Nèdeem Elmahjoub's blog

"Fisking Douma"

"The problem of pseudo-choice also demonstrates the limitations of the standard liberal attitude towards Muslim women who wear the veil: acceptable if it is their own free choice rather than imposed on them by husbands or family. However, the moment a woman dons the veil as the result of personal choice, its meaning changes completely: it is no longer a sign of belonging to the Muslim community, but an expression of idiosyncratic individuality. In other words, a choice is always a meta-choice, a choice of the modality of the choice itself: it is only the woman who does not choose to wear a veil that effectively chooses a choice. This is why, in our secular liberal democracies, people who maintain a substantial religious allegiance are in a subordinate position: their faith is ‘tolerated’ as their own personal choice, but the moment they present it publicly as what it is for them—a matter of substantial belonging—they stand accused of ‘fundamentalism’. Plainly, the ‘subject of fre

I usually do not read the "gutter press" as Oscar Wilde called it, but I should make an exception this time of attractive headline on The Sun's front page: PM's ultimatum to MP's - BACK ME OR BACK BRUTALITY." One needs to learn that in life there are only two options: "You are either with us or with the terrorists" (George W. Bush). Here is how that great German novelist, Thomas Mann, would have replied to Theresa May, Trump and Macron who have been "foaming at the mouth monotonous catchwords". " This fantastic state of mind, of a humanity that has outrun its ideas, is matched by a political scene in the grotesque style, with Salvation Army methods, hallelujahs and bell-ringing and dervish-like repetition of monotonous catchwords, until everybody foams at the mouth. Fanaticism turns into a means of salvation, enthusiasm into epileptic ecstasy . . . and reason veils her face." — Thomas Mann, “An Appeal to Reason” in  The Be

The early days of imperial decline I doubt it. I have commented on this article. I think it does not cover some other crucial areas of the war and the players involved: the nature of the Russian regime, Iran and Israel as regional players, the defeat of Western imperialsim in Iraq and Afghanistan, the ideological reasons of that section of the Western and Arab left that supports Al-Assad either actively or passively...

Like that hypocritical discussion about whether the recent airstrikes on Syria were "legal" or "illegal", here is another hypocrisy. I remember that in early 2001 there were only a couple of brothels left in Soho. London. They had been made illegal.  But could you really make selling sex illegal in a society where everything is commodified and for sale? In fact, "brothels" and prostitution have been legal, but operating under other names and a lot of that is monopolised by "escort" agencies and other kind of agencies.  Louise is British, has a diploma in marine biology and £20,000 of student debt. Related In  Britain  In Sicily, Italy In  Germany

Alienation [episode 1]

"The party that stood to benefit the most from this situation was the Syrian regime and its allies. There was no change in the balance of power on the ground as a result of the strikes and forces loyal to the Syrian regime suffered no losses." Indeed. Why Russia did not respond to U.S. missiles on Syria