Feminist explains why she converted to Islam

Islam, like feminism, exists in order to eliminate female sexual competition. In Islamic societies, there is little or no need for feminism. The future of the West will essentially be the story of Islam displacing and subsuming feminism as the dominant ideology. Women, including and especially feminists themselves, will lead the way…

In the following CNN article, a former feminist explains how she effortlessly switched from supporting a modern Western ideology that criminalizes male sexuality and mentally rapes and tortures thousands of children a day in order to preserve female sexual market value, to supporting a medieval ideology that criminalizes male sexuality and rapes, tortures, and kills thousands of children a day in order to preserve female sexual market value.


These days, I am a proud wearer of hijab. You can call it a scarf. My scarf does not tie my hands behind my back, and it is not a tool of oppression. It doesn’t prevent thoughts from entering my head and leaving my mouth. But I didn’t always know this.
Studying Islam didn’t immediately dispel all my cultural misconceptions. I had been raised on imagery of women in the East being treated like chattel by men who forced them to cover their bodies out of shame or a sense of ownership.
But when I asked a Muslim woman “Why do you wear that?”, her answer was obvious and appealing: “To please God. To be recognized as a woman who is to be respected and not harassed. So that I can protect myself from the male gaze.”
Surprisingly, Islam turned out to be the religion that appealed to my feminist ideals.

She explained how dressing modestly is a symbol to the world that a woman’s body is not meant for mass consumption or critique.
I still wasn’t convinced and replied, “Yeah, but women are like second class citizens in your faith?”
The very patient Muslim lady explained that, during a time when the Western world treated women like property, Islam taught that men and women were equal in the eyes of God. Islam made the woman’s consent to marriage mandatory and gave women the opportunity to inherit, own property, run businesses and participate in government.
She listed right after right that women in Islam held nearly 1,250 years before women’s lib was ever thought of in the West. Surprisingly, Islam turned out to be the religion that appealed to my feminist ideals.

Skimpy Dress Worn by Sexy Lebanese Singer Provokes Outrage Among Arab Women


A dress worn by a famous Lebanese pop star on TV has caused an outcry on Arab social media – mainly among women

Last week, Lebanese singer Haifa Wehbe performed a song during a live episode of Arab Star Academy, a pan-Arab TV music talent contest, wearing a figure-hugging long black dress with revealing sheer panels. Over 2 million people watched the performance online after several copies of the video were uploaded onto YouTube. So far, so show business – but the intensity of debate that followed online seemed to indicate how polarised the debate on female dress in the Arab World has become.

Many of the reactions on social media, mostly from women in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, were strongly critical of the star’s choice of dress. “Scandalous” was a much used term. One YouTube user commented: “Art has limits and you, Haifa, have crossed the line”.

Chris Brand’s Un-PC Thoughts – April 21st 2014

IQ & PC (Chris Brand)


Good news arrived for Christianity as the Harvard Theological Review carried an article confirming a papyrus fragment from mediaeval Egypt recording that Jesus had talked of “my wife” and that (as scholars had suspected since 1975) Mary Magdalene had been “a major leader of the early Jesus movement” (Indie, 12 iv).

Such normalizing of Christianity had the capacity to free the moribund religion finally from the Roman Catholic supersition that sex was suspect and that men could have only one wife and must then at death give all their money to the Church – thereby denying the role of the family which both socialists and capitalists had been keen to play down along with the realities of genetic differences occurring both between and within families which were readily visible to all but followers of antiquated egalitarian supersitions.

The declarations of some kind of ‘faith’ by Messrs Cameron and Miliband were welcome in so far as they recognized the need to get beyond the usual overwhelmingly environmentalistic and bullying preoccupations of lacklustre politicians; but a commitment to the Christian West’s scientific search for truth would have been more impressive – especially together with a commitment not to suppress the truth when it hovered within view.


As Nigel Evans MP was cleared of sexually molesting young men (so only the stains of …., boozing and poor judgment remained on his character) voices piped up on the BBC decrying “the sex abuse industry,” “hysteria” and Britain’s lack of a ‘statute of limitations’ [on ancient-historical prosecutions] – too late for paedophiles (who had been deserted and beaten by homosexuals who claimed to target only 16+ youths) but still welcome.


Top author for British teenagers, Terry Deary, who had sold 25M copies of Horrible Histories and was writing Rotten Romans and Barmy British Empire told the Telegraph’s arts correspondent that school was a “waste of time,” centrally because of boring teachers “kicking conformity into children” and failing to treat them according to their own talents (9 iv). His own frustration with educational authority had, he said, led to the “subversive” and “anarchic” strands in his writing.


As Europe’s latest ethnic conflict hotted up, MSM (esp. BBC) laboured hard to avoid saying it was a struggle between ethnic groups derived (in so far as Ukraine’s tortured history allows) from the western Galicians and the eastern Cossacks, speaking different languages (Ukrainian, Russian), and following different religious creeds (Greek-Catholic [‘Uniate’], Orthodox).

In Nigeria, just outside the capital Obujaodoody, Muslims managed – with a car bomb during the rush hour – to kill 71 Christians and hospitalize another 124 without unduly upsetting multiculti MSM. The abduction of a hundred nubile Christian damsels was atrtributed to the Muslim fanatics of Cocoa Pyjamas.


The UN Human Rights Council consigned itself to the doghouse by sending to Britain a womyn of repellent visage, Indian origin and South African citizenship to “monitor” female inequality in the course of a two-week stay meeting kindred malcontents.

Rashida Manjoo was duly shocked by page 3 girls, by date rape going unpunished {by juries}, by men walking on the outside of pavements, by women earning slightly less {in line with their more modest range of IQs and with many of the brighter chicas working from homes which they maintained – with the help of Polish servant girls – for the high-IQ husbands which they had chosen}.

The feminoid ‘liberal’-left kept quiet about Manjew’s nonsense; but Tory treasure Eggwina Currie (former health minister) wondered whether the goon had ever been to Saudi or other countries where women were circumcised (genital mutilation), forbidden books, married off early, banned from driving, had no maternity leave and were liable to find themselves divorced at a moment’s notice.

Thus did the UN distract itself from what should have been its major task: completing the happy victory of having the whole world liberated by learning to speak English – even perchance in Glasgow.


Following several recent trials in which elderly celebrities had their lives ruined by accusations of ancient-historical sexual hanky-panky [paedophilic in 2/4 cases] of which juries found them innocent, and with a second trial of disc jockey Dave Lee Travis about to start, the robustly right-wing Tory Anne Widdecombe showed her libertarian side as she asked whether the police and Crown Prosecution Service had not got better things to do than waste vast sums (not least the savings of those accused) on such frivolous pandering to the claims of gold-diggers (Daily Express, 16 iv).


Standing up for his convictions, an English High Court judge (of the Family Division) quit after being told by peecee colleagues that he could not speak in favour of marriage. In an interview, Sir Paul Coleridge, 64, had angered gay rights campaigners when he said Government same-sex marriage plans were a “minority issue” because it affected only “0.1%” of the population during a time in which society was facing a “crisis of family breakdown” and said people should not have children unless stably married.

In 2013, Coleridge was handed a formal warning from the Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office declaring that his decision to give this interview, and another one in which he discussed the “decline of marriage,” was “incompatible with his judicial responsibilities and therefore amounts to judicial misconduct”.

He criticised the decision as a “disproportionate and unfair reaction to a few lines in two newspapers”. Rather than condone Britain’s having become a society in which 11% of adults were un-remarried divorcees and only a half of children would grow up in a two-parent family, Sir Paul organized some 100 legal and kindred traditionalist experts to form the think-tank ‘The Marriage Foundation’ to research marriage (with its links to income and happiness in the couple and lawabidingness in the children) and to campaign for long-lasting marital relationships (Daily Mail, 17 iv; Daily Telegraph, 18 iv, p.2).

A robust denunciation of the UK Coalition government for doing nothing for married couples via the tax system was provided by the previous Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey (Daily Mail, 19 iv, ‘The fact is, marriage has been treated shabbily by today’s politicians’).


As an updating of America’s ‘Scholastic Aptitude Test’ (SAT) was announced, a helpful article about SAT being an IQ test and predicting educational and job success as such (even controlling for SES) appeared in Slate (17 iv) — with summaries of work by Frank Schmidt and Ian Deary. A quote:

“What this all [these finding mean] is that the SAT measures something—some stable characteristic of high school students other than their parents’ income—that translates into success in college. And what could that characteristic be? General intelligence. The content of the SAT is practically indistinguishable from that of standardized intelligence tests that social scientists use to study individual differences, and that psychologists and psychiatrists use to determine whether a person is intellectually disabled—and even whether a person should be spared execution in states that have the death penalty. Scores on the SAT correlate very highly with scores on IQ tests—so highly that the Harvard education scholar Howard Gardner, known for his theory of multiple intelligences, once called the SAT and other scholastic measures “thinly disguised” intelligence tests.”


The internal contradictions of multicultidom achieved star billing on p.1 of the Telegraph (19 iv) as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rev Justinia Oilwellby, came out with his insoluble dilemma about homosexuality. It had been made clear to him on a visit to South Sudan that, if the CofE allowed its priests to conduct gay marriages, the lives of perhaps a million Black Christians in Africa would be at risk – scores of thousands had already been killed or raped by Mueslis who believed that Christians aimed to convert them and turn them into sodomites.

On the other hand, if Welby continued to ban homosexual marriage, he would alienate about half his clergy and perhaps a quarter of his flock in Britain. All he could do was to hope to placate the different cultures with a long-running committee….

Links relating to some of the topics Chris Brand discussed today :

Prospect.org – Did Jesus Have a Wife?

Telegraph – Horrible Histories creator says school is a waste of time.

BBC – Gunmen abduct ‘about 100 schoolgirls’.

Telegraph – Widdecome on Nigel Evans : ‘the odd drunken pass does not make somebody a rapist’.

Telegraph – Sir Paul Coleridge retires and calls for an end to family breakdown.


Chris Brand 30th March 2014



In Berlin, A German-Muslim religious forum took an unexpected turn when three hairdress-displaying if mainly rather heavy topless White female protesters had to be dragged out of the building (Sunday Mail, 23 iii). The Berlin Islam Week event, held in one of the city’s town halls, was stopped in its tracks by members of extreme protest group Femen, who charged into the hall with slogans attacking ‘religious oppression’ and with Sharia law daubed on their bodies, clad only in red pants. Photographs of bemused Muslims from the moment the wymmin were dragged out by policemen included one of a veiled womyn filming the event on her phone as guests looked on.


For their part, the bra-less feminoids, got a glimpse of Islamic loyalties as a prominent sign urged those congregated to ‘spend for Syria’ (where Solunni Muslims – as well as wrecking the joint — were forcibly driving out Jews, Christians, Shitites and anyone not accepting the Sharia principle of female subordination).

Previously, Femen activistes had displayed their wares in Hanover and Paris; and, for whatever reason, indicated their support for the pro-Hitler ooops pro-Europe protesters of west Ukraine.

In some contrast, spineless great’n’good lawyers in London urged that women should accept the pass which traitorous lefties had made around 1970 and adopt as many Sharia principles as possible (D.Telegraph, 22 iii; BBCR4, 23 iii, 09:50). In particular, England’s Law Society (pres.: N Fuck) had taken up ‘guiding’ solicitors in making wills that would disinherit bastards, unbelievers and women yet still supposedly be recognized by English courts (Sunday Telegraph, 23 iii, p.1).

{Ongoing low-level conflict between ‘minorities’ and between parallel ‘courts’ could do lawyers’ bank balances nothing but good….}


After 30 years of paedohysterics trying to make children fear adults, it was shown that a main achievement of campaigners – apart from setting up a vast government bureaucracy to vet those working with children – had been to make adults fear contact with children altogether: two six-year-old girls who, watched by their mothers and TV cameras), feigned being lost in London found themselves brushed off by 616 passers-by (until a 70+ granny stopped to ask if they had a problem) (ITV Channel 5). Even the Daily Mail – itself not immune to paedohysteria over the years – felt scaremongering had gone too far. Its columnist Carol Sarler wrote (24 iii): “The over-imaginative minds of adult Britain are in literally hysterical thrall to paedophilia, to the idea that danger lurks in the soul of every passing stranger, while the truth – you know, facts and suchlike – is rejected without reason.” The Telegraph’s columnist Philip Johnston said we had become “cowed by paedophile hysteria,” which while not as snappy as paedohysteria was still a step in the right direction (25 iii).


Thanks to a Dorsetshire auction house, a 350-yr-old French account of sex differences came to light (D.Mail, 28 iii). Alas, Froggy scholarship was not up to much. Whereas the Eysenckian position from c.1980 was that women were demonstrably low-Psychoticism [Tender-minded in attitudinal measures], high-Neuroticism/Emotionality and of a restricted range of IQs around a normal mean of 100, The Art to Know Men, 1650 [translated into English 1850] recorded mysteriously or at least subjectively:

The male form resembles that of a lion, with large mouths, thick hair and hard and musculous flesh. Women, on the other hand have a fair appearance which hides an infinite multitude of defects including weakness, jealousy, distrust and ungratefulness.

{Whether latter-day British media grovelling to multicultidom improved things was arguable. By 2014, the BBC had become the British Sickness Service, with programmes about blind one-legged deaf running wall-to-wall with high-minded accounts of Nigerian doctors unable to control polio, of yag marriage [pension rights of partners would be the next ishoo requiring politicos to be blackmailed], and hyperactive nurses [unable to read a book] running round Africa dispensing idealism (BBCR4, 28 iii, 08:50; BBC World Service, 28 iii, 08:50).}


A plea for three famous British veteran comics was entered by the Daily Mail’s (see above) top columnist, Richard Littlejohn (28 iii): on the strength of precisely no evidence that could be divulged (possibly the fabrications of gold-diggers, possibly the appearance of the comics’ names in the Radio Times around 1970) these three elderly men had their lives, homes and computers turned upside down and their wives upset to distraction so the propagandized {feminazified} police (typically some 12 cops per suspect) could fish for ‘evidence’ of paedophile naughtiness of forty years previously. Despite this assiduous and authoritarian injustice, no ‘evidence’ of hanky-panky could be found and the sleuths were eventually called off.

The costs to the taxpayer of the past year’s largely vain persecution of some twenty senior British celebrities in the aftermath of the Jimmy Savile master-case remained unknown as claims for compensation by the celebs were prepared. Star silver-haired London publicist Max Clifford, 70, continued on daily trial at the Old Bailey for convivial undressing {i.e. ‘rape’} with a few 15-yr-old wannabe girls around 1975. An 82-yr British bishop was charged with six cases of paedofumbling boys around 1977. Nor was it enough to be cleared of twelve charges of ‘indecent assault,’ as DJ David Lee Travis had been in February: the 68-yr former BBC presenter found the fuzz coming for him again with presumably equally pathetic charges dating back to the 1970s (D.Mail, 29 iii).


America’s main organizer of Black racism, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which had labelled several Washington, D.C.-based family organizations as “hate groups” for favouring traditional marriage, was dumped as a “resource” on the FBI’s Hate Crime Web page — a significant rejection of the influential legal group. The Web page scrubbing, which also included eliminating the Jew-championing Anti-Defamation League, was not formally announced and came in the last month after 15 family groups pressed Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director James Comey to stop endorsing a group – SPLC — that inspired a recent case alleging domestic terrorism at the Family Research Council.

“We commend the FBI for removing website links to the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that not only dispenses erroneous data but has itself been linked to domestic terrorism in federal court. We hope this means the FBI leadership will avoid any kind of partnership with the SPLC,” said Tony Perkins, FRC President. “The Southern Poverty Law Center’s mission to push anti-Christian propaganda is inconsistent with the mission of both the military and the FBI, which is to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States,” he added (Washington Examiner, 27 iii).

{Whether the dumping – which would surely be appealed by the SPLC’s state-funded lawyers – was just a sop to Whites remained to be seen.}

Gates of Vienna : ‘A Boot of Tolerance Stamping on a Human Face – Forever’

GatesofVienna.net reports on the ‘intolerance of intolerance’ EU directive that could become law across Europe next year, criminalizing anti-feminism and possibly any kind of criticism of female behaviour as well. Of most relevance to the gatesofvienna, the edict will also prohibit criticism of Islam. The article is largely a translation of another that appeared at a German website.



Those who follow European political affairs may already be familiar with “A Model National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance” (pdf available here), an OIC-approved framework proposal published by the European Parliament, which seems likely to be implemented across the EU. The proposed law would devise a draconian new form of politically correct “tolerance” and impose it on European citizens and institutions by establishing bureaucratic bodies with the authority to enforce it.

Below is a recent article from Politically Incorrect that examines the implications of this new, improved, totalitarian European Tolerance. Many thanks to JLH for translating this important piece from the German:

Wolfrum in Sheep’s Clothing
By Michael C. Schneider, Esq., Frankfurt am Main

Anyone who speaks and writes about the abrogation of freedom in Europe is accused of being a pathological conspiracy theorist. So it is advisable to be a little more specific, and name names.

The abrogation of freedom in Europe is not occurring naturally, but according to the planning of educated elites, who have been trained to replace civic freedoms — especially those of expression, of the press and of the airwaves — with ideological coercion, and thus smash civil society into microscopic shards, like valuable, defenseless porcelain…

…A substantial find: A Model National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance is a political manifesto on the transformation of nations of the EU and beyond, compiled by, among others, Wolfrum in Sheep’s Clothing, under the aegis of the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation.

The basic consideration of the document as read are attractive and allow no suspicion to arise — that is if you do not know what EU political-speak means — for instance, “human diversity” standing for the systematic destruction of the autochthonic population and its traditional canon of values. Whereas respect for human dignity is based on recognition of human diversity and the inherent right of every person to be different, etc.

All possible groups are supposed to be protected by this concept of tolerance — just not the majority population. With this policy, minorities are purposefully advanced at the cost of majority cohesion. This splits the society, thereby controlling it better and leading to the final goal. This becomes visible in the typical, EU-wide concept of the protected minority, which is inherently aimed at splitting the society — divide et impera: “Group” is a number of people joined by racial or cultural roots, ethnic origin or descent, religious affiliation or linguistic links, sexual identity or orientation, or any other characteristics of a similar nature. This unlimited “definition” makes it possible to inflate “tolerance” for any social interest or ideological motif to a fighting phrase and deploy it as a universal weapon against possible dissidents.

Undesirable behavior, too, is defined so broadly that freedom of expression, the press, radio, television, art and science and any other communicative freedom can be flushed down the toilet with a loud whooshing sound. It shall be prohibited to make any possibly discriminatory comment against any group against which there may be discrimination — “Group libel” means: defamatory comments made in public and aimed against a group as defined in paragraph (a) — or members thereof — with a view to inciting to violence, insulting the group, holding it to ridicule or subjecting it to false charges.

see also : http://www.europeandignitywatch.org/day-to-day/detail/article/double-standards-on-tolerance-promoted-in-european-parliament.html


Pat Condell : ‘How Gay Is Islam?’

Pat Condell wonders why gay people tend to share the left-wing love of Islam, when Islam teaches that gay people should be stoned to death or disemboweled in public.

Loyal and esteemed readers will notice the same contradiction in the love of self-identified ‘ephebophiles’ for feminists – the very creatures that are guarenteeing that most of those ephebophiles will end their days being analy raped and beaten in a prison cell.

Polish Student Wants To Have Sex With 100,000 Men Around the World


Warsaw – A Polish student on a mission to have sex with 100,000 men from around the world is facing backlash from Egyptian Islamists.

Ania Lisewska, a 21-year-old design student from Warsaw, set off on her epic sex quest in May in her hometown. According to Metro, she’s currently got around 1,000 notches on her bedpost, leaving her daunting task 1 percent complete. In order to reach the 100,000 mark, Lisewska will need to have sex for 33,000 hours, or 3.8 years, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with no breaks for eating, sleeping or cleaning up. She says she spends at least 20 minutes with each man and told the Huffington Post that “the most was 35 men in 8 hours.”

Lisewska says she aims to have sex with men from every corner of the globe. All races, nationalities and religions are welcome to take their turns. Being that her financial resources are limited and she is not charging anything, the student is looking sponsors who will fly her to various international destinations in exchange for sex.

“I want men from Poland, Europe and all around the world. I love sex, fun and men,” she wrote on her Facebook page.


Feminist Sexual Jealousy and the ‘Appeal to Motive’ Fallacy

As readers of this blog will be aware, we attribute the growth of feminism over the last 150 years primarily to the motives of female sexual jealousy, bitterness, and insecurity. This is what drives feminism to forever criminalise and demonise male sexuality.

This has appeared in its most seemingly transparent form over the last couple of weeks with the unseemly spat between older feminist (washed up) divas, such as Sinead O’Conner, and the young Miley Cyrus – the former accusing the latter of such crimes as ‘prosituting herself’, and claiming that such sexy pop videos as hers are ‘sexualising girls and young women’.

I’m often asked here to provide ‘scientific evidence’ to support my claim that what is causing anti-male sex hysteria is indeed female sexual jealousy. This seems to me like being asked to provide evidence that men prefer 20 year old women to 70 year old women, or that robbery is linked to poverty and the motive of wanting to increase ones wealth. Just this morning, I woke up to find another comment from a loyal and esteemed reader that ‘feminism hasn’t much to do with looks’.

But for the moment, let’s just agree that the motivation of feminists is sexual jealousy. Some feminists and their supporters might still say that this is irrelevant and that I am committing the ‘appeal to motive’ fallacy. I want to briefly show that this is not the case.

Why stressing the sexual motives of feminism is not fallacious or irelevant is because of the following reasons :

1/ Firstly, and primarily, it is not possible to seperate feminist motives from their claims, because their claims ultimately always rely on the subjective testimony of women – their ‘feelings’. Feminists do not provide arguments as such, and when they do appear to provide what resemble arguments, a cursory inspection of their logic reveals that they are always premised upon a subjective claim such as ‘I feel abused’ and/or an unsupported value judgement such as ‘young women who strip are degrading themselves’.

Given that feminist claims always rely on subject feelings and testimony it is entirely relevant to point out their motives for making such claims.

Of course, it might not necessarily be that feminists are always outright lying. For example, when Charlotte Church says that she now feels that she was ‘manipulated’ when she was young and earning vast sums of money for showing skin in her music videos, she may actually believe it. But her claim is purely subjective, and she clearly has various motives for telling herself (and others) that she was ‘manipulated’ – for example, to soothe the bitterness of the fact she is no longer young and sexy and able to profit from that, and also to limit the capability of young women today (her sexual rivals) to profit from their bodies as she was once able to.

What does constitute ‘evidence’ and ‘argument’ in the world of feminism usually consists of ‘advocacy research‘. Highly questionable ‘science’ in which researchers are paid to support a pre-concieved conclusion, itself of course based upon a value judgement and subjective claim that has a clear selfish motive behind it (invariably, for feminists, a sexual and/or a financial one).

2/ Secondly, these claims of feminists lead to real world outcomes. They are efforts to justify bringing harm into the world – such as restricting the liberties and sexual rights of young women and girls, and in making new laws that criminalise ordinary male sexuality and lead to ever more men being locked up in prison. Thus the onus is on feminists to provide hard evidence to support their claims – and to convince us that they are genuinely trying to protect young people rather than eliminate sexual competition and resolve psychological issues of bitterness and sexual jealousy.

3/ Thirdly, feminists are all too happy to use the ‘appeal to motives’ against their opponents in the men’s rights community, accusing MRAs in general of ‘not being able to get laid’ and to ‘having small penises’. More specifically, with regards to those of us who see sex offender issues and the age of consent to be men’s rights issues, to being ‘paedophiles’ who want to f*** little girls. Now some of my Hampstead readers believe ‘we should be better than them’, that we shouldn’t resort to these tactics. But hopefully I’ve outlined above why pointing out the motives of feminists is not mere name calling, but entirely relevant when feminist claims rest ultimately upon subjective testimony and value judgements, bogus ‘advocacy research’, and when the onus should be upon them to provide clear proof of harm. Furthermore, unlike feminists, we do provide clear argument and evidence to support our claims, or rather we use logic and argument in those rare instances when feminists try to put forward anything resembling evidence or argument, in order to debunk them.

But as most feminist claims are subjective, and rely on our ‘trust’ rather than upon proof, it is entirely right to point out the motives of those making them in order to show that we should not trust feminists, and we should not accept their subjective claims when to do so results in real harm being caused to men.