim burqa in all public places… may soon become national law in France and Belgium.  Even the headscarf often causes trouble.  In France, girls may not wear it in school.  In Germany (as in parts of Belgium and the Netherlands) some regions forbid public school teachers to wear it on the job, although nuns and priests are permitted to teach in full habit.  What does political philosophy have to say about these developments? "

Ms. Nussbaum, a paid "philosopher", should learn that WISDOM STARTS BY NOT FEEDING PEOPLE LIES. Disinformation, especially when blatant, is a lie. In France girls cannot wear the scarf as a religious symbol in PUBLIC schools.

The law is not anti-Muslim, it outlaws large symbols of appurtenance to a tribal group, sect, or superstitious religion. The law bans all religious/tribal symbols bigger than a square centimeter or so. France has learned a few things from 18 centuries of religious wars.

There are private Muslim schools, where girls could be made into tents, if their administrators so wished. Nuns and priests, just as Muslim scholars, are free to teach in religious garb of their own choosing, as long as they are not naked, and as long as they are teaching in private religious schools (or for peculiar religious teachings, but then Muslim priests can be dressed as Muslims, and so can Sikh).

Ms. Nussbaum is apparently unaware of the notion of SECULAR state. Public schools are schools of the secular state, which is religion neutral, so the teachers of public schools cannot loudly advocate a particular superstitious religion. The religion of the secular state is secularism, that is what the secular state PREACHES.

Nussbaum asks: "All human beings are equal bearers of human dignity.  It is widely agreed that government must treat that dignity with equal respect. But what is it to treat people with equal respect in areas touching on religious belief and observance?"

What of human sacrifices and anthropophagia, Nussbaum? Most known religions practiced them. Are we treating religious cannibals with equal respect and observance?

Then Nussbaum refers with reverence to the founders and framers of the American Constitution. All good American neo-conservatives engage in this funny exercise. The notorious Glen Beck, Fox news master of time travel (back to the past), spends years on the concept. I will explain another time why it is such a terrible thing. The French may as well refer all the time about Robespierre. Except Robespierre’s insanities are in plain sight, easy to demolish.

What USA framers and founders teach, instead, is, often (not always), a high level hypocrisy. The fundamental method of the framers and founders was about saying the opposite of what one is truly doing. Their words were stolen from philosophers, but the aim was the opposite. This goes on, to this day, from Wall Street to Iraq and Afghanistan. True, the USA became a temple of freedom, inside its white population. But there was no means in Washington to make it different. Where Washington could make different was the massacre of the Indians. But, instead of preventing it, it accelerated it. This puts Lincoln’s dreadful courage in opposing slavery in an even more imposing contrast.

But let’s launch Dr. Nussbaum, and her anti-European, befuddling discourse:

"…the recent European cases all involve discriminatory laws…  Let’s focus on the burqa; arguments made there can be adapted to other cases.

Five arguments are commonly made in favor of proposed bans.  Let’s see whether they treat all citizens with equal respect.  First, it is argued that security requires people to show their faces when appearing in public places.  A second, closely related, argument says that the kind of transparency and reciprocity proper to relations between citizens is impeded by covering part of the face.

What is wrong with both of these arguments is that they are applied inconsistently.

It gets very cold in Chicago – as, indeed, in many parts of Europe.  Along the streets we walk, hats pulled down over ears and brows, scarves wound tightly around noses and mouths.  No problem of either transparency or security is thought to exist, nor are we forbidden to enter public buildings so insulated.  Moreover, many beloved and trusted professionals cover their faces all year round: surgeons, dentists, (American) football players, skiers and skaters. What inspires fear and mistrust in Europe, clearly, is not covering per se, but Muslim covering."

No wonder Ms Nussbaum is paid such respect, and such compensation: it has got to be hard and painful to emit such absurdities with intellectual pretense. By the way, there are already laws in part of Europe, outlawing covering faces around violent demonstrations: French police can just grab people who wear clothing that hides them to check their identity. That anti-covering law was passed after violent demonstrations in Strasbourg (seat of the European Parliament, and of what was long the tallest monument in the world, the Strasbourg cathedral, object of a demolition project of Al Qaeda, which was stopped by Franco-German police). Some building were set on fire by professional thugs (many coming from other countries), hiding below hoods and masks.

