Columnist Calls Dutch Cowards, Demands World War for Women

by W.F. Price on August 4, 2010

Writing for Forbes, Abigail Esman is making a call to arms on behalf of the world’s women, and she’s gong about it by doling out a hefty dose of shame. Directly in her crosshairs are the Dutch, whom she taunts for losing to the Nazis in 1940 in a mere five days. Well, you try defending against a heavily armed, aggressive neighbor with the latest weapons and an enormous army on a flat, low-lying plain. It would be like the state of New Jersey trying to hold off the US armed forces.

Here she is slamming the Dutch:

Of course, that the Dutch would retreat in the face of such aggression should hardly be surprising: This, after all, was the country that reduced its military after World War I, relying on other countries to come to its defense if needed; and which resisted Nazi forces for a whopping five days before surrendering on May 15, 1940. By the end of the war, 110,000 of Holland’s 140,000 Jews–80%–had been exterminated.

Then, absurdly, Esman takes the Nazi analogy even further:

But it is our fight. That fight belongs to every country of the world where women live. Because the Taliban are not just a national movement: They are a part of a worldwide and growing effort to establish Islamist rule, a renewed Caliphate, as Nazi Germany sought Aryan domination uber alles. True, the Taliban do not run concentration camps. But for the women who cannot leave their homes, who exist as veiled and faceless entities, who live in fear of being raped and then stoned to death for the crime of being unable to ward off their attacker, is there really any difference?

This is just too much. If she can’t tell the difference between genocide and making women wear the burkah in public, why is this woman writing for Forbes? Furthermore, to compare contemporary Afghans – and even the Khalifa movement – to Nazi Germany shows a delusional mentality. Mid-20th century Germany was one of the most technologically advanced societies in the world, had a skilled and well-educated populace, and was capable of putting a massive, sophisticated army on the field. Taliban controlled Afghanistan, on the other hand, has one of the world’s lowest literacy rates, is severely underdeveloped, and cannot project military power further than the range of an RPG. I doubt they even have a Cessna, and I think their armored cavalry consists of a fleet of donkeys pulling PK guns.

Finally, she writes that if we don’t stop the Taliban, American and Dutch women will be subject to the horrors of the life of a Pashtun peasant maiden, possibly cooking dinner over an livestock dung fire, being forced to wear unfashionable clothes, etc.

As the Taliban succeed, their power across Afghanistan will spread; and with that, similar movements, inspired by their achievements, will gain strength–indeed, already are gaining strength–across the region, in countries from Somalia to Iran, and onward to Holland and the U.S.A.

There will be women there, as well.

We must not abandon them.

It really is starting to look as though the biggest hawks in America today are feminists. This should alert men to the real dangers of feminists in power; when they’ve had their way with their enemies abroad, I can imagine that they’d want the guns turned on us.

If anything, this shows the feminist claims that female rule would usher in an era of peace and mutual goodwill for the lies they are.

{ 84 comments… read them below or add one }

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: