Hating Valentine’s

Pages: 1 2

[Editor’s note: This article is reprinted from our Valentine’s issue of 2010. It has been slightly edited to fit this year’s day of love.]

This Monday, February 14, is Valentine’s Day, the sacred day that intimate companions mark to celebrate their love and affection for one another. If you’re thinking about making a study of how couples celebrate this day, the Muslim world and the milieus of the radical Left are not the places you should be spending most, if any, of your time. Indeed, it’s pretty hard to outdo jihadists and “progressives” when it comes to the hatred of Valentine’s Day. And this hatred is precisely the territory on which the contemporary romance between the radical Left and Islamic fanaticism is formed.

The train is never late: every time Valentine’s comes around, the Muslim world reacts with ferocious rage, with its leaders doing everything in their power to quash the festivity that comes with the celebration of private romance. Imams around the world thunder against Valentine’s every year — and the celebration of the day itself is literally outlawed in Islamist states. The Saudis, for instance, ruthlessly punish the slightest hint of celebrating Valentine’s Day. Just a few days ago, the Kingdom and its religious “morality” police officially issued a stern warning that anyone caught even thinking about Valentine’s Day will suffer some of the most painful penalties of Sharia Law.

This is typical of the Saudis of course. As Daniel Pipes has reported, the Saudi regime takes a firm stand against Valentine’s every year, and the Saudi religious police monitor stores selling roses and other gifts. They have even arrested women for wearing red on that day. This time around, the narrative is no different: the Saudis have announced that, starting the week of Valentine’s and until February 15, it will be illegal for a merchant to sell any item that is red, or that in any way hints of being connected to Valentine’s Day.

As Claude Cartaginese reports at Newsreal Blog, any merchant found selling such items as red roses, red clothing of any kind (especially dresses), toys, heart-shaped products, candy, greeting cards or any items wrapped in red, must destroy them or face the wrath of Saudi justice.

Christian overseas workers living in the Kingdom from the Philippines and other countries are taking extra precautions, heeding the Saudis’ warning to them specifically to avoid greeting anyone with the words “Happy Valentine’s Day” or exchanging any gift that reeks of romance. A spokesman for a Philippine workers group commented: “We are urging fellow Filipinos in the Middle East, especially lovers, just to celebrate their Valentine’s Day secretly and with utmost care.”

The Iranian despots, meanwhile, are trying to make sure the Saudis don’t outdo them in suffocating Valentine’s Day. Iran’s “morality” police order shops to remove heart-and-flower decorations and images of couples embracing on this day — and anytime around this day. In Pakistan, the student wing of the fundamentalist Islamic party Jamaat-e-Islami has called for a complete ban on Valentine’s Day celebrations. Khalid Waqas Chamkani, a leader in the party, calls it a “shameful day.”

Typical of this whole pathology in the Islamic world was a development witnessed back on February 10, 2006, when activists of the radical Kashmiri Islamic group Dukhtaran-e-Millat (Daughters of the Community) went on a rampage in Srinagar, the main city of the Indian portion of Kashmir. Some two dozen black-veiled Muslim women stormed gift and stationery shops, burning Valentine’s Day cards and posters showing couples together.

In the West, meanwhile leftist feminists are not to be outdone by their jihadi allies in reviling — and trying to kill — Valentine’s Day. Throughout all Women’s Studies Programs on American campuses, for instance, you will find the demonization of Valentine’s Day, since, as the disciples of Andrea Dworkin angrily explain, the day is a manifestation of how capitalist and homophobic patriarchs brainwash and oppress women and push them into spheres of powerlessness. As a person who spent more than a decade in academia, I was privileged to witness this grotesque attack and “deconstruction” of Valentine’s Day at close range. Feminist icons like Jane Fonda, meanwhile, help lead the attack on Valentine’s Day in society at large. As David Horowitz has documented, Fonda has led the campaign to transform this special day into “V-Day” (“Violence against Women Day”) — which is, when it all comes down to it, a day of hate, featuring a mass indictment of men.

So what exactly is transpiring here? What explains this hatred of Valentine’s Day by leftist feminists and jihadis? And how and why does it serve as the sacred bond that brings the radical Left and Islam into its current feast of solidarity?

The core issue at the foundation of this phenomenon is that Islam and the radical Left both revile the notion of private love, a non-tangible and divine entity that draws individuals to each other and, therefore, distracts them from submitting themselves to a secular deity.

The highest objective of both Islam and the radical Left is clear: to shatter the sacred intimacy that a man and a woman can share with one another, for such a bond is inaccessible to the order. History, therefore, demonstrates how Islam, like Communism, wages a ferocious war on any kind of private and unregulated love. In the case of Islam, the reality is epitomized in its monstrous structures of gender apartheid and the terror that keeps it in place. Indeed, female sexuality and freedom are demonized and, therefore, forced veiling, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, honor killings and other misogynist monstrosities become mandatory parts of the sadistic paradigm.

The puritanical nature of totalist systems (whether Fascist, Communist, or Islamist) is another manifestation of this phenomenon. In Stalinist Russia, sexual pleasure was portrayed as unsocialist and counter-revolutionary. More recent Communist societies have also waged war on sexuality — a war that Islam, as we know, wages with similar ferocity. These totalist structures cannot survive in environments filled with self-interested, pleasure-seeking individuals who prioritize devotion to other individual human beings over the collective and the state. Because the leftist believer viscerally hates the notion and reality of personal love and “the couple,” he champions the enforcement of totalitarian puritanism by the despotic regimes he worships.

Pages: 1 2

  • BUTSeriously

    Islam's greatest foe is not Israel or America but women's rights. This factor even negates their bonus of 70 vestal virgins in paradise.

  • kafir4life

    Another part of the problem is that no muslim man has ever been able to sexually satisfy a human woman, whish explains why they find goats and sheep so inviting. With the farm animals, it matters less that the muslim man climaxes first, rolls over and goes to sleep. Much of the hatred and contempt that muslim men show to their women is because they know deep down that they don't have what it takes to be a real man, and then as islam dictates, they have to project to society that women are inferior. Their "prophet", mad mo, would force women into sexual relations (he still enjoyed his sheep, goats, and camels), and of course, rape doesn't lead to orgasms for the women, so to emulate this "perfect man" (in the "minds" of muslim men), they take their women with no thought of pleasing their partner. It just doesn't exist in islam. It does, however, explain the numbers of muslim women that are tossing the burkee and donning a miniskirt.

    Happy Valentines Day to my fellow kafir, and a hearty allahu snackbar to the believers!

  • Danny

    Glazov speaks of unregulated love as an ideal in a free society, but in this country it's the right, not the left, that insists on regulating love in their determination to ban gay marriage. Marriage is the embodiment of private love between 2 individuals and to deny it to gays is to regulate love in order to impose a collective view of love and marriage on all adult individuals.

    • USMCSniper

      Danny, what is it about you anti conceptual types that cannot grasp that establishing homosexual marriage opens up a big can of worms legally under equal protection for tri partner marriages, harems, group multi partner marriages, etc,…. Allowing for civil unions as contracts should accomodate all the deviants while at the same time not offending we "breeders" who are healthy hetrosexuals.

      • Danny

        If all you're objecting to is the potential for opening this 3+ partner marriage can of worms, then it's simple. Just allow marriage between 2 adult individuals since a loving relationship between 2 individuals is what defines "private love". Somehow though, I don't think that's really your objection.

        • USMCSniper

          Poofters lobby state legislatures to legalize marriage between two corn holing poofters. "All we want," whines every poofter, "is to (1) get married, (2) adopt children, (3) bequeath our possessions to each other, and (4) visit each other in the hospital. We are good family people just like you." But in reality, all poofters spending all their nights and days solicting sex from other men, and young teen boys when they can get them.

          And now that DADT is repealed I guess the Marine Corps wil say "The Marines need a few good men, but now we will accept girlmans and manly girls,"

    • AnimalFarm

      That's really stretching it Danny, and in doing so you diminish the true horrors. You can't possibly equate the oppression of any kind of love, described so well in this article, with people opposed to gay marriage.

