The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

What Feminists Believe: ‘Gender Is a Social Construct That Oppresses Everyone’

Posted on | April 4, 2015 | 22 Comments

Having explained “What Feminists Mean by ‘Equality,'” let me now introduce you to this typical expression of feminist belief:

I am a radfem. I want women’s liberation and the destruction of patriarchy. . . . I think men who do not support feminists are misogynists. I am a gender abolitionist because gender is a social construct that oppresses everyone.

Notice: “I think men who do not support feminists are misogynists.”

Words have meanings. “Misogyny” means hatred of women. Therefore, feminists believe that if you do not embrace their ideology, endorse their agenda and support their movement, this proves you hate women.

This accusatory tactic — “Agree with me or I will destroy your reputation by character assassination” — is seldom recognized as what it is, i.e., a totalitarian propaganda technique. It was developed to a high art by Communists in the 20th century, who became proficient at discrediting their opponents and critics by labeling them “bourgeois,” “fascist,” “imperialist” and so forth. Someone who criticized the violent thuggery of a Communist-controlled labor union was branded “anti-worker,” a lackey of “Big Business,” while someone who advocated a strong defense against Soviet-backed aggression was denounced as a “warmonger.” Modern feminism owes its origins to the radical New Left of the 1960s and “red diaper babies” (the children of Communist Party members) played a leading role in organizing the Women’s Liberation movement. Lest any feminist accuse me of making this up — “McCarthyism”! — I will refer them to the authoritative sources:

Once you understand how the feminist movement arose in this Cold War context of pro-Communist/anti-American left-wing activism, many other things about feminism become much easier to understand.

It is hardly surprising, for example, to see feminists employing Communist propaganda tactics. Feminism is simply a variant of what has been called Cultural Marxism, and their routine use of the “Alinsky Method” is predictable. Because these tactics have been used habitually by “progressive” activists for many decades, they often don’t even recognize them as tactics. Like others on the Left, feminists usually refuse to acknowledge that they are engaged in propaganda. They often repeat slogans (e.g., “gender is a social construct”) they don’t fully understand and cannot coherently explain. When feminists accuse you of being a “misogynist” merely because you disagree with them, you therefore should recognize this as a tactic. They are insulting you, presuming to be your moral superior, qualified to judge you and impugn your character by describing you with a demeaning epithet.


The feminist proves nothing by calling you names. What they are attempting to do is to discredit you — to demonize you — so as to avoid having to defend their own claims and assertions. One of the mistakes people commonly make when confronted with this tactic of accusation is to become defensive: “I’m not a sexist. I believe in equality.” The problem is that this legitimizes the authority of the accuser, ceding their fitness to make such judgments. Nine times out of 10 in online discourse, however, the accuser knows nothing about you. They are simply reacting to your opposition by making the assumption that you are morally and intellectually inferior, so that they can slap a negative label on you — “racist,” “homophobe,” etc. — and thereby dismiss you.

In any such case, the question arises: “Who are you to accuse me?”

Who is this person? What are their qualifications to make this judgment? Where is the evidence of their moral superiority?

Let us now return to the blogger who says “men who do not support feminists are misogynists.” Who is this person? We don’t know.

There is no personal information on their Tumblr page, the title of which is an accusation: “Men’s Rights Activists are scared of women!” The page carries this declaration:

Hate stems from fear. Deep down men fear women. . . . Because of men’s cowardly betrayal of women — women are justified in rejecting men and for calling them to account via feminism. “Men’s Rights Activists” (the weakest of men) hate feminists because feminists stand up to men.

Personally, I have never called myself a “Men’s Rights Activist” (MRA), although many of those who have followed my series on radical feminism are associated with that movement. However, the feminist blogger uses the term “MRA” as a label, an epithet so general as to encompass everyone who disagrees with feminism.

So the accusation is meant to apply to me: I “fear women,” I have engaged in “cowardly betrayal of women,” I am “the weakest of men” and I “hate feminists because feminists stand up to men.”

This is a deliberate insult with no basis in fact, and I am therefore under any obligation to defend myself against it. Period.

Who dares insult me in this manner? Hint: The blogger’s avatar is a cartoon, and the lack of biographical information is a clue.

