Mutlu Kaya is a casualty in the cultural Marxist attack on Near Eastern culture (primarily Muslim).
Cultural Marxism is using women to drive the thin edge of the wedge into that culture, just as it used women to undermine the West.
This is why Muslims (especially the men) react so badly to Western culture: they saw what happened to the West, they know how the story ends, and they want no part of it.
They don’t want their men to be turned into poodles, like Western men.
Does this excuse shooting your girlfriend in the head?
Certainly not – but it does explain the visceral hatred of the West, which is the source of the flame which the Mullahs fan so easily into a shooting Jihad.
this is an interesting point – and well made, even if I am not certain if I fully agree with it.
Certainly, Western men have been feminized. Merosexuals have become the new norm.
And – yes, I fully agree that the hyper-feminization in the education system is what drives so many of our young men into the arms of the jihadis – the only masculinity-accepting role model currently available in our society.
But…
I am not so certain that this dynamic translates directly into the Middle Eastern cultural experience.
To the contrary – I suspect that there are other factors in play here, not least of which is the family’s rejection of the singer’s ex-boyfriend as a husband.
Under Islamic cultural norms, his refusal as a husband by the family is a stain on his honour which must be expunged by the destruction of the subject of his marital suit. There is no Cultural Marxism in play here…
Interesting… the rejection is an aspect of the situation I wasn’t aware of.
But it hardly justifies the statement “there is no cultural Marxism in play here.”
At most, we can say that what is in play here is not only cultural Marxism.
And, indeed, this is true throughout the region. Our violation of the sovereignty of the nations in the region, motivated by the need for crude oil and geopolitical containment of Russia plays a big part, too.
However, none of that accounts for the visceral, reflexive fear and hatred that lies at the root of the re-emergence of violent Jihad.
That is rooted in the fear of castration.
The real point however, is this: the West has no chance of prevailing if it does not execute a radical turn away from gyno-centrism.
While I agree that gynocentrism is the bane of Western civilizational decline, I do not agree that it has as prominent a motivation here as you would credit it with.
Yes, the Western decline is directly linked to the Cultural Marxist attack upon all that is ‘healthy masculinity’. 100% with you on this.
And yes, I do agree that the Islamic State type dudes are fully aware of it and that some – stressing, some – of their motivation in the Islamist uber-masculinity cult is partially motivate by this backlash.
BUT!!!
The Islamist misogyny pre-dates Western sissification.
Ascribing 100% of it to anti-western-sissification is guilty of ascribing more influence of Western culture upon Islam that there actually is.
It is akin to the anthropocentrism endemic in the AGW type reasoning: it ascribes our Western culture, our fetishes, WAY more importance than they truly wield.
As Aisha, the favourite wife of Muhammed said: the believing (i.e. Muslim) women are the most suffering women of all.
Muslims oppress their women because of the Islamic teachings, regardless of what we, in the West, do, teach or proclaim. This is their dogma – totally separate and unrelated to us, no matter how we would like to think we are the centre of their decision making!!!
Sure, it may drive some alienated Westerners towards Islamism – but the people who start out devout Muslim are not subject to our teachings and it is a fallacy to ascribe their behaviour to anything we may or may not do/profess/stand for.
I made no comment about how Muslims treat women, or why.
My comment was about why Muslims hate the West.
However, there is no escaping the fact that Islamic expansionism was in remission following the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and the subsequent return of violent Jihad and Wahhabi-style fundamentalism is a direct result of Western meddling in the region.
For example, if you look at photographs of life in Iran in the 1940’s, you will see that the women were dressed in the latest Paris fashions, like Western women; wore fancy makeup and hairstyles, like Western women; worked in professional fields if they wanted to, like Western women; and were generally treated rather well, like Western women.
The main difference at that time was that Islam, like most Eastern cultures, allowed multiple wives and concubines, while the West was – at least officially – largely monogamous. The irony is that, because concubinage was officially sanctioned in the East, such women were much better off than their Western counterparts (mistresses, courtesans, etc.), who were considered criminals – or at least sinners.
The real oppression of women in the Near East followed the ascendancy of Abdulaziz Ibn Saud in Arabia, Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran, and the Taliban in Afghanistan – all as direct results of Western covert action in the region, all part of the Great Game.
We should have let the sleeping dog lie.
Instead, we woke it up and goaded it until it turned vicious.
And now we have a real problem, because we don’t have the guts to put it down.
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 
May 25, 2015 at 21:19
Xanthippa:
Mutlu Kaya is a casualty in the cultural Marxist attack on Near Eastern culture (primarily Muslim).
Cultural Marxism is using women to drive the thin edge of the wedge into that culture, just as it used women to undermine the West.
This is why Muslims (especially the men) react so badly to Western culture: they saw what happened to the West, they know how the story ends, and they want no part of it.
They don’t want their men to be turned into poodles, like Western men.
Does this excuse shooting your girlfriend in the head?
Certainly not – but it does explain the visceral hatred of the West, which is the source of the flame which the Mullahs fan so easily into a shooting Jihad.
May 25, 2015 at 21:35
CodeSlinger,
this is an interesting point – and well made, even if I am not certain if I fully agree with it.
Certainly, Western men have been feminized. Merosexuals have become the new norm.
And – yes, I fully agree that the hyper-feminization in the education system is what drives so many of our young men into the arms of the jihadis – the only masculinity-accepting role model currently available in our society.
But…
I am not so certain that this dynamic translates directly into the Middle Eastern cultural experience.
To the contrary – I suspect that there are other factors in play here, not least of which is the family’s rejection of the singer’s ex-boyfriend as a husband.
Under Islamic cultural norms, his refusal as a husband by the family is a stain on his honour which must be expunged by the destruction of the subject of his marital suit. There is no Cultural Marxism in play here…
May 25, 2015 at 22:43
Xanthippa:
Interesting… the rejection is an aspect of the situation I wasn’t aware of.
But it hardly justifies the statement “there is no cultural Marxism in play here.”
At most, we can say that what is in play here is not only cultural Marxism.
And, indeed, this is true throughout the region. Our violation of the sovereignty of the nations in the region, motivated by the need for crude oil and geopolitical containment of Russia plays a big part, too.
However, none of that accounts for the visceral, reflexive fear and hatred that lies at the root of the re-emergence of violent Jihad.
That is rooted in the fear of castration.
The real point however, is this: the West has no chance of prevailing if it does not execute a radical turn away from gyno-centrism.
May 25, 2015 at 23:06
CodeSlinger:
While I agree that gynocentrism is the bane of Western civilizational decline, I do not agree that it has as prominent a motivation here as you would credit it with.
Yes, the Western decline is directly linked to the Cultural Marxist attack upon all that is ‘healthy masculinity’. 100% with you on this.
And yes, I do agree that the Islamic State type dudes are fully aware of it and that some – stressing, some – of their motivation in the Islamist uber-masculinity cult is partially motivate by this backlash.
BUT!!!
The Islamist misogyny pre-dates Western sissification.
Ascribing 100% of it to anti-western-sissification is guilty of ascribing more influence of Western culture upon Islam that there actually is.
It is akin to the anthropocentrism endemic in the AGW type reasoning: it ascribes our Western culture, our fetishes, WAY more importance than they truly wield.
As Aisha, the favourite wife of Muhammed said: the believing (i.e. Muslim) women are the most suffering women of all.
Muslims oppress their women because of the Islamic teachings, regardless of what we, in the West, do, teach or proclaim. This is their dogma – totally separate and unrelated to us, no matter how we would like to think we are the centre of their decision making!!!
Sure, it may drive some alienated Westerners towards Islamism – but the people who start out devout Muslim are not subject to our teachings and it is a fallacy to ascribe their behaviour to anything we may or may not do/profess/stand for.
May 26, 2015 at 04:14
Xanthippa:
I made no comment about how Muslims treat women, or why.
My comment was about why Muslims hate the West.
However, there is no escaping the fact that Islamic expansionism was in remission following the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and the subsequent return of violent Jihad and Wahhabi-style fundamentalism is a direct result of Western meddling in the region.
For example, if you look at photographs of life in Iran in the 1940’s, you will see that the women were dressed in the latest Paris fashions, like Western women; wore fancy makeup and hairstyles, like Western women; worked in professional fields if they wanted to, like Western women; and were generally treated rather well, like Western women.
The main difference at that time was that Islam, like most Eastern cultures, allowed multiple wives and concubines, while the West was – at least officially – largely monogamous. The irony is that, because concubinage was officially sanctioned in the East, such women were much better off than their Western counterparts (mistresses, courtesans, etc.), who were considered criminals – or at least sinners.
The real oppression of women in the Near East followed the ascendancy of Abdulaziz Ibn Saud in Arabia, Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran, and the Taliban in Afghanistan – all as direct results of Western covert action in the region, all part of the Great Game.
We should have let the sleeping dog lie.
Instead, we woke it up and goaded it until it turned vicious.
And now we have a real problem, because we don’t have the guts to put it down.