A final blog (for now)

by Tony D'Amato

I’ve talked about Muslim women and international law. Where are they? Where am I? I am sitting here at my keyboard, a lump of protoplasm surrounded by skin. International law is external to me. The Islamic people are external to me. Do I have a right to interfere with these external things? Do they have a right to interfere with me?

The word “right” shows up in these questions. Does the right come from them? Or does it come from me?

If international law says that the Islamic people and I have rights, who authorized international law to say it? In his comments to my blogs, “Obtestor” keeps saying that it is the women of the world who have told international law what to say. It is they who have decided what everyone’s rights shall be. Is Obtestor articulating a powerful insight here? Or is he just trolling for a date?

If my rights are part of my belief system, where did I get my belief system? Most belief systems are formed in childhood. In the Muslim world, boys and girls are raised together in the women’s quarters. When a boy is born, there is great fuss and celebration. But the women do not seem happy when a girl is born. They convey their displeasure to all the boys and girls who are in their care.

A young boy is fussed over and spoiled by all the adult women. As a result, the boy usually becomes a brat. He hits his sisters, steals their food, and behaves like a tyrant toward them. His mother and all the adult women back him up. If he hits a girl who is younger than he is, and hits her for no reason, the women will yell at the girl and maybe hit her. They will tell the little girl that she has displeased the boy, even if she hasn’t.

Finally, when the boy is six or seven he’s sent to the men’s quarters to live with a tutor under the authority of his father.

We might say, looking at all of this, that the women are merely preparing the children for the life of extreme inequality that lies ahead of them. The male person can do whatever he wants; the female person must learn to like it, whatever it is.

Who am I to criticize these people? Hasn’t my belief system been instilled in me just as their belief system was instilled in them? When I was a child, I was told, by adults I trusted, all about God. I was told that I could pray to God and that He would listen. I prayed a lot. I tried to start conversations, but I knew that God was a little too busy to answer me.

However, I no longer believe these things. I have trouble even figuring out what the concept “God” might mean. I don’t say that God doesn’t exist, but I also don’t say that God exists. I think I was very lucky to be able to read books and be exposed to ideas, and given enough time to think in solitude, that I could mentally disengage from these childish things.

I don’t think that Muslim women have the opportunity to disengage. Their childhood brainwashing is just too thorough. What the young Muslim woman said in my previous blog are things she deeply believes. She has been sincerely brainwashed.

I don’t think I was quite as thoroughly brainwashed as a child because I’ve rejected all the things I was taught. I would not have been able to reject them if I had been as completely brainwashed as the children of Islam.

I have evolved a perspective of the world and my place in the world that I believe is not entirely the product of what any other person or group of persons have ordained for me. I think I see the world more objectively than Muslim women see it. Of course, I could be wrong about this, but just the possibility that I am wrong doesn’t make it wrong. Someone would have to prove to me that I am wrong.

So here’s how I come out. I may be a creature of my belief system, but it’s MY belief system. And an important part of it is that no human adult should ever have legal or moral superiority over any other human adult.

I look at the Qu’ran. Even though Ali in a comment says I should be taking seventh century texts with a grain of salt, he would probably be even more outraged if I instead quoted a later translation. I am also sure that the same words I am quoting are read today by millions of Islamic people. As you recall, those words of the Prophet are: “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other.”

And I say to Muslim women: Reject these words. Do not allow a seventh century Prophet to run your life.

And I say this because I cannot say the opposite without denying my own belief system. I cannot say the opposite without denying my own humanity. I believe I am right and their system is grievously wrong.


9 Responses

  1. [In his comments to my blogs, “Obtestor” keeps saying that it is the women of the world who have told international law what to say. It is they who have decided what everyone’s rights shall be. Is Obtestor articulating a powerful insight here?]

    I am convinced. Look at the precedents. Western Law and international law is moving directly into the arena of matriarchal totalitarianism.

    Two days ago a man was fired by NBC for saying that Islam created terrorism. Starve the man why don’t they! That is what they are doing. Starving him because he is a man. Don’t toe the line, no problem. Have fun being hungry in America, soup line guy.