We don’t even know that this “radfem” is a woman, you see. With this in mind, let us now quote one of the blogger’s arguments:

Men and Violence — “but they can’t help it”
We are taught that physical violence is about expressing anger (usually in an ‘uncontrollable’ way) but this is a lie — violence is not about anger — it is actually about dominance and control and it is very deliberate.
We have been fed the lie for thousands of years that violence is about ‘uncontrolled outbursts of anger’. We have been told this to justify the violence — so men can get away with using it to dominate and intimidate (yes, within a misogynist and patriarchal society – and to enforce a misogynist and patriarchal society) and so there is no accountability or requirement for male violence to stop . . . but if you look at violence itself it always has a deliberate purpose (i.e. intimidation) and a consequence/result (i.e. dominance/control).
Yet we are continually told that violence is ‘senseless’. Senseless violence is never senseless to the person committing the violence — they always have their reasons.
We are lead to believe/brainwashed that grown men ‘cannot help’ their rages and so we — as women and as a society generally — must be patient with men. We are even asked to accept the idea that violent men are suffering themselves when they commit these acts of violence, hatred and destruction against us. We are asked to ‘understand’, feel pity and even blame ourselves. We are asked not to ‘provoke’ men. We are taught these ‘poor men’ cannot deal with their emotions in ‘more appropriate’ ways (such as to cry/verbalize their anger/express affection/etc.), so they must ‘act it out’ on our bodies and on our children. We are told it is not their fault. ‘Poor men.’
This lie means men are never expected to check their own thinking or belief systems, they are never asked to be accountable or to change. And women are required to become complicit in the lie — to accept being men’s punching bags and never expose these men’s private frailties (if we do we are ‘betraying’ them), because “they can’t help it”. ‘Poor men.’
Women are taught we must be understanding of male violence the way parents must be understanding of a toddler’s tantrum — because a child is in the process of learning to regulate their emotions and behaviors and cannot help it. But men are not children.
Violent men do have choice and control — demonstrated by the fact that they are only violent in somesituations — usually at home in private and towards their families — but these same men manage to stay in control in other situations such as at work, church, in front of police, etc — and this is the factor that proves the lie.
But all that is really happening is that men (both individually and collectively) are indulging in the quickest and most effective form of control/domination — i.e. violent intimidation. Even those men who are “not all men” benefit from their brothers violence. The threat of violence alone affords all men dominance over all women.
The prevalence of male violence is not accidental, not random, and not individual — and it is definitely notabout expressing anger. They can help it. It is time we all understood this — and it is time for all men (even the “not all men” men) to stop lying.
1 in 3 girls and women experience male violence
All girls and women fear it

I have quoted this 571-word rant verbatim, including the boldface and italic emphases in the original, so that it cannot be claimed that I am quoting anything “out of context.”

Is any of that true? As I say, we don’t even know that the person writing this is actually female, so that even the use of first-person plural pronouns (“we,” “our,” etc.) may be deceptive. For all we know, this was written by a deranged meth-addicted transvestite prostitute.

My point is that we are confronted with this long string of accusatory assertions about male behavior, offered without any citation of evidence or sources, so that the only reason to accept any of these statements is the writer’s own authority, which is . . .?

Nothing. Precisely nothing.

There is no reason to believe that this blogger is qualified to make any of these judgments. Is it true, for example that women are “required . . . to accept being men’s punching bags”? Is this true of the women you know? Are all women helpless victims of “these acts of violence, hatred and destruction”? The feminist blogger’s argument seems to deny the possibility that men and women could have loving relationships based on mutual kindness, trust and respect: “The threat of violence alone affords all men dominance over all women.”

Exactly who are these men who crave “dominance” over women so badly that they use the “threat of violence” to obtain it?

We cannot deny that such men exist. Obviously, there are violent bullies in the world, and the rest of us do our best either to avoid them or to protect ourselves against them. It is certainly true that men are generally more prone to violence than women, which helps explain why 93% of U.S. prison inmates are male.

Yet, despite the fact that more than 1.4 million American men are in prison, that leaves a much larger number of males — more than 150 million — who aren’t locked up, and surely not all of these men are using the “threat of violence” to exercise “dominance” over women. Are all men, as the feminist blogger claims, engaged in this “domination and control” of all women through “intimidation” and “violence”?

To ask the question is to answer it. These claims are self-evidently false, as is the claim that “gender is a social construct that oppresses everyone.” Gender is not a “social construct” and, even if it were, not everyone is oppressed by it. Free people are capable of making free choices — unless they are insane.

Insane people make insane choices. One of the insane choices that insane people make is to become feminist bloggers.

But you knew that already, right?


What Feminists Mean by ‘Equality’

Posted on | April 4, 2015 | 61 Comments

She is a 21-year-old “biracial Cubana radical feminist” who calls herself a “PERF (penis-exclusionary radical feminist),” and let’s read her explanation of feminist gender theory:

Gender creates the differences between the sexes. It celebrates inequality and it glamorizes the subordinate status of females — therefore gender is the embodiment of sexism. . . . Gender’s intended purpose is to clearly mark the subordinate class from the privileged class. . . .
Gender abolition and women’s liberation go hand in hand because by doing so we are breaking down the tools of oppression while still conscious of the root cause.

You can read the whole thing. It is not my intention (because it seems to me unnecessary) to prove that she is wrong. Rather, my purpose is to show that (a) “gender abolition” is what feminists mean by “equality,” and (b) these beliefs are widespread among young feminists, because these theories — the “social construction” of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — are taught to them by the radical faculty who operate university Women’s Studies programs. And if you do not agree with them, you will be denounced as an ignorant bigot, a misogynist, a heteropatriarchal oppressor and perhaps also a rape apologist.

The fanatical rigidity of the feminist worldview can permit no dissent. Critics must be silenced and opponents must be demonized as “haters.” Feminism encourages the young True Believer to think of herself as intellectually and morally superior to others. She possesses the extraordinary insight necessary to obtain the radical gnosis, and is therefore qualified to enlighten others. Thus we find the 21-year-old Cubana feminist lecturing on environmentalism:

I mean, basically capitalism is a system that operates by sucking money from the poor to the rich. . . .
How can anyone support an ideology that says its OK that 1% of the population control the majority of the world’s resources? . . .
Right now, patriarchy is the ruling religion of the planet. Women are just another resource for men to use in their endless quest to prove their toxic masculinity and breed soldiers for civilization’s constant state of war. . . . This is why militarism is a feminist issue, why rape is an environmental issue, why environmental destruction is a peace issue. . . .
Misogyny and ecocide are connected — Misogyny is at root the hatred and prejudice of females, it is used to justify systems of male supremacy such as patriarchy. . . . The same themes of violation and extraction are seen in ecocide. . . . Ecocide is the murder of entire ecosystems and all life within, human ownership of and domination over the Earth. Ecocide is the ideology of progress functions to justify and rationalize the destruction of non human living things and of indigenous cultures.

Read the whole thing. Again, I do not consider it necessary to disprove her claims, and instead quote her merely to show how feminist theory informs a radical critique of capitalism, private property, masculinity, etc. All feminism is ultimately radical feminism, because the leaders of the movement are radicals who embrace an esoteric doctrine of “equality” that is at war with human nature.

Darleen Click bring us the news that California taxpayers have been ordered to pay for a murderer’s sex change surgery. Some advocates of feminist gender theory might argue that this is wrong, but the basic idea — gender is a fiction, an artificial “social construct” of patriarchy — is entirely consistent with the androgynous “equality” promoted by university Women’s Studies faculty. Meanwhile, Scott Ott reports:

A high school student in Emmaus, Pennsylvania, was compelled to change out of yoga pants which the school deemed too revealing.
The student, a physiological male who prefers to be treated as a female, was required to put on a pair of gym shorts and a polo shirt, because the principal apparently determined the clingy yoga pants displayed too vividly the form of “her” male genitalia.
The school has no qualms with students or staff self-identifying as the opposite sex, and accessorizing to suit the sex du jour, yet with a modicum of modesty. Bio-males may wear dresses.
But friends of the newly repressed student feel sure that the long arm of transgender hate has come to their small town in suburban Allentown.

The Emmaus High School principal will meet with students amid an outcry of discrimination that arose after a transgender student was told to change out of yoga pants that administrators felt were inappropriate.

Even the Allentown Morning Call complied with the student’s desire to be identified as a girl despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

(Hat tip: @GraceGabriel51 on Twitter.) Feminism’s radical gender theory necessarily leads to demands for official approval of deviant behavior. Once compulsory approval is achieved, no one can be permitted to criticize the lunacy of a “female” student wearing yoga pants displaying the bulge of “her” penis for everyone in high school to see. We all must participate in the lunatic’s delusions, because otherwise how can we ever abolish gender and the oppressive system of heteropatriarchy?


Fundraising Idea: RINO Scalps

Posted on | April 4, 2015 | 32 Comments

by Smitty via Hot Air

USA Today:

“The grass roots in Arizona want McCain to retire or be replaced by a conservative in the primary next year,” said Ken Cuccinelli, the former Virginia attorney general who now is president of the Senate Conservatives Fund.

Glad that Cuccinelli continues to do the good work of recovering this country from Progressivism. Further down the article:

Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., who represents a conservative East Valley district, appears to be these groups’ top choice, but Salmon has not publicly made any move to suggest he would seriously consider taking on McCain. Most political watchers in Arizona are not expecting him to run.

State Sen. Kelli Ward, R-Lake Havasu City, has said she is contemplating a U.S. Senate campaign, and supporters have started a PAC to encourage her to run. However, national groups have yet to embrace her.

This blog will plant itself firmly in the “Anyone but The IFNAG“. Request everybody link and spread this post. Let’s nationalize the AZ Senate race, and let the warhorse know it’s Long Since Time For The Pasture. Maybe the various PACs for these candidates can sell commemorative RINO scalps as a fundraiser. Conservatives around the country would contribute to retiring the old fart, I reckon.

