Hating Valentine’s

Pages: 1 2

The famous twentieth-century novels of dystopia, Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We, George Orwell’s 1984, and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, all powerfully depict totalitarian society’s assault on the realm of personal love in its violent attempt to dehumanize human beings and completely subject them to its rule. In Zamyatin’s We, the earliest of the three novels, the despotic regime keeps human beings in line by giving them license for regulated sexual promiscuity, while private love is illegal. The hero breaks the rules with a woman who seduces him — not only into forbidden love but also into a counterrevolutionary struggle. In the end, the totality forces the hero, like the rest of the world’s population, to undergo the Great Operation, which annihilates the part of the brain that gives life to passion and imagination, and therefore spawns the potential for love. In Orwell’s 1984, the main character ends up being tortured and broken at the Ministry of Truth for having engaged in the outlawed behavior of unregulated love. In Huxley’s Brave New World, promiscuity is encouraged — everyone has sex with everyone else under regime rules, but no one is allowed to make a deep and independent private connection.

Yet as these novels demonstrate, no tyranny’s attempt to turn human beings into obedient robots can fully succeed. There is always someone who has doubts, who is uncomfortable, and who questions the secular deity — even though it would be safer for him to conform like everyone else. The desire that thus overcomes the instinct for self-preservation is erotic passion. And that is why love presents such a threat to the totalitarian order: it dares to serve itself. It is a force more powerful than the all-pervading fear that a totalitarian order needs to impose in order to survive. Leftist and Muslim social engineers, therefore, in their twisted and human-hating imaginations, believe that the road toward earthly redemption (under a classless society or Sharia) stands a chance only if private love and affection is purged from the human condition.

This is exactly why, forty years ago, as Peter Collier and David Horowitz document in Destructive Generation, the Weather Underground not only waged war against American society through violence and mayhem, but also waged war on private love within its own ranks. Bill Ayers, one of the leading terrorists in the group, argued in a speech defending the campaign: “Any notion that people can have responsibility for one person, that they can have that ‘out’ — we have to destroy that notion in order to build a collective; we have to destroy all ‘outs,’ to destroy the notion that people can lean on one person and not be responsible to the entire collective.”

Thus, the Weather Underground destroyed any signs of monogamy within its ranks and forced couples, some of whom had been together for years, to admit their “political error” and split apart. Like their icon Margaret Mead, they fought the notions of romantic love, jealousy, and other “oppressive” manifestations of one-on-one intimacy and commitment. This was followed by forced group sex and “national orgies,” whose main objective was to crush the spirit of individualism. This constituted an eerie replay of the sexual promiscuity that was encouraged (while private love was forbidden) in We, 1984, and Brave New World.

Thus, it becomes completely understandable why leftist believers were so inspired by the tyrannies in the Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist North Vietnam and many other countries. As sociologist Paul Hollander has documented in his classic Political Pilgrims, fellow travelers were especially enthralled with the desexualized dress that the Maoist regime imposed on its citizens. This at once satisfied the leftist’s desire for enforced sameness and the imperative of erasing attractions between private citizens. The Maoists’ unisex clothing finds its parallel in fundamentalist Islam’s mandate for shapeless coverings to be worn by both males and females. The collective “uniform” symbolizes submission to a higher entity and frustrates individual expression, mutual physical attraction, and private connection and affection. And so, once again, the Western leftist remains not only uncritical, but completely supportive of — and enthralled in — this form of totalitarian puritanism.

This is precisely why leftist feminists today do not condemn the forced veiling of women in the Islamic world; because they support all that forced veiling engenders. It should be no surprise, therefore, that Naomi Wolf finds the burqa “sexy.” And it should be no surprise that Oslo Professor of Anthropology, Dr. Unni Wikan, found a solution for the high incidence of Muslims raping Norwegian women: the rapists must not be punished, but Norwegian women must be veiling themselves.

Valentine’s Day is a “shameful day” for the Muslim world and for the radical Left. It is shameful because private love is considered obscene, since it threatens the highest of values: the need for a totalitarian order to attract the complete and undivided attention, allegiance and veneration of every citizen. Love serves as the most lethal threat to the tyrants seeking to build Sharia and a classless utopia on earth, and so these tyrants yearn for the annihilation of every ingredient in man that smacks of anything that it means to be human.

And so perhaps it is precisely on this Valentine’s Day that we are reminded of the hope that we can realistically have in our battle with the ugly and pernicious unholy alliance that seeks to destroy our civilization. On this day, we are reminded that we have a weapon, the most powerful arsenal on the face of the earth, in front of which despots and terrorists quiver and shake, and sprint from in horror into the shadows of darkness, desperately avoiding its piercing light. That arsenal is love. And no Maoist Red Guard or Saudi fascist cop ever stamped it out — no matter how much they beat and tortured their victims. And no al-Qaeda jihadist in Pakistan or Feminazi on any American campus will ever succeed in suffocating it, no matter how ferociously they lust to disinfect man of who and what he is.

Love will prevail.

Happy Valentine’s Day to all of our Frontpage readers.


Editor’s note: To get the whole story on Islam’s and the radical Left’s war on private love, read Jamie Glazov’s United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror.

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