    Yesterday a high school in America was forced to admit that 13% of its female students were pregnant. That means 65 cases of statutory rape in one school. The incident never made the cable news for a moment. There is no way the matriarchal school system would ever get such attention.

    Today at Walter Reed Hospital, leftist anti-war protestors that flooded the area held up signs that read: “Maimed For A Lie.”

    What is that!?!

    Over 53% of the American voting population is women. Women control the outcome of every election in the United States. That is because women are the majority.

    Yet we are to submit to all of their claims enforced by soldiers of the state armed with weapons of war that they have minority status and all of the perks and police state protections that go with it.

    Such as…

    * Over 93% of all no-fault divorces are filed by women.

    * Women receive custody of children over 96% of the time through these ‘no-fault’ divorces. How can that be if there is no fault? Simple. The dehumanization of men.

    * The VAWA provides $billions of dollars for so-called victimized women, and yet male victims of domestic violence receive nothing.

    * Restraining orders, another powerful tool of coercion and anti-male dumanization, are handed out like chewing gum to any women that wants one. Most are handed out simply for claims that women feel “unsafe”. What does that mean? What does “feeling unsafe” mean?

    I felt “unsafe” in Mogadishu, Somalia. Where was my restraining order? lol. You saw the movie, right?

    The fact is Professor D’Amato, and I have really enjoyed this blog entry that you have made, is that what has appeared right under our noses is clearly a new form of totalitarianism based not upon race or class, but gender!

    Several months ago a US General Officer got on television and said: “It is fun to shoot men who make women wear veils.” What!?!!?

    Why are we REALLY in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    The moral arguments are just as uncanny. The left steps back and claims that the religious right is such a threat. Laughable! Name me one case, just one, that the religious right has won in the last, hmmmm, thirty years. That should be easy. Here let me help you with the answer.


    That’s right, none. Yet we are supposed to believe that an ‘oppressive’ right-wing exists?


    Do you know where an oppressive right-wing exists? Everyone does if they will open their eyes. It exists in Islam.

    Can you imagine for a moment, just a moment, what would happen if American men were to lay claim to even one percent of the rights that Islamic men hold in Islamic countries? There would be riots in the streets. America would riot and tens of millions of fascists would be marching on Washington, D.C. Men would be at home too as it happened so guess who would be doing the marching.

    In environments where totalitarianism exists, the ‘party’, the ‘party members’ that benefit from it are not going to come forward and admit it. They are not going to step out of their position of privilege and tell the sub-humans that they oppress what the game is. No way.

    Just as women who collect $billions in the VAWA would never tell men they have a legal right to the funds, if the men could find one single judge in America that hasn’t sold men out.

    So you better believe this is an important issue. Would totalitarians allow international law to reflect anything other than their ‘motherland’ totalitarianism? No way.

    The War on Terrorism is simply the engaging of people that believe the highest form of government is the local Imam who receives messages from God and has special powers. These people do not listen to nor respect western law. When terrorists were on trial in Washington, D.C., they were laughing in court because they do not respect any western laws nor the folks that issue and enforce them. They respect Sharia Law only.

    So what is really going on is a feminist war against Islam. That is exactly what is occurring. Just as the General said that it was fun to shoot men who make women wear veils.

    American men today remind me of a certain situation that started to appear in 1934 Germany. Let us pray together that it doesn’t go the distance, but it doesn’t look good. In order to slaughter undesireables, you first have to dehumanize them. The only folks being put into debtor’s prison today for failing to pay child support are men. The full majority of DV calls to residences involve the arrest of men. The full majority of restraining orders are issued against men to steal their children as prizes in family courts. It goes on and on and on and on.

    Only unethical blindness allows the educated not to see it…or party loyalty to matriarchal totalitarianism.

    …and we are going to export this perversion to Islam?

    Good luck!

    I believe in God. Why? No one can explain scientifically how the universe began, unless you believe in Big Bang psuedo-science. What about love? Can you scientifically explain love? No. Can it be measured? No. It is faith. If I say I love someone, it is only through faith can I hope they believe me. There is no science for me to use to prove it.

    When you look into the night sky and see billions and trillions of stars out there, billions and trillions of light years apart, did that all start from “something out of nothing”? I thought spontaneous creation went out the scientific window centuries ago.

    The truth is, no one can explain it, but isn’t defining religion as a questionable belief by a human no different than claiming God doesn’t exist without evidence? It is the same. Atheism and agnosticism and humanism; they are all religions. They are no different than Christianity or Islam, or Hinduism. They are the same animal. The only difference is that the humanist, the atheist and the agnosticist worhips humans instead of the omnipotent being.

    The religion of secular humanism is the most powerful religion represented in western law. Christians could only dream of having such representation.

    So let’s all face the truth right now. We live in a period of human history that a secular humanist matriarchal totalitarianism is sweeping the globe and is prepared, in my opinion, to genocide any resistance to it. Just witness the sudden increases in dangerous western abuses against men.

    Think of it as passive euthanasia in the law. The feminists expect everyone to go quietly. When they don’t, active euthanasia internationally is being used with bullets and bombs, and then brushed off through the international media as “pulling the plug” (passive euthansia). But we know active euthanasia is criminal, right?

    Some day, perhaps in 2075, the generations of young from that era will look back in history at all of us and bow their heads in shame if we don’t blow up the world first before they ever get that chance to conduct their own historic introspection.


    P.S. International law is clearly what western women (feminism) dictate, and clearly a scheme of law that men must go die to enforce. And so it is, and so it shall be, say the humanists.

  2. Prof. D’Amato’ opinions on law, culture and religions are insightful.

    While reading his latest blog, i couldn’t contain myself from laughter ( not in disrespect) when I read the passage that says that boys were raised in women’s quarters and boys were moved to men’s quarters after they get a little older.

    The reason for my laugh was because Prof. D’Amato had painted a picture of a medieval or an Ottoman Palace life.

    I think ordinary Muslim homes, from China to the Middle East, do not have men quarters or women quarters.

    a boy or a girl would live in the same house with other members of family.

    Though, D’Amato assertion about Muslim women, has some truth to it, regarding indoctrination of values and religions, which is true of all other belief systems out there.

    Religion is a dogma, not necessary a rationally calculated choice. It is a matter of believing of one’s parents, and society’s choice for you, unless you choose otherwise.

    The same could be true about the Christian or Jewish faith. Children born into these faiths ( and others) did not make a rational choice to be in that belief system.

    Religion, often times does not make sense to me either. One has to put his rational mind aside, and believe in whatever God his parents chose for him/her. it makes one feel safer in the company of others.

    it is also true that in the Muslim world, women have suffered from the absence of legal rights but so did men. in fact the in the Muslim world the concept of citizen, as a sovereign human, and as a source of legitimacy and political power has not arrived there yet.

    Muslim “citizens” of their own countries are more or less Subjects to this tyrant of that.

  3. One man’s brainwashing is another man’s morality – the difference is the value system which supports the rules.

    I think it is a mistake to dismiss value systems based solely on applying one’s own value system against an apparently incompatible one. That appearance of incompatibility may only be a surface appearance.

    It is also a mistake, I think, to generalize value systems with a wide brush – people have differences which are essential to their own identity within their societal value system; those variances sometimes have essential things to say about how coherent the value system is.

    I am also, by choice and upbringing, in the humanist secular western tradition and I find the Koran-centric value system of many Muslim household likewise uncompelling based on the tenets of my values: humancentric, individual, rational, experiential, etc.

    But I am loathe to dismiss the entire set of Muslim values merely because they have some major differences and dissonance with my own. That is not because I don’t feel I’m right in my values (they wouldn’t be values if I did), but because I understand that understanding and tolerance are the best means to present the virtues of my own value system. People change values slowly, and not by force of will, or browbeating – that is really what the term brainwashing is meant to convey.

    You paint yourself a tad hypocritical when from the western secular humanist tradition you claim that a person within an incompatible value system is “brainwashed”. If you desire that a person question their own values and strive to understand, sympathize, and partially adopt your own, you should present the argument for why Humanism and not Muslim values are compelling.

    The term “brainwashing” is insulting, and it is a judgement call on whether formative values were taught or enforced. My guess is that you’d attract more people to your value system not by using insults, but by using the core of the western secular humanist tradition: persuasion and rationality.

    One of the most powerful persuasions is by example. This piece is a poor example of our western human secular values.

  4. I found Professor D’Amato’s posts quite interesting. However, I’m quite confused by Obtestor’s comments and criticisms, particularly since Professor D’Amato’s “most important human right” can be summed up as respect for the individual. Or, as some phrase it, “the golden rule” (others can argue its origins).

    While I was not happy with some of the generalities made by Professor D’Amato, I do understand that he was using them to try and make a particular point. I would be very surprised to learn that he has this one narrow view of Islam.

    I am also confused by Obtestor’s idea that “international law is clearly what western women (feminism) dictate[s].” My understanding of the development of international law does not see it forming based on Western notions of feminism. There appears to be a need for the Carnegie Foundation to reprint their classics of international law.

    Like most legal developments, the law of human rights has been reactionary to problems that garner the attention of governments. Thus, its no surprise that the UDHR followed the abuses of WWII. We see this as well in the development of the different human rights conventions.

  5. [However, I’m quite confused by Obtestor’s comments and criticisms, particularly since Professor D’Amato’s “most important human right” can be summed up as respect for the individual.]

    If you are confused by my comments you should ask for clarification. I am also in the same room with you (this forum), so there is no need to speak in the third person, unless you do so out of disrespect.

    The only claim that I am making in regards to the development of international law is that fascism finds it easier to replicate itself, sort of how viruses replicate themselves, than to implement systems of law and governance foreign to the host.

    You are confused about the topic because you did not read all of Professor D’Amato’s blog posts in sequence on the matter. Professor D’Amato was clearly stating that the most important human right for mankind was the regulation of female rights in any society. I won’t go further than that and speak for Professor D’Amato because he does a good job of doing that all by himself, but let’s not kid ourselves at what is going on with international law.

    In the early 1970s when the American 5th column funded by the Soviet Union and other hostile nation-states such as North Korea through the World Worker’s Party and many others, sensed a deterioration in our system. They sensed a weakness that appeared as President Nixon was trying every venue possible to retreat from our responsibilities on Vietnam, the war so unpopular that the revolutionary 5th column began to operate with impunity.

    I have stated from the beginning that any emerging nation-state system that the United States plays a part in creating through the dismantling of a previous regime should be introduced to the Bill of Rights only in the beginning.

    Why is that so difficult for internationalists?

    Simple. The Bill of Rights are God-given rights bestowed upon all men and women by the creator. The secular humanist religion simply shakes with anger over these rights and certainly wouldn’t want 25,000,000 former slaves in Iraq to benefit from their truths.

    So the new fascism that has appeared in the west that is driven by matriarchal totalitarianism is so successful that it wants to expand into the newly liberated countries immediately. That is why US General Officers say that it is fun to shoot men who make women wear veils, because it is fun to shoot them on American streets when the American feminist police state is challenged.

    Professor D’Amato admits that I have a great point in this regard. Are we exporting totalitarianism, or are we exporting freedom and capitalism? Those are the questions that need to be answered by non-biased intellects. I say that because a state can only export law that it itself uses as tools of coercion upon domestic populations. Iraq will never be more free than the definition of freedom here in the United States. We should try to make it more free to set the example, and how we set the example is bringing Iraq the Bill of Rights, not laws to criminalise the wearing of veils or other petty fascists issues that humanists find so “offensive”.

    So it is the ‘idea’ of America that the radical left does not want to get loose in Iraq. America is a dangerous idea, and that is why I served in two wars myself to defend her before I became an intellectual because I believe in that idea.

    If you can’t see the dangerous fascism appearing in our own country then I would be pleased to debate it with you. Let’s begin with the lie that women are minorities when they are clearly the majority population and we can take it from there. Men are the true minority population, since 5th column gender politics relies on gender issues like a leather boot stomping on the male face forever in America, as Eric Blair wrote so eloquently in his novel “1984”.


  6. Well I really don’t have time to get into all of this, but I’ll attempt some brief comments…

    To Obtestor:

    The other day you asked what Isalm exports besides oil. Well oil is just another commodity, and it’s utterly trivial that anyone who has a surplus of it is an exporter: that’s just an accident of location, and there’s nothing “Islamic” about it. Yet in the same post, you used one of the most important and pervasive cultural exports of Isalm without even realizing it.

    Do you need a clue?

    (Couldn’t resist asking that one!)

    And you rant about “feminist / humanist ‘facism'”, and claim the bill of rights is a gift from god.

    As if you were a prophet speaking for god, as if your understanding was perfect and beyond doubt, as if your woeful ignorance was not evident in every sentence you write.

    As if you EVEN believed in the bill of rights.

    And as if Islam, Judaism, and Christianity were not all branches growing from the same tree, just as Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism are.

    And you speak of love even as you vent your contempt for those who do not share your ignorace or bigotry.


    It was not so different in the west until recently. Mary Wollstonecraft wrote a shocking and scandalous book called VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN that was published in 1792:


    Her major theme being the outrageous notions that women could think just as well as men and should be educated just as well.

    In 1848, Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton organized the first women’s rights convention in Seneca Falls NY. The ‘fem/nazis’ who attended were mainly people who were involved in that facist / humanist abomination, the Anti-Slavery movement, which was it itself in no small part dervived from the radcial teaching of a fellow by the name of Charles Grandisson Finney… An evangelical Christian who taught theolgy at Oberlin College in Ohio for many years and and who toured New England holding revivals that drew crowds from miles around.

    And the fem-nazis of Seneca Falls were very clear about what they wanted:


    Becasue at the time, a woman still wasn’t usually given an education, and was legally a ward of her father or her husband with little or no say in her own life.

    That was just slighty more than 100 years before I was born. Slavery of course was not abolished for another 27 years, and then was replaced by Jim Crow and the KKK.

    Women finally got the vote in 1920, yet even today reactionary clods like Obtestor resent them using it enough to call them “nazis”. The theory seems to be that if they call the people they resent nazis first that no one will notice that they are the real fascists.

    But you don’t fool me one bit Obtestor: 1 + 1 = 2.

    By the way, that’s an example of that Islamic export I mentioned:

    ARABIC numerals — you know, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9… and the most important one: 0. ALGEBRA, both the word and the discipline, is another example (among many).


    To Tony:

    I don’t think you can isolate an individual, though it is certainly human to feel isolated.

    I think it is our CULTURE that is truly human and sapient, and that it is fundamentally linguistic: as Wittgenstein said, “The world is everything that is the case,” and “What can be said at all can be said clearly: whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

    And I think we legislate our understanding of things by a communal process. We aren’t a Borg hive-mind, but we aren’t strictly individuals either: a human raised in isolation from human culture is just a smart ape.

    I think the book you are working on concerning PIL as a self-aware system describes a sub-system of that process, and there a paper by Kant on the Universal Church that I think was an effort in similar directions, FWIW.

    But the devil is in the details, as you well know. One last comment in general is that ‘value’ is an easy word to use, one I use myself, but it has an exact meaning, and I think that in a discussion of this sort it’s of critical importance to have an explicit and clear understanding of how the term is being used.

    Obtestor for example, appears to have absolutely no values whatever: he uses the term to mean any superstition he holds, no matter how irrational or fallacious it might be.

    When I use the term, I mean a demonstrable result of an evalution.



  7. More 5th column nonsense.

    “Ignore the issues and stick to the revolution only.” — Joseph Stalin.

    …to sum up Charly’s post.


  8. Obtestor,

    If you think I care a fig about vacuous slanders like “5th columnist”, think again: you, sir, are a self-made IDIOT.

    And I repeat: res ipsa loquitur.


  9. Quit your whining, Charly. You don’t even know the difference between a criminal and a combatant, and you are calling me an idiot?

    The 5th column at work.



Trackbacks and Pingbacks

  1. There are no trackbacks or pingbacks associated with this post at this time.