For women who have never experienced an abusive relationship it is very hard to understand why a woman would stay in one. This is especially true in Western societies where domestic violence is culturally condemned and the government does so much to support women fleeing such situations. Therefore the difficulty to leave quite often does not lie in the materialistic concerns of the victim, but rather in the victim’s refusal to confront the truth about her situation. It is within this psychological prison that the victim tries to rationalize or defend the behaviour of her violent partner. Most people are aware of this type of sick relationship, but I believe it is not just limited to battered women and their violent partners, it also extends to battered infidels and their Islamic terrorists.
“I love him and once he sees how much I care for him, he will change”
One of the biggest follies of women who are in violent relationships is their belief that through their love their beater will suddenly stop treating them like shit. And yet, this is never how their violent partner interprets their love. Instead, he sees it as a sign of dependency and weakness.
Is this not exactly the same attitude so many people have towards Islamic terrorism?
For example, directly after the Orlando massacre, Loretta Lynch (the Attorney-General of the United States) stated that our best response to Islamic terror is love and compassion. Or alternatively, after the Bataclan shootings and torture, a father explained to his son that flowers (even in the symbolic sense of the word) are a form of protection when faced with guns. It was a sweet sentiment, but completely untrue. And yet, this phrase was plastered all over our media outlets as the answer to Islamic terrorism. But Islamic terrorism does not respond to love by ceasing to be violent. Germany, which has been the most loving and open society towards Muslims of every variety (including ISIS Muslims) has faced three attacks by Muslim refugees in the past 9 days.
Just as loving a violent partner is not the solution to domestic violence, loving radical Muslims is not the answer to Islamic terror. It is actually suicide.
But perhaps other noble sentiments would work - like Togetherness or Solidarity? These are the two go-to words after every attack. But do solidarity and togetherness really make a difference? The French were extremely together during Bastille Day. Young and old, Muslim and Buddhist, black and white, female and male. Yet an attack that killed 84 still occurred. Togetherness just provided an easier target. After every attack the West always gets together, mourns the victims and shows solidarity towards those who lost a close one. Twitter is full of condolences and politicians are tripping over themselves to condemn the latest attack, and show support for the families of the deceased. And yet, terrorist attacks are on the increase. As the police in Germany found out, the only thing that stops an Islamic terrorist is a bullet.
David cameron even suggested that all that is required to defeat Islamic terrorism is to “just go about our normal lives”.
“He’s just going through a hard time at work. Usually he’s not like this.”
This is an all-time favourite line to use if you want to rationalize a person’s bad behaviour. Instead of forcing the violent partner to take responsibility for his violence, the battered woman will blame it on some external problem.
Don’t we see the same sort of reasoning being applied to Islamic terrorism?
The rise of ISIS is never attributed to a genuine desire on the part of Muslims to return to a Caliphate government. Instead, things like climate change, unemployment, or poverty are provided as the reason why people want to create and join an organization that beheads. And this reasoning also extends to one time terrorists.
Nadal Hasan’s terrorist attack was first labelled as “workplace violence” and the result of PTSD (although he had never seen battle) rather than Islamic terror.
The Orlando terrorist attack was attributed by the New York Times to Republicans rather than to Islam’s stance towards homosexuals.
The Islamic terrorist who killed 4 at the University of California just suffered from a bout of teenage angst.
What the media and politicians will never say is that Islamic terrorists are violent because they want to be.
_“Stupid, stupid me. It’s all my fault. He wouldn’t hit me if I wasn’t so stupid.” _
This is another classic line used to rationalize bad behaviour. Again, it rejects the notion that the violent partner is responsible for his actions. And instead, it embraces the notion that the victim must be partly or wholly to blame for the beatings she receives.
The day before the Brussels attack in March I was struck by a comment that the Belgian Interior Minister, Jan Jambon made. He explained that although most Muslims were well integrated, Belgium still has problems with third and fourth generation Muslims, and “this is something that we must work on“. Did you notice the use of the word “we” when identifying who is responsible for integration? It is not placed on the third or fourth generation Muslims to integrate; not even on their parents. It is placed on the average Belgian. The Uni student who is struggling to complete a degree. The Mother with three children. They are the ones responsible for young Muslims refusing to integrate. But Jan Jambon is not alone. When we decide who is responsible for Islamic terror or the rejection of Western values, it is never “they” it is always “we”.
The media are also terrified that they might do or say something that will set off Islamic terror. That’s the real reason why they treat Muhammed like he is in the witness protection program. When it comes to Jesus, you can draw and say whatever you like, but when it comes to Muhammed, it’s censorship all the way.
When threatened with violence for wanting to air Muhammed, South Park decided that it would prefer to cave in to threats than run the risk of being beaten. After the Charlie Hebdo massacre the initial solidarity quickly descended into an argument about the rights and wrongs of drawing Muhammed.
The West goes to long lengths to appease the sensitivities of Muslims. In Sweden, when it became apparent that young virile Muslim men liked to rape women in unisex baths, the baths became sex segregated and policed. The message is, we will get rid of our traditions because your culture can’t handle them. Britain has allowed Sharia law to run alongside its own judicial system, fully aware of how it is used to subjugate women. All over the West we suspend animal cruelty laws to accommodate Islamic methods of slaughter.
We behave like the woman who freaks out about the state of her roast dinner, because that could just be the thing that sets off her violent partner. We tip toe around anything that could be perceived as insensitive to the Muslim population, so that we may avoid a beating or being perceived as insensitive. And I fully understand why. Criticism against Islam is terrifying business. Who wants to move their family into hiding, like Andrew Bolt has had to do? Who wants to go from safe house to safe house with a 24-hour security guard, like Geert Wilders has for over a decade?
“I’m no good as well”
It is a shame that battered women allow their flaws to prevent them from seeing that their faults, whatever they are, are incomparable to a partner who beats. There is no moral equivalence between a partner who beats, and a woman who isn’t always punctual. But this is a trait the West delights in doing. We enjoy espousing the view that our faults are equal to those in Islamic cultures. Obama tells us that before we get on our high horse about Islamic terrorists, we should cast ourselves back to 1096 when Pope Urban issued the first crusade. Essentially, we are just as bad and we have no right to condemn current beheaders because we had past beheaders. We have feminists who refuse to stand up for the misogyny found in Islamic cultures, because they are pre-occupied with the misogny found in the West. Even though Islamic misogyny translates into honour killings, while Western misogyny translates into not having enough women in CEO positions.
“This is a bad relationship. I realize that, and I need to leave.”
Infidels have dedicated so much time and thought trying to figure out why certain Muslims hate us so much. Sometimes it is pinned on our values, or our foreign policies, or on the global inequality between the Western world and the Islamic world. Although this is a good question, it’s answers will be speculative at best. So while we are speculating, why don’t we distance ourselves from our batterers just a bit.
And that is the truth. Infidels are being battered. We accept millions of Muslim refugees, yet we still receive terrorist attacks. Countries like Poland that refuse to take in Muslims, have had zero Islamic terrorists. Germany, on the other hand had three in one week. We try our hardest to avoid Islamic attacks by censoring criticism against Islam, and providing generous welfare programs for Muslims who are hostile to us. When we observe the lack of Muslim integration, we blame it on the host country, never the Muslim who has rejected Western values. The very few people who speak out against the ills of Islam live in fear and are forced to hide their families.
The West is suffering from a very severe case of battered infidel syndrome, and it is time to wake up.
_Note: Victims of DV can also be men. Just as perpetrators of DV can also be women. However, as the legal defence and psychological theory of battered person syndrome originated with men as the perpetrators and women as the victims, I have kept to those roles. _