Friday, July 07, 2006

An Immodest Proposal: Steal Their Women

I believe that in war, if you watch your enemy's behavior with discerning, he will tell you how to beat him. That which most frightens your enemy is buried at the heart of that which gets him the most angry. That which most frightens him is his Achilles Heel. If you can discover what it is that most frightens your opponent, then you know how to beat him.

One of the greatest things about our Islamofascist enemies is they are simply incapable of shutting their mouths. They talk and talk and talk and talk, and in talking they tell us everything we need to know.

So, what is it that gets our cute little Islamofascist enemies the most angry? What makes them burn with a white-hot rage? What is it that will set them into a worldwide temper tantrum of rioting and murder?


It has been noted that the Islamic world is an Honor/Shame culture. If they are not being honored, they feel they are being shamed. The egos of Islamofascists are particularly fragile. And, of course, insulting their prophet and humiliating Allah does get them very angry.

But really, all that serves to do is expose them. When we draw cartoons of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, yes, then the Islamofascists fly into a tantrum and reveal themselves for the childish morons that they are. But, in the practical world, it does little to help us win the war, other than to make more Westerners aware of how unreasonable they really are.

So, we need to understand how to truly humiliate our enemy. What humiliation is so utterly horrible to those darling little Islamofascists that the very thought will render them a quivering gelatinous mass in a puddle of its own urine and feces?

The Islamofascist mental universe is basically the world of the pre-game football locker room metality writ large. If one wants to understand what will anger and, ultimately, humiliate the Islamofascists, one need only think of what would start a fight in a locker room. What gets testosterone-charged men really angry and/or humiliated?

1) Being called a fag, or having one's manhood called into question.
2) Having one's mother insulted.
3) Having one's girlfriend insulted, violated, or stolen.

Sure, we could sit around and play the dozens with the Islamofascists from here to eternity, and believe me it would be a riot, but the truth is, the real insult to their manhood has to be performed on the battlefield. That's where we will ultimately demonstrate what a pathetic bunch of pussies they really are.

But, there's something else we can do right now which would drive a stake right through their sad, shriveled hearts; Steal Their Women.

"Steal their women?!?" you say. Pastorius, are you crazy? What are we, a barbarian culture, reducing women to chattel and servitude? Are we to act in ways which would make us no better than the Islamofascists?

No, we are better than that, and that's exactly why we can steal their women, and their women will actually be happy about it.

Here's my idea:

We put out an announcement across Iraq and Afghanistan that any woman who wants to escape from the slavery of the burqa and Sharia need only present herself to an American official (soldier, or member of the government) and request asylum. She will be whisked away from her former life and brought to America, where she will receive a free education, free housing, and an opportunity at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

She will not be allowed to bring her husband, son, or father, or any male family member. This is an opportunity which is only open to those women whose servitude is so painful that they are willing to completely sever ties with their old selves, or should I say, lack of selves.

I call this "An Immodest Proposal" because I want to be clear that I am serious as hell, and that this idea is not proposed in the tradition of Jonathan Swift's satire. I believe this idea is not only a strategically sound way to beat our enemy, but also a just and compassionate way to help the women of the Islamic world who are locked up in the ideological slavery of Sharia.

This idea, if implemented successfully will shatter the fragile egos of the Islamofascists precisely because it goes to the heart of male identity. Men, more than anything, want to believe they can take care of their women. If they find that they are unable to, they feel they have been judged to be useless and impotent human beings. A man who believes himself to be useless and impotent is a defeated warrior.

The booty of American military conquest is more free, productive and happy people. Let's keep in that tradition and free the slaves of the Middle East.


Anonymous said...

Pastorius, that is fascinating.

I can't really see any downside.

Anonymous said...

Pastorius for President!

Pastorius said...

I definately have too many skeletons in my closet.


Pastorius said...

I think the fear that some might intend to wage Jihad against us is a very legitimate fear.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hmmmm, I dunno...for one thing, I'd be too worried about tequiyah and importing a fifth column no matter WHAT these women said.

