What sane people could observe this without complete horror and revulsion? I remain stunned that there are not violent protests in the streets over this. These are police officers, meant to represent the most basic daily authority of the local community. I think those smiles are genuine, too.
Women police officers issued with uniform hijab
(Avon and Somerset Police)
Police Community Support Officer Nora Ndiaye and Assistant Chief Constable Jackie Roberts of Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Correction. When I posted the entry and wrote my earlier comment, which I’ve deleted, I was under the impression that these women were Muslim police officers being allowed to wear Muslim head gear. But they are not Muslims. Rather, all female officers in Avon and Somerset are being given a uniform issue hijab to wear when they enter a mosque. Yet, strangely, what I had said about the smile of the woman on the right, that it is the sickly pleased smile of someone who is pretending to be something she is not and playing a role she should not be playing, like a female general, or like a transgendered female pretending to be a male police officer, and is enjoying this triumph over the ordinary and the normal, still applies. Her smile seems to be saying, “I’m helping to turn Britain into a Muslim country, isn’t this fun?” Both women’s smiles express their pleasure at playing Muslims, which, given the context of today’s Britain, can be seen as a preparation for actually becoming Muslims. As I’ve said before, Western liberals, because they no longer believe in their own civilization, inchoately or consciously want to surrender to Islam.
- end of initial entry -
Sage McLaughlin writes:
I am reminded of one of the most horrifying things I ever saw at university. A few summers ago I was attending a summer workshop in Azeri language. One of the students in my class was a 21-year-old Arabic language student—quintessentially liberal, white-hating, West-hating, and ultimately self-hating—in other words, thoroughly schooled. She had even legally eliminated the capitalization of her first and last names.
This girl bore a tattoo on her lower back, a spiral of Arabic script which spun into emptiness. I asked her what it meant, and she smiled that same satisfied smile, and answered “In the name of Allah, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful…” I could barely contain my shock. Western liberals—especially liberal women—positively yearn to submit to Islam. They find the unapologetic, aggressive, hyper-masculinized rejection of Christianity and the West, the quintessential “Otherness” of Islam, simply too intoxicating to resist. Even in my limited experience I have known several female leftists who have gone overseas and become infatuated with some misogynistic Muslim ogre. Increasingly, they don’t have to go anywhere at all.
This is a tangent of sorts, but I do believe that at the root of all this is feminism, and especially the feminization of Western authority. Women basically do yearn for the satisfying, reassuring embrace of an Alpha man, and are notoriously prone to rewarding violent, crude, criminally inclined young men with their affections. As the West and its leading institutions become progressively feminized, and a bewildering cultural inconstancy and indeterminacy results, the West itself yearns to submit to something firm. Islam is the natural fit, with its unerring and inalterable holy text and its raw assertion of power as an antidote to liberal Christianity (which is the cultural equivalent of the contemptible nice guy whom girls will praise, but never marry).
Who would have thought that the triumph of feminism would lead inexorably to the Islamization of the West?
Rocco DiPippo writes:
The picture of the two women in their oh-so-cool hijabs made me want to scream. Do these apparently Western women have any idea what the symbolic and practical meaning of that piece of clothing is? Hint: It has little to do with modern Western versions of “respect.”
The primary purpose of the hijab is to diminish a woman’s sexual attractiveness. It’s that simple. In traditional Muslim societies, only a woman’s husband or father or brother is allowed to see her without one on. It is a control device used by Muslim men to exercise control over women’s sexuality.
Here is what the hijab, practically speaking, represents to most Gulf Arab Muslim men and to most Paskistani Muslim men: You, woman, are the property of the men in your family and to a lesser degree the property of the men in your tribe and your village. Your father, brothers and male cousins own you, and they, not you, control access to your reproductive organs. They have total control over which men you may associate with and who you can marry. If you dare make those choices on your own, or if it is discovered that you have had any premarital sexual contact (kissing and touching included) or lost your virginity to anyone but the husband they choose for you, you will—at the very least—be tossed out of the family unit and shunned forever. No Muslim man who knows of or suspects your lack of virginity will marry you, since marrying a sharmuta wusca (unclean bitch), would bring great dishonor, and heaps of derision, upon anyone who did. That’s your fate, woman, if you’re lucky.
