Hijab, Female Oppression and the Left

Gloria Steinem (center, red scarf), icon of the feminist movement with sharia-supporter Linda Sarsour (far right) at the Women’s March in Washington, D.C. after Trump’s election. (Photo: Theo Wargo/Getty Images)

by Linda Goudsmit

Only a left-wing liberal living in subjective reality could promote the hijab — the quintessential symbol of feminine oppression — as fashion. This is yet another salvo in the attempt to Islamicize the West by making the unacceptable dictates of sharia law acceptable.

Psychologically speaking, it is well known that familiarity brings acceptance, so the purpose of making the hijab fashionable and familiar is to make hijabs (and oppressive sharia law) acceptable. This is a deliberate strategy of indoctrination designed to change public perception of the hijab from a symbol of oppression (objective reality) to a symbol of fashion (subjective reality). Anyone who participates in this idiocy is a useful idiot.

The “Women’s” March organized by Linda Sarsour is another contradiction in terms. In supporting sharia law, Sarsour supports tenets that deny individual freedom to women and the LGBT community. Is this what these marching women want?

Fascism, racism, misogyny and xenophobia are the hallmarks of Islamic sharia law. The Women’s March was a March of Dhimmis.

To make sense of the nonsensical willingness of non-Muslim women to participate in a march organized by a sharia-law supporter, we can examine the stunning announcement by Nihad Awad, executive director and founder of CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) who said that refusing to accept Muslim refugees is the moral equivalent to slavery.

To understand Awad’s outrageous statement, you must speak the language of CAIR and Linda Sarsour and learn how they manipulate and dupe an unsuspecting public into believing their egregious lies.

Their language, like 1984’s Doublespeak, is a deliberate strategy designed to create the cognitive dissonance.

Language, borders, and currency are required to have a sovereign country. Doublespeak is a deliberate attack on America’s language and an assault on our ability to understand each other. The word peace when used by Islamists is understood to mean the time when the world is ruled by sharia law. Americans understand the word peace to mean pluralism, tolerance and freedom.

So, when Awad claims he wants peace, he does not mean peace in the way the American public understands the word. There is no “right” to come to America. It is a privilege to come to America and legal, vetted immigration is what protects all Americans from those who wish us harm.

So, why do left-wing liberal apologists prefer their fictional subjective reality to factual objective reality regarding the tyranny of Muslim extremism and oppressive sharia law? Why do they ignore the xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, supremacy, barbaric honor killings, female genital mutilation, rape, sanctioned wife beatings and the overarching desire to conquer the West and impose sharia law worldwide? Why do they support the internationalized criminalization of criticism of Islam?

Cognitive dissonance is a powerful psychological weapon of the information war being waged by Islamists and the Left against the West. Cognitive dissonance is being used to manipulate the public and effect seismic shifts in public opinion — a public that is being propagandized to believe the fiction that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.

When a terrorist screams “Allah Akhbar” before slaughtering innocent people, common sense tells us that the terrorist is a jihadist with religious motivations.

When Obama renamed the Ft. Hood shooting “workplace violence” and not Islamic terrorism he created cognitive dissonance. The public “knew” it was terrorism, but Obama created cognitive dissonance by insisting that it wasn’t.

Cognitive dissonance pushes the public into a subjective reality equivalent to the Hans Christian Anderson story of the “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” It is not surprising that when Donald Trump appeared on the scene and told the public that the Emperor “isn’t wearing anything at all!” (and called radical Islam just that, among other issues), he was elected.

The Tavistock Institute taught us that the constant shock of cognitive dissonance pushes a society to the edge of psychosis where its citizens will surrender their rational thinking to regain equilibrium.

At what point do the interests of the Left and the Islamists intersect? What defines intersectionality and identity politics? The twin foundational psychodynamics of identity politics are victimhood and regression.

Contrasting Trump’s straightforward language are the likes of Nihad Awad and Linda Sarsour operatives/sympathizers, painting Muslims as victims and seeking to transform America and destroy it from within.

Fake news disinformation has been a weapon of war used by Islamists for decades – we in America just never imagined that it would be used against American citizens for political purposes.

Any American hoping to preserve America’s sovereignty and the individual freedoms we enjoy must wake up and realize that making America great again is not just a campaign slogan; it is an appeal to preserve and protect the greatest experiment in individual freedoms ever created in any society on Earth.

The left-wing liberal apologists for Islamic sharia law should try actually living in a Muslim country ruled by sharia law before so arrogantly and foolishly insisting their idealized fictionalized subjective reality is real.

But wait – a warning accompanies this suggestion – if you are gay, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist or a woman without a burka stay home, because you can be easily murdered without protest.

The hijab is not a fashion statement in objective reality. It is the quintessential symbol of female oppression and bondage no matter what Linda Sarsour says her Doublespeak/language of subjective reality.

 

Linda Goudsmit is a reader of Clarion Project.