Second,I think the honor/shame bit is really valid, but better done using things like pigskin burials for terrorists and discrediting jihad here at home.

and offense, there ARE some Arab hotties, but generally speaking they're NOT the most attractive bananas in the bunch...I don't really think we need to increase the genetic factors for female moustaches, unibrows, goiter, potbellies and overstuffed behinds here in the USA, do we? (lol)

Pastorius said...


Freedom Fighter (a very serious and intelligent blogger) seques from human rights to ugly-chick bashing.

That's funny, FF.

I like the pigskin burial idea, but for some reason most serious people consider it barbaric. I think we will be doing things like that before this war is over.

The thing about this idea of mine is it's hard to knock it without having to contend that it is actually a compassionate and humanitarian effort.

Anonymous said...

Your idea stayed in my mind and I mulled it over. There's something fascinating about it, so I tried to think through the ramifications. Here's what I see:

1. it seems doable within our current political/bureaucratic infrastructure. I mean, Congress passes some language (it would only take a sentence or two) including "women from the ME" or "from this list of qualified countries" on the list of who's eligible for political asylum, and the current bureaucracy gears up for the extra flow, they'd need/insist on more funding etc., but it seems doable. What I'm saying is it's not some kind of pie in the sky thing people were tossing around after 9/11 like, "how about what if we all switch to electric cars to starve their funding" or "let's just not have our military everywhere anymore".

2. it's hard to predict how we get to that point though. I'm trying to imagine where the political cards would fall, who would be on which side. Is it a "right-wing" idea, because it pokes Islam in the eye? Is it a "left-wing" idea, because it's all about womens' rights & because it lets immigrants flood in? I'm not sure. I envision weird alliances (Hillary & Condoleeza, hand in hand?) and reactionary opposition from places you wouldn't expect. (I'm also wondering if anything like this is dumb to talk about because it would be a non-starter, because e.g. our "friends" the Saudis, who control our government (according to some.. :), would nip the whole thing in the bud.) Let's imagine it's brought up by some Congressman though. I do imagine a debate, and some opposition in Congress. Buchananites would oppose it on "not our problem/we can't let in everybody/too many immigrants already" grounds, etc.

3. The most interesting type of opposition you'd see is: We can't do this because it's Too Provocative. In other words, there would be people who agree with you about the humiliation aspect, and they would oppose it because of that. They don't want us humiliating the Muslim World, because that's "provocative", which they think is what causes terrorism against us. They want us playing nice, which they think will prevent terrorism. This opposition would be nontrivial and the media would be on their side. Imagine the Time Magazine articles like "Rove's Bold Plan To 'Steal Their Women': A Bridge Too Far?". Opinion columns saying, "The right is constantly preaching that America is in the modern age while our enemy is out of the Middle Ages. So why is it we who have seemingly taken a page out of the Old Testament with Bush's latest 'steal their women' gambit? Have we become the enemy we despise?" etc. I'm not saying the opposition would succeed in preventing it, but what would happen is they'd turn it into a front-page, talk-show type "controversial" issue, as with the flag burning amendment. We wouldn't be able to just quietly get it passed under the radar and then start doing it (which in some ways would be best).

4. Inevitably then, the "Muslim Countries" would notice and respond before it even started. (And, prepare.) Their consuls/ambassadors would be asked their opinions by Chris Matthews and Charlie Rose. They would be insulted and say so. They would react precisely how you predict they would. In fact, I'm pretty sure that they would see this as a Big Deal. They would take it very seriously. See, I suspect a lot of people in the U.S. would dismiss your idea as "dumb" and "silly" and "not serious" - kinda like how people viewed Newt Gingrich's idea to give laptops to homeless people, it seems on that level when you first hear it - but the reactions of the "Muslim Countries" would prove otherwise. They would take it more seriously than most Americans would, as an affront. A direct provocation. Some would even call it an act of war.

Don't get me wrong - that's still pretty much all up-side! I like bold moves that force our enemies out in the open :)

5. Here's the down-side though: if this ever really were attempted, it would almost certainly get some M.E. women killed. Picture the scene in Iran near the Iraq border where a U.S. checkpoint is, or near a U.S. base in Kuwait, or a U.S. consulate in Saudi Arabia: a young woman running down the street because she heard she could get into America, three brothers chasing her.. you know what happens next. In fact, the whole thing could backfire in this way, because a lot of folks in the M.E. would get "insulted" and "forbid" their women from even thinking about asylum - and I include women in this. (Women participate big-time in the oppression of women in these societies, as you know.) A lot of women would get interviewed on TV saying "I'd never do that! I'd never leave my country! This is my home! Who do the Americans think they are!" You'd see old Arab mothers 'guaranteeing' angrily that their daughter would never leave, the daughter looking sullen but nodding her head. Conflicts would take place within families that we'd never hear about. And there'd be the usual protests outside consulates and embassies with young losers pumping their fists that CNN etc. seem to find so impressive. Imagine the horror that could happen if we're not careful: suppose that when it's announced that the program starts up in Yemen (or wherever), so many young women rush to the US consulate there, that it can't handle the flow, and has them form up in a line outside. A line. Outside the consulate in plain view of anyone who can put 2 and 2 together and guess why they are there and who would call their friends in the Brothers Of Holy War And Whatever organization and 15 minutes later a pickup truck drives by and... ugh.

And that's not even taking into account how the host governments would react. U.S. consul thrown out? Host military sent in to form a barricade preventing women from getting to the Americans?

What I'm saying is that this is actually not just some clever trick or PR stunt we'd be trying to pull. This would have serious, deep ramifications, and we'd better be ready. In fact as you recall when you first told me this idea, I was slightly nonplussed - my basic reaction was pretty much "ho hum, yeah, another clever war on terror idea". Like the idea I remember reading after 9/11 someone had that we could drop our pennies from high altitude to use as kinetic-energy bombs. People were tossing around all sorts of ideas.

But maybe I'm crazy, but the more I think about it the more serious your idea seems. It's almost more equivalent to Bush I urging the Shiites to rebel against Saddam than anything "clever" or "frivolous" like Gingrich with the laptops. Except it actually could affect orders of magnitude more people than the Shiite uprising. And the Shiite uprising example illustrates why I'm saying we'd have to recognize that seriousness and not abandon to slaughter those who took us seriously.

Anyway, I might have even more to say later, but gotta go now.. :)

Anonymous said...

Sorry, pastorius, they are from a tribal culture which has a bad habit of intermarriage which would screw up the gene pool. And this would end up artificially swelling the ranks of the Democrats.

Pastorius said...

Hunk-a hunk-a.

Anonymous said...

Don't worry that much about the gene pool: presumably the ones who grabbed the opportunity would be the smart ones!

Just re-name it 'rescue their women' to appeal to the liberal mindset, and you might get some support. Let's extend it to anyone who wants to leave islam AND who genuinely wants to contribute to our countries.

Lili (I don't seem to have an account yet)

Kiddo said...

Jeez, did I screw up the gene pool too much? Mind the comments about the darker, sometimes hairier Mediterranean women or one of them might just rip you a new one! BTW, I think I did a fine job with the eyebrows, the "Bert" of Bert and Ernie, as I always called it, is easily dispensed with.

Anonymous said...

pim's ghost-

Jeez I don't know. Were you the product of intermarriage?

As an aside a biology teacher once told us that the largest brain in the world belonged to an idiot -- no convolutions.

As to the hairy female comments: I could never understand why women with with beautiful blond hair die their roots black.

Anonymous said...

Best looking 40+ y.o. woman I know is a fabulously lovely Greek stonemason. She can take you out in a minute if you get out of line, guys.

And the "dark" remarks are definitely out of line...

BTW, Pastorius, don't hold your breath waiting for the feminists in this country to help...they don't even help poor American women. Buncha spoiled middle-class loonies.

Pastorius said...

For the record, if one reads this comments thread completely, no one made any comment about "dark" people, except for Pim's Ghost, who seems to have taken offense at something that was never said.

Kiddo said...

I was referring to Freedom Fighter's comment. And I was not entirely serious. I even admitted to having gotten rid of my own unibrow. And mustashe. ROFL!! I'm not sure FF was that serious either.

Pastorius said...

Ah, you weren't serious? Ok, sorry. I thought you were really bugged. No, Freedom Fighter wasn't serious either, I don't think.

Sorry I jumped the gun on that.

Anonymous said...

I don't know about this....

Any women who is prepared to leave her kids behind, is someone I would not like to know, meet, or associate with.

Pastorius said...

Let me give you another way to look at it then.

What kind of son would such a woman be raising? If she is forced to wear a burqa, what would the family situation be?

Would not her son be a disaster in the making, whatever she thinks about it?

And, here, ask yourself this? Is not loyalty to family over loyalty to doing what is right, a form of tribaiism.

Is not tribalism the problem that we are trying to fight?

Of course, it is true, that if my idea were to be implemented, it would draw some bad women into the United States, but I think it would do much more good than bad.

What do you think?

Kiddo said...

Pastorius, you know me well enough by now to know that I'm rarely too serious. Well, I guess I can be online, but not so much in the comments.

Reliapundit said...

women and children are Systemqtically abused in arab muslim culture.

"stealing" them would merely be like taking a child out of an abusive home; this is something social services departments do all the time.

i think that MY approach is better:

the classically liberal free world ought to ban all staes which systematically abuse women and children. these states should not be allowed in the unsc, the wto, (or any other intl body) or to receive any loans from the wb or imf.

they should not be allowed to buy arms or jets or ships or telecommunications asses of any kind.

in short, the free world should shun them - at least from all the perks of mebership in the free world.

Pastorius said...

Yes, I like your idea as well. My idea includes a component which I believe could help us win the War.

Pastorius said...

I was wrong to imply, in the previous comment, that your idea on isolating countries who abuse human rights by eliminating them from UN type organizations was not a tactic for victory in our War. It is.

However, I am predisposed to distrusting such tactics, because sanctions have not worked in the past. At least not that I can see.

But, I respect your wisdom. You might be seeing a possibility which I am not able to imagine.

Anonymous said...

One IMPORTANT point that the author and all those who have posted the comments have forgotten is that the women you'll be making the 'immodest proposal' to will willingly and enthusiastically accept. The assumtion behind that is that they like and prefer the western culture. Have you ever spoken to enough Muslim women around the world to know if that is true? The assumption you've made is that Western culture (not to mention western men) are more desirable to a Muslim women. How would that explain when your own women prefer their ideology and lifestyle over you?

I like the comment by Anonymous 'Any women who is prepared to leave her kids behind, is someone I would not like to know, meet, or associate with'.

I agree. And a Muslim woman is not that sort of a woman.

I will leave it here for you to think more about.

Pastorius said...


If 500-1000 Muslim women accept, then it will get the Islamofascists in such an uproar that my plan will have succeeded. And, it will mean 500-1000 more free people on the Earth.

Anonymous said...

You'll be lucky if you find 5 let alone 500. But do try. Meanwhile, you didn't quite answer the question - what are you going to do about the hundreds that you lose every year to Islam - your own women crossing to the other side of their own free will (more white than black) - no tempting offers, no $$$, no 'immodest proposals' like yours - Losing more numbers than you are gaining - What kind of a victory is that? Doesn't it make you ask - what do they not find in their own (infidel) men??

Anonymous said...

As long as there are enough websites like this one that spawn hatred, they sure are...doomed!

Credit yourself for the contribution :) You've done a good job.

Anonymous said...

There are women whackjobs who fall in love with prisoners.

No accounting for taste, nor for wilfull ignorance.

However, giving people a shot at freedom is usually a good idea.

We can see they get a lot of press, even if their names are kept secret.

Citizen Warrior said...

It's been over a year now, Pastorius. And the silence from Erum is deafening. I'm guessing he was an Islamofascist. Too bad you didn't have the Message To Peaceful Muslims to send him. The article is ready-made to answer his kind of comment.

Your Immodest Proposal would stir things up in the right direction, I think. And given all the underground rebellion in the Muslim world by Muslim women against their own repression, I think it's ridiculous to think we wouldn't be overwhelmed by women, especially young, motherless women, who would jump at the chance to escape their slavery.

Pastorius said...

Yeah, I think I'll just sit under this Boddhi tree and wait for Erum to respond.

Alana said...

"Erum said... You'll be lucky if you find 5 let alone 500. But do try. Meanwhile, you didn't quite answer the question - what are you going to do about the hundreds that you lose every year to Islam - your own women crossing to the other side of their own free will (more white than black) - no tempting offers, no $$$, no 'immodest proposals' like yours - Losing more numbers than you are gaining - What kind of a victory is that? Doesn't it make you ask - what do they not find in their own (infidel) men?"

I think this comment deserves a bit more chewing.
* lets ignore the final schoolboy jibe about 'what they don't find in their own men'
* lets take on board the previous reminder that some women chase after mass murderers and even child molesters in prison, so some women just have loopy taste
* lets dismiss that initial taunt that "you'll be lucky if you find 5" since none of us have any data and I have seen several disaffected women in Muslim countries who are looking for any way out their situation

That gets rid of the junk, so now maybe we can extract some value from this question. Refer to Diana West's "Death of the Grown Up" and Fjordmann's comments on the effective mass rape of Swedish women in Malmo while the Swedish men stand pacifistically by.

If there is a problem, it is not that Western men are somehow less manly in an intrinsic sense than Muslim men. Remember Saddams gulf army anyone? Not very manly there were you?

But we do have a problem with our adulthood and our freedom to behave as men in the classical sense, and that's two problems that men in Muslim societies don't have to deal with. There's nothing wrong with Western men, but we have been neutered to some extent by the creeping forces of misguided liberalism and a somewhat perverted form of feminism. For that reason, there is a sense, I believe, that some women can experience a kind of relief in crossing over to the Muslim fold. Of course that relief could be short lived when they find out all they other rights they've lost, but its a bit academic by then anyway. But what this shows is that we have lost something in our mad rush to modernise and liberalise our society and free ourselves from all 'irrational' historical and tribal/ethnic traces, and some women are feeling that loss and reacting to it.

This is too big a topic to cover in a post like this, but my point is, in response to Erum's taunt, that
(1) yes, there is a kind of problem, of unknown size though
(2) no, the cause is not a lack of masculinity in Western men, but that our social philosophy has got waylaid in this generation (this is one of the prices we pay for having the freedom to change, something Islam lacks) - but we can go back and correct this.

So I'll just wrap up with two suggestions.

(1) We need to get back to older style 'adult' leaders that don't wince so much when faced with tough actions for tough problems (like keeping Gitmo or tackling Irans nuclear plans). We need ones that have had more experience of the dirty side of survival.

(2) We need to re-appraise the role of women in society, and consider for example, that if you emasculate the society so much that women no longer receive protection from rape, is it worth it? If I were a woman, I'd rather have more old fashioned men around and have to deal with those prejudices than run the statistically high risk of being raped by Muslims in Malmo while the 'Swedish' men debate amongst themselves the deeper causaltities and meanings of the situation.

Pastorius said...

That's an excellent comment. Especially the following:

If there is a problem, it is not that Western men are somehow less manly in an intrinsic sense than Muslim men. Remember Saddams gulf army anyone? Not very manly there were you?

But we do have a problem with our adulthood and our freedom to behave as men in the classical sense, and that's two problems that men in Muslim societies don't have to deal with.

Pastorius said...

PC strictures and Feminism (which are really just two sides of one coin) have caused men to doubt their instincts.

I would say, we have not been neutered. If you live in the US, you will find that, in general, men are very angry with women. They're angry about a lot of things, not the least being PC, the feminization of the wordplace and the whole I marry you, divorce you and you pay for my life style bullshit.

The anger men feel towards women results in men not getting married, using women like Kleenex, and bashing women all the time.

That's the fruits of feminism.

Men have not been tamed. If anything, they have been unleashed. It's a sad state of affairs.

Pastorius said...

I would add to that that this is all part of the swinging of the pendulum. Eventually, it will go back to the other side, and men will absolutely rule again. That will be a pity for women, but I can tell you this, the minute the Jihadis really existentially threaten Western Civilization, men will become absolute men again, and that will be both a blessing and a curse for women.

Pastorius said...

Women really need to realize that a civilization is measured by how it treats it's women. And, the point of that is, treating women as equals is a luxury of peace and posterity. When peace and posterity do not prevail, women are relegated to a kind of secondary status, wherein their job is to gather and cook food and take care of children. That is a fact of nature.