Nussbaum; the intellectual mercenary, pursues her relentless descent in making fun of thinking: "A third argument, very prominent today, is that the burqa is a symbol of male domination … A Catalonian legislator recently called the burqa a “degrading prison.” … those who make that argument typically don’t know much about Islam and would have a hard time saying what symbolizes what in that religion.  But the more glaring flaw in the argument is that society is suffused with symbols of male supremacy … Sex magazines, nude photos, tight jeans — all of these products, arguably, treat women as objects, as do so many aspects of our media culture.  And what about the “degrading prison” of plastic surgery?…  Isn’t much of this done in order to conform to a male norm of female beauty that casts women as sex objects? Proponents of the burqa ban do not propose to ban all these objectifying practices.  Indeed, they often participate in them. And banning all such practices on a basis of equality would be an intolerable invasion of liberty. Once again, then, the opponents of the burqa are utterly inconsistent, betraying a fear of the different that is discriminatory and unworthy of a liberal democracy.  The way to deal with sexism, in this case as in all, is by persuasion and example, not by removing liberty."

OK, guilty nearly all of us are, we must confess, of letting "sex" come around. Instead we ought to be old fashion prudes: they apparently knew nothing of sex, never had it, and wore baggy clothing. Notice how many weasel words Nussbaum uses: "typically", "arguably", etc. Anybody can use "arguably" about anything whatsoever. Arguably, arguably is the world’s top weasel word. Notice also that Nussbaum seems unaware that laws are all about removing liberties that existed, and are outlawed thereafter. This is how the concept of law works, Nussbaum: by forbidding what was allowed before, removing liberties. In particular sexism has shrunk, because sexist practices have been increasingly outlawed in the West.

***

What’s beautiful about dreadful ignorance, is that it can be dressed under voluminous discourses:

Nussbaum tries to look informed and subtle: "When Turkey banned the veil long ago, there was a good reason in that specific context: because women who went unveiled were being subjected to harassment and violence.  The ban protected a space for the choice to be unveiled, and was legitimate so long as women did not have that choice.  We might think of this as a “substantial burden” justified (temporarily) by a “compelling state interest.”  But in today’s Europe women can dress more or less as they please; there is no reason for the burden to religious liberty that the ban involves."

Nussbaum does not allow for the possibility that, locally, the (forced) burqa wearers would become so thick on the ground that even women passing by would be violated too. Nussbaum obviously has not lived in a Muslim majority community.

What Nussbaum also does not know is that the anti-burqa laws amount to light fines for the wearers of the disguises, but heavy punishment, and jail time, for those who force women to wear the veil.

Nussbaum, as a good weasel, addresses the point: "A fourth argument holds that women wear the burqa only because they are coerced.  This is a rather implausible argument to make across the board, and it is typically made by people who have no idea what the circumstances of this or that individual woman are."

Well, Nussbaum, however implausible crimes and circumstances are, they happen, and the laws are there to dissuade them. There is plenty of evidence of women coerced to wear tents, all over the world, under Islamist pretense.

Nussbaum asserts that the burqa itself is not violence, in a sneaky way:"it seems at least plausible that observant Muslim families will turn out to have less [violence].

Suppose there were evidence that the burqa was strongly associated, statistically, with violence against women. Could government could legitimately ban it on those grounds?  The U. S. Supreme Court has held that nude dancing may be banned on account of its contingent association with crime, including crimes against women"…

Well, we did not expect anything else from the temple of prudery: nude dancing bad, burqa dancing good. The USA ought to allow only BURQA DANCING.

"Finally, says Nussbaum, I’ve heard the argument that the burqa is per se unhealthy, because it is hot and uncomfortable.  (Not surprisingly, this argument is made in Spain.)  This is perhaps the silliest of the arguments.  Clothing that covers the body can be comfortable or uncomfortable, depending on the fabric… It is surely far from clear that the amount of skin displayed in typical Spanish female dress would meet with a dermatologist’s approval.  But more pointedly, would the arguer really seek to ban all uncomfortable and possibly unhealthy female clothing?  Wouldn’t we have to begin with high heels, delicious as they are?  But no, high heels are associated with majority norms (and are a major Spanish export), so they draw no ire.

What about vitamin D, Nussbaum? Sun exposure can be good. It is surely very close to clear, to parody her devious rhetoric, that Nussbaum is grasping at straws. And Ms Nussbaum to resonate on her tin drum one more time:

All five arguments are discriminatory.  We don’t even need to reach the delicate issue of religiously grounded accommodation to see that they are utterly unacceptable in a society committed to equal liberty.  Equal respect for conscience requires us to reject them."

What we should reject is intellectual prostitution. Differently from sexual prostitution, it’s really lethal. Hitler got a huge lift from too many German intellectuals supporting him and his policies.

***

Conclusion: PLUTOCRACY, RIGHT OR WRONG, EUROPE, ALWAYS WRONG: Why does Nussbaum, supposedly a feminist, makes such a fool of herself? Because American intellectuals get bonus points when they say anything against Europe. It is the World Cup of intellectual supremacy, and the plutocracy of the USA has a lot to lose if European ideas progress in the USA.

Now Europe consists in more than three dozen cultures, 500 million people, and has a long tradition of solving problems through brainwork (for better or worse, learning in both cases). Whereas the solution, in the USA, to solve problem, often consisted simply in "GO WEST, YOUNG MAN". That has been both the advantage and the bane of the USA. It made for an easy life, and also a tradition of easy thinking.

Now, however, there is no West to go to, and free energy and land are on their way out. Actually, it seems that California, as west as one can go, is sinking in the ocean. Or at least an ocean of debt (as major cities go bankrupt, basic government functions are discontinued).

People such as Nussbaum talk about Islam, but never obviously never studied the Qur’an, a very short book (400 pages, about). That was the book Aisha went to war against. According to Islam Fundamentalists of the violent type, there are about 200 hundred very clear passages commanding extreme violence in the Qur’an. One can capture women in war ("those who you right hand possess") and "do whatever you please with them". Including enslaving them, and having sex with the girls (it’s completely explicit in the Qur’an). Anyway, I have put some of the violent quotes together, somewhere else on this site, no need to go read bin Laden himself (which I recommend doing).
So please consult the Qur’an itself as found in: https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/some-violence-in-holy-quran/

There is even worse violence in the Hadith (gossip about Muhammad). Let me say in passing that I was quasi born, and certainly raised, and educated in Muslim countries, and not just 4 years like Obama on the periphery of Islam, I know what I am talking about, and the quotes above are from best translations.

Apparently, Nussbaum has not read about unadulterated Islam for years. Here is an example: BERLIN, Sep 29, 2006 (IPS) – Amnesty International has issued an urgent appeal calling on its members to write letters to the Republic of Iran asking them not to stone seven women. The women have been sentenced to die by stoning for adultery. There are cases such as these all the time. In July 2010, a woman was sentenced for death by stoning, because she, allegedly, had sex with two men, well after her husband death from natural circumstances. That is adultery, as far as Islamist law is concerned. Oh, yes, because Islam, being everything, is also a judicial system.

That is why French Muslims and others are anxious to define an "Islam de France" : there are instructions, in the Qur’an to give precedence to local traditions, when the situation is not too clear. By the way, although a professor of divinity, Nussbaum, has not done her homework: strict Quranic scholarship makes it very clear that the burqa ought to be forbidden in France, because it is not the tradition there, and the Qur’an actually does not order it. But of course Nussbaum’s true aim is to call Europeans names. As usual, Islam is just a weapon of choice for America’s best.

Nussbaum uses her naivety as a weapon. It is impossible that she is that stupid. To serve her masters, those who use religious strife to reign, divide, steal, kill, she is ready to debase her mental faculties publicly.

When one hears Obama talks about Jesus, and God, and then one sees him throwing civilization out of the window in Afghanistan, in ways reminiscent of Terminator movies, superior European minds who learned lessons from history know how it relates: this sort of tricks, of talking peace while killing indiscriminately, was used by the imposer of Christianity, Constantine, 17 centuries ago (Hitler was one of the recent practitioners, of the exact same method, complete with loud and obnoxious calls to God and peace).

It does not come to the minds of the apologists of the burqa that most Muslims move to Europe, precisely to flee Literalist Islam. The laws white pontificator Nussbaum complains about are supported by Muslims in Europe (most of them: there are always extremists who live from their extremism).

Differently from the Ms. "Philosopher"-who-has-not-studied-enough-history, Europeans know very well that religions caused enormous miseries in Europe in the last 2 millennia.

The Romans had banned the old Celtic religion, because of its religious sacrifices. Too bad they did not ban Christianity in time, too. The ravages of Christianity in the Late Roman empire caused the Dark Ages. When the Franks dominated Europe, they did, because they operated a fundamentally secular civilization, tolerant to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, and Agnostics. The Church was forced to rebuild what it had destroyed, public education.

The author accuses Europeans of racism, which is not deprived of a hefty dose of irony, coming from someone who writes from such a racist country. In France, there are more than 6 million Muslims (and more, if one counts all those of part Muslim and, a fortiori, Jewish, ancestry). Several powerful French women politicians are (practicing, they claim!) Muslims, some are in the government, and they strongly support, and push for, laws to keep Literalist Islam in check, including laws against women-as-tents.

Practicing and preaching Literalist Islam used to be a capital crime in Egypt in 1,300 CE. This is actually the birth, not of Islam, but of fundamentalist Islam: the founder was condemned to perpetual detention, and died in jail. This is the Islam Nussbaum celebrates, and the Saudis supposedly practice, and the Islam advocated by Al Qaeda.

A valid objections could be that Great Britain, with less than a fourth of the number of Muslims that France has, is tolerant of the niqab/burqa. Well, we will see how long that last. There were terrible terrorist attacks from British born Muslim against other Brits, something France has not known. So the "Londonistan" policy, of not integrating Islam, seems to have come short, and the USA is showing the same symptoms; with a Muslim population not greater than France, scores of USA born Muslims were arrested for terrorism related to their interpretation of Islam, recently.

Ms Nussbaum became famous for "The Fragility of Goodness", in which she argues that individuals strongly committed to justice are vulnerable to external factors that may deeply compromise or even negate their initial aims, an observation about as deep as her lipstick (should she wear lipstick, by the way? Does not she self degrade herself into a "sex object", by doing so?). In other words: hey guys, we are all corrupt, so let’s splurge, now that we know we were good, but fragile. ‘I lost my goodness, me Nussbaum, and I am one more damsel in distress!’

We all know that Ms. Nussbaum will be the first to howl with the wolves to suspend the constitution of the USA once a Muslim terrorist has detonated a dirty nuclear bomb on Times Square. She seems less about principle, rather than about opportunity in the termite mound. Real philosophers are made of sturdier stuff, and do not worry about fragility of others’ minds. Otherwise they would not get any sleep. Termites are just food for thought.

***

Patrice Ayme

***

P/S 1: France and Britain had been leery of Islam, which was plain ignored, and left to its own devices, in the 19C and 20 C. (There is a long tradition of this, because when the Franks reconquered the half of France Muslim invaders had occupied, the Muslims were left alone, and got discreetly reabsorbed in the Frankish state which viewed itself as secular… only the African, Berber, and Arab genes were left behind; this tolerance made France very different from what would happen in Spain five centuries later, when Jews and Muslims were thrown out… but, of course, Spaniards had good reasons to be extremely bitter, whereas the Franks destroyed the Muslims, fair, square, and hard, so an intolerable occupation did not happen too long).

***

P/S 2: Nussbaum is obsessed by women as “sex objects”, as you can see:

clip_image001

clip_image002

Nussbaum in 2004. Notice the discretely feminine attire, and big seductive smile, forms of the "objectification" of woman that Nussbaum fustigates in her opinions; Nussbaum converted to Judaism as an adult, and has been loudly involved in that superstition. Embracing Dog is a must for serious people in the USA. Nussbaum is generally viewed as a major feminist and intellectual, not the minor insect I morphed her into for the "Veiled Threats" essay.

Nussbaum, though not a lawyer, is currently "Ernst Freund" Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, a chair that includes appointments in the Philosophy Department, the Law School, and the Divinity School. She also holds associate appointments in Classics and Political Science, is a member of the Committee on Southern Asian Studies, and is a Board Member of the Human Rights Program. She previously taught at Harvard and Brown, where she held the rank of university professor. With these sort of arrogantlynaive propagandists, the American universities are crammed with.