      • Danny

        I certainly don't equate totalitarian suppression of personal relationships with banning gay marriage. I'm just pointing out that, of the 2 main political factions in this country, neither of which is remotely totalitarian, it's the right that insists on legally restricting the manifestation of private love, i.e. marriage, to heterosexuals. I would call that, to use Glazov's term, regulating love. Wouldn't you?

        • intrcptr

          Nobody is trying to "restrict" marriage to anything, it is those who wish to try to expand the meaning and definition of marriage who are regulating love.

          We already have the right to love whomever we wish. But the simple fact is that NO culture in human history has legitimized same-sex unions; let us also remember that it is only through sex that man perpetuates himself, and former cultures and civilizations had no choice but to follow the dictates of nature. The fact that both religion and evolutionary science argue against it is simply the proof in the pudding.

          Of course your thinking that neither Left nor Right are "remotely totalitarian" is frightening. The Left is so by definition. The Right is slowly getting their by accident. But power corrupts, neither side is immune to the lure. It is not a question of "if", but rather "how" and "how soon".

          • Danny

            How allowing gays to marry involves regulating love is a concept that I haven't been able to grasp. Of course I also can't understand how allowing expanded access to the Internet entails regulation of information flow. Go figure.

    • tagalog

      No body has any problem with same-sex couples expressing their love for one another. Some of us find it repulsive, but none of us can deny to same-sex lovers the right to give one another tokens of their love on SAINT Valentine's Day. What we CAN do is continue to claim that the concept of marriage, a religious classification, applies to men and women, and not to same-sex unions. Homosexuals never seem to understand the distinction between the one and the other. Perhaps they're being willfully obtuse.

      Muslims, one supposes, can object to the Christian origins of the holiday, but the Muslim reaction to Valentine's Day seems to have something to do with oppression of women, or suppression of one's affections. How odd.

      • Danny

        For many (e.g. atheists, agnostics), marriage is a secular institution recognized by the state. Whether it's also recognized by any religion is irrelevant. For them, it is definitely not a "religious classification" but a legal and social contract.

        • intrcptr

          No, marriage is the noun accompanying the verb marry, which is the act of making one out of two (Which clearly a same-sex pairing cannot do; the easy example being a waitress who marries ketchup bottles for her sidework.

          And the "religious" opinions of atheists do not enter into it. You are certainly free to find a legal system which does not base its concepts of marriage in religion. But I submit that the social construct is still.
          And in the West, our legal and social definitions of marriage are most assuredly based in religion. The fact that the state regulates marriage as a contract does not negate the religious meanings inherent therein.

          The easy/amusing example is of course the calendar. CE is called the Common Era, despite there being nothing common in the Christian calendar for Jews or Muslims. The irony of course is that CE, for me (Which therefore means everyone, using your atheist argument for marriage), means Christian Era. Which is fitting, since that is the source of our dates.

          • Danny

            By your definition, any marriage that doesn't result in children is somehow not really marriage, since it doesn't "make one out of two".
            And your analogy to the calendar is fitting but not for the reasons you think, since both the calendar and marriage may have their origins in religion but their utility has evolved over the centuries such that the religious aspect of each has become less and less significant. Just try to find someone who sees the religious origin of the calendar as relevant to its use.

          • tagalog

            I don't understand the reasoning behind your statement, "…any marriage that doesn't result in children is somehow not really marriage, since it doesn't 'make one out of two.'" A "marriage" is a union. A union doesn't involve producing anything else, e.g., children. It involves one person cleaving to another, and swearing to do so for life. That union is the "making of one out of two."

            As can readily be seen from the very lively dialogue (and at times conflict) in current times over same-sex marriage, the attachment of religion to the concept of marriage remains quite important.

            The evidence that the religious origin of the calendar is relevant to its use can be found in the contrived "B.C.E.-C.E." nomenclature as opposed to the commonly-accepted "B.C.-A.D." system of use. Somebody felt that the religious aspect was important because they felt it needed to be changed, and they found a significant number of people who agreed with them. Also, the continued use of the date of birth of Jesus Christ remains of critical value in determining how to place historical events in time.

          • Danny

            Re your first point, I was responding to intrcptr's contention that a same-sex pairing cannot "make one out of two", which I interpreted as meaning it can't produce children.
            As to the religious significance of the calendar, the nomenclature change to B.C.E./C.E was admittedly a PC move but the fact is, most people use the calendar without being conscious of its religious origin. It's simply irrelevant in how people actually use it, regardless of the historical significance of the birth of Christ.

  • geez

    You gotta love the religion of piece or peace??? Whatever.

  • muchiboy

    Lost in all this is the Christian origins of Valentine's Day ,lost in the mists of time,back to Saint Valentine,who ever he may have been.So there is this Christian/Islamic tradition conflict/value factor,too.And Christians have taken more drastic and harsh measures against non Christian traditions in many instances ,including Canada.Jews seem more tolerant then either Christian or Muslim,but then again they have mostly been citizens of non Jewish countries.And one need only ask a Palestinian how loving and tolerant are Jews in their own and their peoples experiences.Regardless,Happy Valentines Day,from a Christian to the Jewish community of FPM.muchiboy

    • MixMChess

      "And one need only ask a Palestinian how loving and tolerant are Jews in their own and their peoples experiences."

      Yes, ask the Palestinians if they enjoy the hundreds of millions in economic aid that Israel and Jews have spent to allow the W. Bank economy to experience a boom. In fact, did you know that in UNRWA’s (UN’s Reliefs and Works Agency for Palestinians) first 20 years, Israel contributed more than most Arab states to the program?

      Ask the Palestinians if they enjoy Israel to providing over 1 million tons of humanitarian aids to Gazans and literally truck thousands of food, medicine and supplies to Gazans six days a weeks 52 weeks a year.

      Ask the Palestinians if they enjoy Israel giving Palestinians full access to their hospitals, doctors and health care system and ensuring an open medical corridor for Palestinians to receive free health care in Israel?

      Actually, I have a better idea, why don't you ask the xenophobic Palestinians how tolerant they are of Jews (or anyone for that matter)?

  • tanstaafl

    So nowadays, the left is saying "Better dead than red"?

  • Cuban Refugee

    When we love, we emulate and take on facets of the Divine presence all around us; when we hate, we become as dark as Lucifer, Saul Alinsky's idol and the subject of his dedication for "Rules for Radicals." With love in our hearts, every cell in our bodies is filled with light, and we generate the illumination that can heal the world, while hatred and antagonism do the polar opposite. On this delightful day of Love, I wish you all — while we still have the freedom to do so — a HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY!

    • MBANJ

      make love not war

  • scythe

    Isn't it ironic how the left wants to "repress" sexuality but USES IT TO DESTROY FREE SOCIETIES. The sexual revolution was another Marxist attack on American society and it continues in all its hideous and vicious forms. The left is famous for denying the existence of human nature but studies and uses it to crush and control. Sex is pushed everywhere but romance is "oppressive". CRUSH MARXISM EVERYWHERE IN AMERICA.

  • jtbaumgart

    Valentine was a real person. Around 200 AD, he was a local pastor. During this period of time, the emperor had decreed that no young men eligible for the Legions would be allowed to marry. His reasoning was that single men would be better in battle than married ones.
    Valentine opposed the emperor by marrying young people. He was summoned to Rome to stand trial before the emperor. He obeyed the emperor, knowing that this would be his demise.
    While in the jail, the jailer's daughter became deathly ill. Valentine asked if he could pray for this man's daughter. The jailer agreed. To the jailer's amazement, she recovered. Valentine and the young girl communicated with letters while he awaited his trial. He would sign the Letters: "Your Valentine". On February 14th, he was executed by the jailer who's daughter was the focus of Valentine's prayer and correspondence. His last words to the Jailer was, " I forgive you"

    Robert Lohr was considered the 1st missionary to the Muslim people. After he had been stoned by a Muslim crowd and was rescued by some Italian sailors, he was quoted as saying that if we, as Christians do not reach out in love to these people, they will come to us in judgment

    • MarkRich

      "if we, as Christians do not reach out in love to these people, they will come to us in judgment "—I think this is true and not true- because the bottom line is that these regimes raise up children as young as 6 months upward to hate- reaching out in love may be a little bit overly optimistic. Surely reaching out to those within reach is worthy- however also firmly resisting and fighting these hardened Jihadists is our only real option to be able to reach those reachable. Both are true.—Judgment however is too harsh a word- men have free will and some choose evil- sorry but those who choose evil should be judged by our return force. We are not totally responsible for their choices.

  • Spider

    Jamie I think this is your best column to date. This is a great illustration of how totally in-human the doctrines of Com-munism and Is-lam really are. But even as evil and dangerous as they are to humanity neither will ever stamp out the romantic love of Husband / Wife or Love of God. It is interesting how the slime ball adherants to these in-human doctrines think they are superior to the rest of us. Thanks Jamie

  • USMCSniper

    Radical feminists riginally launched it on the campus of the University of Berkeley, National Condom Day (NCD), to promote education around safe and healthy sexual relationships. NCD falls on Valentine's Day, a perfect coupling of romance and health awareness, so they say.

  • Regina

    The sheep and the goats comment was just tasteless..it may have a nugget of truth, but that’s beside the point! Sadly, the homosexuality bull was ..well, as it will always be- just a fruit-less injection (lol)

  • BoogiesDaddy

    Why do they hate Velentines day?
    In three words:


  • trickyblain


    Did Glasov really spend time thinking up this nonsense? Did I really just read it?

    Thanks, FPM. Nice to know that "love" is hating the left. And, of course, that not totally buying into a commercial holiday makes one a totalitarian who wants gov't sponsored promiscutiy (?).

    You do know that Huxley and Orwell were Socialists?

  • MarkRich

    Absolutely excellent article- I was wondering as I was reading it how Mr. Glazov was going to deal with pornography and promiscuity. I was pleasantly surprised to see the ABSOLUTE connection with the non loving element in such behavior and the lack of deep commitment in such areas which perfectly coincides with the eradication of the individual into the collective. Many times I have wondered at the leftists bewildering enchantment with totalitarianism based upon the closed nature of those societies and the "presumed" leftist belief in free love and expression- now I see that the love they seek is for the collective- the state- the all powerful entity which reduces mans freedom to servitude. I find still though a lack of understanding how homosexuality fits in in the sense that the islamists strictly forbid such unions and how the left can reconcile that. I suppose that there is a certain disconnect in some areas between the Islamofascists and leftists but certainly not enough to keep them out of being in cohoots

  • MarkRich

    .–Individual freedom for the leftist is certainly anathema in all realms and political correctness falls right in with all this. All must think a like and of course when a couple is in love the "state" is the last thing on their minds. For the far left the state is god- and for the Islamofascist the state is God's- they certainly do mix.

  • Ghostwriter

    Oh brother! Don't the Islamists and their friends have better things to do than attack Valentine's Day?

  • http://robertmprice.mindvendor.com Robert M. Price

    Remember how in that great political allegory, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the invaders had to stamp out love in order to achieve total conformity? Great essay, sir!

    • tagalog

      Didn't being reborn as a pod person stamp out all emotions, not just love?

      By the way, for a less fantastic movie example of how left-wing thought stamps out emotion in the name of a better world, watch Ernst Lubitsch's unmatchable "Ninotchka."

  • Gary

    Let’s be honest about Valentines Day. As a Bible believing Christian I have made it a mission to boycott non-biblical holidays. Yes that includes Valentines Day! God’s word is very clear about the observance of “Pagan “observances. The Old Testament / Tanach are full of examples of this. If one examines Valentines Day in the truth and light of scripture, it will be found that this “day of love “is based on pagan roman tradition. I would suggest that any that care make a study of Mark 7:9

  • http://erikheyl.com/rates/ how to find a ghostwriter

    Fantastic beat ! I would like to apprentice whilst you amend your site, how could i subscribe for a weblog web site? The account aided me a applicable deal. I had been a little bit familiar of this your broadcast offered brilliant clear idea