If you’re a native Pakistani Muslim woman and dare “cross the line,” by playing around with or losing your virginity to anyone besides the husband, (very likely a first cousin), your loving family picks for you, or if rumor takes hold that you’ve lost your virginity or had any form of unmarried sexual contact, you will stand an excellent chance of being murdered—by those same loving relatives.
My explanations of this garment are based on my long term, direct contact with Gulf Arab Muslims in their lands and with people of other cultures where Islam is dominant. So to all egg-sucking leftist Brits, and especially to the self-loathing “feminist” freaks who helped organize and promote the suicide march the European West is currently on, I say, “Enjoy your coming sexual revolution. And keep smiling while you can!”
Rocco DiPippo writes:
The young woman described by Sage McLaughlin has affected her own extremely painful death, should she ever wake up in a place where Muslims rule. I’d bet serious money that her tattoo would be peeled, along with the skin it’s written on, from her back. Idiots like that young woman don’t have a clue regarding how deadly seriously Muslims take their religion. In places where Islam dominates you simply can’t do silly Western-style things, like getting a tattoo of the word “Allah” on your backside, without risking your life. There is a near—complete lack of spontaneity or creativity or publicly-expressed joy in these societies. The overall scene is grim—if The Book doesn’t approve of it, it isn’t done without severe repercussions for the transgressor.
If someday I become very wealthy I will make it my mission to start flying college kids over to the Middle East for a six month total immersion experience in Arab Muslim culture. They will be made to work 10 hours per day, six days per week with Arabs and Muslims only. I suspect that upon return to the West, they will do two things very quickly: 1) They will kiss the ground. 2) They will hang their professors.
Both women’s smiles express their pleasure at playing Muslims, which, given the context of today’s Britain, can be seen as a preparation for actually becoming Muslims.
You don’t think Nora Ndaiye is a real Muslim? “Ndaiye” is an African Muslim name and if you look at the picture, she’s obviously worn a hijab before.
Can’t figure all these things out. But her personal background is irrelevant here. The point is that she’s a British police officer and is wearing a hijab as part of her duty, and is thus moving Britain toward Islamization.
Richard H. writes:
This isn’t a big deal. You take your shoes off going into the mosque. The problem was letting Muslims into the country in the first place, obviously. If they were told to wear the hijab all the time or while patrolling Muslim neighborhoods that would be different.
I’m more bothered by there being female cops in the first place.
Rocco DiPippo writes:
“The primary purpose of the hijab is to diminish a woman’s sexual attractiveness. It’s that simple. In traditional Muslim societies, only a woman’s husband or father or brother is allowed to see her without one on. It is a control device used by Muslim men to exercise control over women’s sexuality.”
Taking sexuality out of the picture is stopping women from exercising power over men, not the other way around.
Regardless, some control over women’s sexuality isn’t a bad thing. We’ve seen the alternative.
James P. writes:
“Ms Roberts said that the scarves were intended to respect the cultural and religious practices of local communities.”
The Muslims of Avon and Somerset need to respect the cultural practice of Avon and Somerset, which is that women do not wear headscarves!
A lot of the comments indicate anger and contempt for the government—but when, if ever, will the ordinary English person’s anger and contempt influence government policy?
Alex A. writes from England:
Every single day British newspapers publish reports of such incredible official subservience to “Muslim cultural sensibilities” that I can hardly believe what I’m reading. Equipping policewomen with with a uniform hijab “to wear when they enter a mosque” is yet another liberal affront that should provoke a measure of outrage and embarrassment in people who describe themselves as conservatives (here in England). But very few seem to care. Life goes on in a nation of sleepwalkers.
The photograph of those San Francisco police freaks is more evidence of how American society, under the sway of modern liberalism, is slouching towards Gomorrah.
Neil B. writes from England:
Ah, Lawrence. I read your blog regularly. It is provocative, and provocative is good.
But when you call the contemporary British “the most contemptible people in the history of Western civilisation,” this is very bad.
This is not “provocative.” This is loathsome, and ignorant, and could only be written by an arrogant American, and if this were the 1700s I’d probably challenge you to a duel.
I didn’t say why.
Britain is not “self-Islamisizing.”
It’s not happening. This is a ridiculous notion. Britain is secularising. The children of Islamic immigrants follow the dominant social mores. Their children, more so.
“Self-Islamisation” is a foolish, paranoid notion that could have only have been described by someone who doesn’t understand Britain or the British people. You have posted a photograph, a pictorial anecdote, in lieu of evidence.
First, I didn’t say that, a commenter did. But you’re right, it goes too far, so I’ve deleted it.
Second, I care more about Britain than any other American conservative writer you’ll see. That’s why I criticize it so fiercely, because I care passionately about it.
A couple of years ago I wrote a series of articles saying that Britain is “dead,” and that only if it realizes it is dead, is there a chance it will awaken.
In every one of those posts, I don’t just say that Britain is dead, and leave it at that, I say that Britain must and can come back to life.
I applaud every sign of life in Britain.
But the fact is, as Britain is now, it exists only to surrender to the Other. And that is a form of living death.
The fact that you dismiss Britain’s headlong surrender to Islam shows that you don’t yet see this problem. Meaning that you are a part of the problem.
And of course the commenter’s remark was not directed at the British of the past, but the British of the present, meaning the entire British establishment which openly seeks or surrenders to Britain’s destruction, and the everyone else who goes along with this. As I’ve said, I’m not aware of a single mainstream British figure who has grasped the reality of Britain’s headlong suicide and proposed a new direction that would stop it. The most they do is whine.
Philip M. writes from England:
For myself, I take the critisism. The reason I take it is that I think Britain is a special and uniquely blessed nation in world history. But if you hold yourself to a higher standard, then you must expect to be judged by a higher standard. Other countries never had much of a heritage to defend, but we did, and the magnitude of the loss only makes its destruction felt more keenly by those that loved us.
We sometimes forget that it was not just our responsibility to look after our culture for ourselves. We also had a duty to the rest of the world, paticularly those “arrogant” Americans, who also valued our culture, and looked to us to defend it with the vigour that they believed it deserved. Lawrence feels that by allowing the destruction of Britain we have not only deprived ourselves of a future, but betrayed the faith of those who looked up to us and saw our culture as a beacon of civility and harmony in this world.
Lawrence is paying us the compliment of judging us by his highest standards. We earned this right through our actions in history. We earned his contempt through our actions in the present. We are indeed contemptible.
I would add that Neil B. says, “The children of Islamic immigrants follow the dominant social mores. Their children, more so.” So he’s a complete denier of the Muslim problem. He’s not even aware that a major part of the Muslim population in Britain support terrorism and sharia. I’m surprised he’s even reading this site.
LA wrote to Philip:
Philip M. replies:
Quite alright. I like to joke about the Americans as much as any Englishman, but when other Brits start lashing out with their “arrogant American” nonsense I feel compelled to defend them, if only to show Americans that we are not all like that. Our attitudes to Americans are an embarrassment. I hear so many people mocking the Americans, but if you ask the same people where they would most like to go, America is almost always at the top of the list. They can’t wait to get over there and be told how beautiful their accent sounds, how impressive their culture is—no one is more amenable to flattery than the English—but they equally can’t wait to get back and tell everyone how stupid Americans are.
Arrogant? I sometimes see American tourists standing outside the beautiful English-gothic Cathedral which crowns my city (Lincoln Cathedral, worth a look if you are ever over here). They seem to me to be utterly awestruck by our heritage. They know how brief their own history is, and because of this they show a humility and affection for our past that is genuine and moving.
America’s relationship to the world has been grossly distorted by our savagely anti-American media. When I see Americans talking about the world, they usually strike me as people who treasure their liberty and prosperity, and are genuinely distressed to see that others in the world do not share the same blessings. That this sense of responsibility has been exploited by neo-cons only speaks poorly of American naivety about their own politicians, not their motivations.
Of course, when Americans constantly feed Europe films and TV shows that play up the negative stereotypes of racist, warmongering Americans, they are only compounding the problem for themselves.
Sage McLaughlin writes:
I hate to have to get into this, and if you decline to publish these remarks, I understand. But Phillip M. really is on to it. My comment, which was extreme, was directed at the contemporary British, and that qualifier was important to me when I wrote it. I understand the distinction might not matter much to an actual contemporary British person, but again, the question is why American conservatives care more about Britain’s heritage than the British themselves do.
Part of the reason is that Americans see the European nations, all of them, as the guardians and caretakers of our Western heritage, in ways that Americans can’t be. In a book called The Disuniting of America, Henry Schlessinger, Jr. commented that the only reason an Italian or an Englishman could leave his culture and heritage behind, and come to the American melting pot, was because “Italy will always be there.” To see the British so contemptuously disregard and put aside their own historic peoplehood and civilization strikes us as not merely foolish, but actually contemptible. No people have ever so casually—even eagerly—tossed aside so great a heritage. Phillip M. understands, I think, where I’m coming from—when I see the inheritance which the British hold in trust so casually wasted, I am filled with horror and despair. My reaction is so intense, and the crime so unforgivable, only because of the greatness and uniqueness of the British inheritance, an inheritance of such magnificence. Thus the extent of my remark.
I’d remind your “only an arrogant American” commenter that there’s one other people who might just be capable of such a remark, and that’s the British, to whom no amount of scorn and hatred directed at Americans is ever considered too much for polite company. An American simply cannot read British print, look through the relevant comments of British public intellectuals (even the conservative ones), scroll through the comments section of British websites, or watch any substantial amount of British media, without encountering some hateful, paranoid, or derisive anti-American remark or diatribe. All British smirkingly acknowledge this fact, and simultaneously express puzzlement that Americans would take it all so personally. I’d suggest your commenter’s umbrage is more than mildly ridiculous under these circumstances.
By the way, last night Neil B. wrote to me apologizing for his excessive language, and, by mutual consent, I removed his rawer statements about me while leaving intact the substance of what he had said. I also told him I wasn’t offended by his language, since I felt his anger was understandable. At the same time, Mr. M.’s remark vis a vis the “arrogant American” comment is correct. Given the way the British talk about us all the time, of which there is no remote equivalent on this side of the Atlantic, for Neil B. to score me as an arrogant American was off-base. However, from the Brits’ point of view, this double standard is justified since America as the more powerful country is by definition arrogant, while Britain can’t be.
LL (a female reader) writes:
English correspondent Neil B. is, of course, wrong. Western societies are perpetually told successive generations of immigrants gradually assimilate, secularize, however you wish to characterize it. If such is the case, how does one explain the phenomenon of “homegrown” jihadists such as the London subway bombers?
Also, one good thing about the hijab: because it’s such an in-your-face expression of Muslim commitment and militancy, it serves as a rough barometer of how rapidly Islam is spreading in our country. And I would say that in America, any evidence of Muslims adopting “dominant social mores” is emphatically contradicted by (a) the increase in the number of Muslim women wearing the headscarf; (b) the fact that many preteen and teenage girls may be observed in the headscarf, whereas if they were adopting Western ways this practice should be virtually nonexistent among the younger generations; and (c) in addition to the headscarf we are now seeing more and more Muslim women who are fully veiled.
(I had the surreal experience of shopping in a Conway’s clothing store recently and observing two young women with veiled faces paying for their purchases while their escort—a young punk in full-blown gangsta garb—sullently looked on.)
Quite right. As I said, Neil B. denies that there is an Islam problem in Britain, and thinks that the very idea that there is an Islam problem in Britain is ridiculous.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 28, 2009 10:56 AM | Send