Nussbaum is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Science (elected 1988), the American Philosophical Society, and was elected a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy. She is a Founding President of the Human Development and Capability Association and a Past President of the American Philosophical Association. She has 33 honorary degrees from colleges and universities in North America, Europe, and Asia. In February 2009 she received the A.SK Social Science Award for contributions to "social system reform" from the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB). In September 2005 Nussbaum was listed among the world’s Top 100 intellectuals by Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines. She was similarly listed by Foreign Policy in 2008. In spring 2009, she won the American Philosophical Society‘s Henry M. Phillips Prize in Jurisprudence. Anyway, she is the big enchilada, hence fair game.

***

Tags: ,

4 Responses to “Dressing Islam For Western Exploitation”

  1. Cliffhanger Says:

    Patrice,

    The ban, as far as I understand it, is a ban on wearing the burqa.. nothing about being AGAINST a woman’s will. It is simply banned which doesn’t bode well for a democracy. Of course no one should be FORCED to wear them but having the OPTION to wear should be a right. I can walk around Oakland with one on as can you. I should be able to do the same in France if I want.

    I should have CHOICE. That is all I’m saying. SHOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL to wear a burqa!! absolutely not. I should be free to wear what I want.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks for the scream from the heart, Cliffhanger!

      Several remarks:

      0) Civilization is not about I want-I want-I want-I WANT. That obsession with one’s improperly examined wants is Aristotle pursuit of (personal) happiness at its best, and that is why Aristotle approved of slavery: it made him happy. (I know Aristotle claimed that personal happiness was maximized by global happiness, etc, but it is a fact he put happy and personal before “Liberty-Equality-Fraternity”… which neither he nor his teacher Plato, and grand teacher Socrates had, prominently.)

      1) As I said the proposed “ban” has been misrepresented in the USA, by anti-French media.

      2) I explained what the law is about, and it’s not just about banning face coverings for women. Jail is for those who force women to wear the burqa. And there are plenty of these, contrarily to what the deliberately naive Nussbaum claims. She obviously has never been is some Muslim countries, where she, Nussbaum, would not even go alone it to the street, or drive a car.

      3) We will see how long the burqa in the USA survives the first terrorist event by burqa wearing terrorists (as has happened many times overseas, including in French controlled territory; France has waited 60 years for this law…).

      4) The Jewish Nussbaum does not advocate the burqa for Tel Aviv, just Paris. That’s racism.

      5) As far as I am concerned to criticize the outlawing of the burqa is not just anti French racism, but deeply anti-democratic, since the National Assembly voted 335 to 1, more than 70% of the people approve, and the law was already modified by the French Constitutional Court (the USA has NO constitutional Court). Technically the law prohibits face coverings, extending an existing law during demonstration.

      6) If one wants to worry about democracy, the 92 millions of her own money spent by the eBay CEO and ex Goldman girl, this is where the worry should be put. This she did five month already before the election, and now she is increasing her spending. Next California governor will be as good as plutocratic money can buy.
      PA

      Like

  2. JMG Says:

    From: J McG Tue, Jul 27, 2010 3:45 pm
    RE: minaret building banned last year by Suisse

    Patrice,

    Well written. ‘Agree Nussbaum’s position on the burqa (sp?) is ridiculous and indefensible. Why do much (too much) decorated and overpaid “philosophers” promote ridiculous arguments? Very simple. Because academia promotes super-arrogance amongst its pre-eminent snobs, lauding them continuously even when they make foolish arguments from their bully pulpits.

    SNIP
    “Differently from the Ms. “Philosopher”-who-has-not-studied-enough-history, Europeans know very well that religions caused enormous miseries in Europe in the last 2 millennia…”

    Touche!

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Jeff!
      Snubbery, super-arrogance, as you say, are well in evidence, indeed. My further, even more sinister explanation is that people such as Nussbaum are actually WATCHDOGS for the established, plutocratic order. The word and concept comes from Paul Nizan, a French philosopher, friend, inspirer and colleague of Sartre, who died in the Battle of Dunkirk, fighting against the German Nazi army in World War II. He even wrote an entire book about it.
      By the way, I do not agree about the minaret ban. I just think minarets should be pretty, and tall… Some mosques, say in Iran, are the among the world’s most beautiful buildings. I love beautiful architecture.
      PA

      Like

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: