Not long after 9/11, one of the smartest men I know told me that, when it comes to Islam’s battle with the West, “it’s all about control over women and access to sex.” That’s a simplification for an existential war that involves fundamental beliefs, rather than mere land borders, but I think he’s on to something.
His insight is also part of the reason that the Left is having such trouble with Islam — because for the Left, it’s also all about sex and control. While Islam views citizen control as vesting sexual power in men and denying it to women, the Left views citizen control as vesting sexual power in the state and denying it to the traditional family and religious units that once advocated keeping sexuality within a Judeo-Christian context of heterosexual monogamy. (I’ve expanded on that topic at American Thinker.)
Building upon the foundation of my friend’s insight, the events of the last 15 years have furthered my understanding of the fact that (a) the Islamist need to use sex as a means to control women and (b) the Leftist need to control everyone by using sex as the opiate of the people — and that while Islam understands and loathes the West, Leftists keep thinking Islam is just a different type of groovy. Three articles that popped up on my radar today help illustrate these ideas.
The first, this morning, was the news today about an Imam in England who said that one of the glories of Islam is that men get to keep sex slaves:
An Imam has told his congregation in Wales that war is approaching and Islam allows them to take women as slaves and rape them.
In the audio, Imam Hammuda is heard telling a group of young men: “One of the interpretations as to what this means is that towards the end of time there will be many wars like what we are seeing today, and because of these wars women will be taken as captives, as slaves, yeah, women will be taken as slaves.
“And then, her master has relations with her because this is permissible in Islam, it’s permissible to have relations with a woman who is your slave or your wife.”
More than 5,000 non-Muslim Yazidi women and girls were abducted by Islamic State in 2014. Many have been trafficked and traded on slave markets.
Surat An-Nisa, verse 24 of the Koran, reads: “And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls.”
We in the West shudder when we read that, but it is a very powerful message to young men, not just Muslim young men. After all, young men are all about sex. There are only two things that rein them in: fear of dominant males and social norms preventing them from acting on their sexual urges.
In the West, we’ve neutered our dominant males by insisting that masculinity is a toxic disease that must be destroyed (enter Pajama Boy, who’s handed all of his testosterone to TrigglyPuff). Also, while the West preaches the virtue of endless sexual gratification, the reality is that our average spotty male adolescents aren’t getting any of the good stuff.
Self-conscious and awkward, and dismally aware of their lack of sexual attraction, the healthy ones patiently wait to grow up. The mentally ill ones, or the ones placed in a mentally ill culture, turn to violence. That’s the stuff of the shock troops of hardcore Islam. These shock troops are joined by adult men who have passed through adolescence but who live in such a sexually segregated culture that they’re not getting any either.
The second thing I saw today was something from Mark Steyn that dates all the way back to April. I somehow missed it when it came out, but it’s timeless and worth sharing now. In Toronto, there’s something called the “Munk Debate” which seems to be Canada’s answer to the Oxford Debates.
For the debate held this Spring, Leftists Simon Schama and Louise Arbour were pitted against conservatives Mark Steyn and Nigel Farage to address this question: “Be it resolved: Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Schama and Arbour stood for the feel-goodism of a completely open door immigrant policy.
Steyn and Farage stood for the principle that Muslims, especially those from Syria, Afghanistan, and other surrounding fundamentalist nations, are sui generis when it comes to immigration. Too many of them arrive, not as pilgrims to a promised land of liberty and economic opportunity, but as the leading edge of an ideological (and physical) conquest.
While Arbour and Schama talked almost tearfully about people packed on boats, Steyn talked forcefully about rapes, many, many rapes (and this was before the Germans finally admitted that there were 1,200 sexual assaults in Cologne alone on New Year’s Eve). Steyn’s focus on the damage Islamic immigration does to Western women led both Arbour and Schama to make snarky jokes about sex, cheap shots that completely enraged Steyn. I’m not going to bother to summarize what happened next. You must watch this short video because a righteously enraged Steyn is a sight to behold:
(You can read more about Steyn’s own post-debate take on the matter here.*)
That is very powerful stuff. So powerful that many in the audience managed to understand that Islam’s version of sex is very different from the West’s. Barbara Kay, who was present at the debate, explains:
The Munk tradition is to poll the audience before and after the debate. On this occasion, the audience was, as one might expect with a Toronto audience, heavily salted with elite liberal culturati, and the first poll was 77 per cent for the motion, 23 per cent con. After the debate, the pro vote was 55 per cent and the con 45 per cent, a huge shift in opinion, and therefore a handy win for the cons.
To some audience members (not to me, but for example to my furiously tweeting companion, a young colleague who happens to bear the same last name as me), Steyn dwelt excessively on the sexual crimes we’ve all read about in Cologne, Hamburg, Malmö and elsewhere. So it apparently seemed to Arbour and Schama, because they mocked Steyn for it in their rebuttals. Arbour sneered at both Steyn and Farage as “newborn feminists” (she got a laugh), while Schama disgraced himself with “I’m just struck by how obsessed with sex these two guys are, actually. It’s a bit sad, really.” (That got a very big laugh.) I took one look at Steyn’s glowering face after that remark — Schama will regret having said it to his dying day, I know it — and I kind of felt sorry for those two liberals, because I knew what was coming.
Steyn slowly rose and riposted, in a tone of withering contempt, “I wasn’t going to do funny stuff. I was going to be deadly serious. (But) I’m slightly amazed at Simon’s ability to get big laughs on gang rape.” Vigorous applause. He went on, “Mme Arbour scoffs at the ‘newfound feminists.’ I’m not much of a feminist, but I draw the line at a three year old … and a seven year old getting raped.” Vigorous applause.
I think that was the moment those of the audience who did change their minds got it.
When Arbour and Schama didn’t like the opposition’s message — no images, just descriptions they interpreted as racist — they chose to shoot the messenger with ridicule, a debating error and an intellectually dishonest strategy.
A civilized culture, which takes centuries of painstaking collaborative work to create, can be easily destroyed, and quickly. This is a reality conservatives understand, but liberals, consumed by guilt for past collective sins, and morally disarmed before the Other, choose to ignore. The Munk debate illuminated this important distinction, and for a change, realism won.
It’s one thing to have a culture that stupifies you with pleasurable, albeit soulless, sex; it’s another thing entirely to have a culture that uses sex as both sword and cudgel (never a shield). Moreover, a society that uses sex as the Muslims do (namely, as an instrument of power and control) way cannot tolerate any deviation — and few things deviate more than open homosexuality between two adults.
It’s one thing for a powerful male to use a powerless little catamite for sex, something that is normative in much of the Muslim Middle East. This institutionalized pedophilia doesn’t alter the fundamental power structure; men are still on top, figuratively and literally. But when two men opt not to exercise their sexual power over women or small boys in favor of sexual pleasure with each other . . . well, that cannot be countenanced.
I have been writing for years about Islam’s deadly hostility to male homosexuality. The Left has been ignoring me. The Left has also been ignoring every other tocsin from every other thoughtful, informed person about Islam’s war on gays.
While we in America are fighting over transgender potty rights and gay marriage, ISIS has been routinely tossing gays off of buildings, at least when it’s not engaged in other, even more horrible, methods of killing them. But to the Left, it’s always the Christian right (the ones who love the sinner, if not the sin) who are the bad guys that must be destroyed.
All that changed in Orlando. Despite the desperate media effort to spin Omar Mateen’s killing spree as the fault of Republicans, whites, Christians, Donald Trump, etc., as more data emerged, it became hard to ignore the fact that Mateen was not a Republican, he was not a self-loathing homosexual, and he was not someone enraged by Donald Trump. Instead, he was a garden-variety Muslim fanatic who, having a sudden need to purify himself for Paradise (home of those 72 perpetually re-virginized houris who can’t wait for a brutal Muslim man to rape them regularly for eternity), opted to hope on the fast train to heaven by taking out homosexuals.
It was an appalling thing to have happened but even appalling things can sometimes change the dynamic for the better. In the case of gays, many of them started realizing two things: One, that guns are a good thing to have when you’re trapped in a building by an armed warrior for Allah. And two, that conservatives are not crazy haters for recognizing that jihadists are targeting us and we need to take appropriate defensive steps within our border, at our border, and outside of our border.
So it is that gay men are beginning to support Trump, not because they’re racist or self-loathing or stupid, but because they’ve realized that they share a common enemy with Jews, Christians, non-Muslim women, and all others who seldom survive front line interactions with ISIS and its ilk:
According to Reuters polling, LGBT support for Donald Trump has risen with relative consistency over the last several months.
In March, Trump had just 13.5% support from LGBT voters, but in May, that rose to 18.3%. Trump’s numbers took a slight dip in June before rocketing to 23% in late July. However, it must be noted that the sample size of the July poll is quite small.
Trump’s 23% support puts him right in line with Mitt Romney, who received 23% of the LGBT vote in 2012, and John McCain, who received 27% in 2008, according to Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.
[Lucian] Wintrich, who recently came under fire for photographing models wearing “Make America Great Again” hats, says he’s “enjoyed Trump ever since his feud with Rosie O’Donnell.”
However, it’s Trump’s position regarding Islamic extremism that’s a central part of Wintrich’s interest:
“We have a growing problem internationally with Islamic extremism. Donald Trump has for the first time called this out as an ideological problem, and placed it center stage for discussion and debate.
According to an ICM Unlimited survey, a majority of Muslims in London want homosexuality banned, yet Hillary wants a 500% increase of Syrians in America.
Oddly enough, we are not allowed to say ‘I really don’t want sixty-five thousand people here who, statistically, at best, want me arrested, and at worst, want me dead.’ The second you say that, people shout ‘Islamophobia!’”
In the end, Wintrich says “freedom” is the most essential aspect of his support for Trump, which he doesn’t see as a priority with Hillary Clinton:
“I want to live in a country where people don’t trash cartoonists for drawing Muhammad, but embrace them for confronting a pre-enlightenment way of thinking. I want to live in a country where university students don’t attempt to defund their school newspaper because of an op-ed critiquing Black Lives Matter.
Paramount to all of this, I want to live in a country where constitutional freedoms are protected rather than persecuted. All of these issues I see a Clinton presidency only exacerbating, and a Trump presidency extinguishing.”
Wintrich notes that Donald Trump has been consistently pro-gay throughout most of his career and only recently cooled to please the Republican base. However, he says Clinton “has always been a gay rights opportunist.”
Go here to get a similar take on the matter from Christopher Barron, co-founder of GOProud. We can only hope that more people figure out that while Islam is centered on sex, that’s not a good thing because it’s the wrong kind of centering on the wrong kind of sex. If the Left continues to allow its sexual libertinism to blind it to the fury Muslims feel towards a culture that threatens to destroy the Muslim world’s entire sexual command and control system, those same Leftists will very soon find that sex is a whole lot less fun when it’s not a government-approved orgy but is, instead, finding yourself sold at a sex slave market or being the next in line to be thrown off of a tall building.
Our Western rules about refugees and immigration were never intended to cope with the unique threat that is ascendent Islam. I’m not advocating completely closed borders, rampant discriminating, concentration camps, or gas chambers. I am saying, though, that the West needs to start recognizing that Islam is, as I said, sui generis, and that we need a nuanced approach to Muslim immigration that is different from our normal open borders policies. Moreover, we need to stop fatuously repeating that “Islam is a religion of peace” and, instead, start to say that there are many peaceful Muslims, but that Islam has a militant strain that we ignore at our peril, and that we must address quickly if Western culture is to survive.
* Totally off topic, but doesn’t Louise Arbour sound exactly like Mr. Tudball?