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge

Posted on | April 3, 2015 | 9 Comments

by Smitty

“God has an email address?” asked Ernest, looking skyward.
“Wut?” mumbled dad.
“It’s an @ symbol in the sky,” but it was too far for Ernest’s finger to click.
Dad warmed to the moment on their camping trip. “You can think of prayer as God’s in-box.”
“He sure must get Him some spam.”
“Yeah, but, see, when it’s all your creation, even the frustrating bits about pallets of riches hung up in customs are all good.”
“So, if I sent God a prayer-email about getting a new XBox for Christmas, you think that He might forward that to you?”

via Darleen Click

‘Recovery’ in the Obama Age

Posted on | April 3, 2015 | 31 Comments

Democrats discovered they can reduce the official unemployment rate by driving people out of the work force altogether:

The number of Americans 16 years and older who did not participate in the labor force–meaning they neither had a job nor actively sought one in the last four weeks–rose from 92,898,000 in February to 93,175,000 in March, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
That is the first time the number of Americans out of the labor force has exceeded 93 million.
Also from February to March, the labor force participation rate dropped from 62.8 percent to 62.7 percent, matching a 37-year low.
Five times in the last twelve months, the participation rate has been as low as 62.8 percent; but March’s 62.7 percent, which matches the participation rate seen in September and December of 2014, is the lowest since February of 1978.

(Via Memeorandum.)


Who Are These Creepazoids?

Posted on | April 3, 2015 | 25 Comments

Nine times out of 10, the stuff I read on feminist blogs is either so intellectually dishonest as to inspire laughter — or indignation that anyone, man or woman, could take it seriously. Feminist writing generally ranges from the melodramatic to the paranoid to the hateful to the deliberately deceptive, and 90 percent of it I can debunk, dismiss or ridicule, depending on my mood and the gravity of the feminist error.

McCain’s Law of Feminism

There are three kinds of feminism:

1. Feminism that is wrong;
2. Feminism that is crazy;
3. Feminism that is both wrong and crazy.

When in doubt, it’s usually Number Three.

Despite the predictable craziness and wrongness of feminism, there are nonetheless legitimate sources of grievance, and today I read a woman’s account of a creepazoid’s pickup attempt on the streets of London. This wasn’t your typical problem, i.e., The Beta With Bad Game, a 21st-century parable of male failure I’ve heard or witnessed over and over again. It wasn’t just that this loser had no lines, no style and no social awareness. Rather, he was aggressive to the point of menacing:

A man approached me as I was about to walk into a supermarket. He came very close, invading my personal space. He wasn’t what you would call intimidating; he was average build and a little taller than 5’6. Even still, alarm bells started to ring. He asked for my name, so I gave a fake one. . . .
He asked about what I did for a living, where I studied, what I studied, what food I liked, if I was a local to the area. Throughout the whole conversation I kept my answers short, looked down and kept attempting to back away.


It’s like these dudes have been raised by wolves or something. Lacking social awareness, they don’t recognize their own deficiency. They can’t read signals and don’t know how to deal with rejection.

Look, I don’t want to give away any closely guarded secrets here, but the Cold Hit — the unsolicited approach to a total stranger — is one of the most difficult feats of romantic pursuit. Knowing that the odds are overwhelmingly against success, if you make such a play, you do so with the expectation of rejection. You get shot down, you apologize for the intrusion and move on. And you are never — let me repeat, never — going to pull off the Cold Hit the way that dude played it. If that’s the best you can do, don’t even bother leaving the house.

“He came very close, invading my personal space . . . alarm bells started to ring.” Is there some sort of Creepazoid Academy where these losers learn these bad moves? Did this guy watch a training video, “How to Act Like a Psychopath”? But wait, you haven’t heard the worst of it yet:

Naturally, when I backed away he stepped closer, once again invading my personal space. As expected he asked for my number, telling me he’d miss-call me, which meant he would call me then and there to check that I had given him the correct number. It meant I couldn’t give a fake number without him being aware. When I finally mustered up the strength to escape go into the shop I’d been was heading into and escape, he said, “You’re not confident,” and “We’ll work on that”.  I was floored.


Idiots this clueless need to be locked up somewhere. Again, I don’t want to give away any closely guarded secrets, but you don’t walk up to a total stranger and demand her phone number as if it were your God-given right to have it. If the “How to Act Like a Psychopath” training video you watched at the Creepazoid Academy said you could win with bad moves like this, guess what? THEY LIED TO YOU.

Some of these “Pickup Artist” idiots like Julien Blanc — an ugly pustule on the backside of humanity — actually get paid to give Bad Advice to Losers, because losers are (a) desperate for advice and (b) too clueless to tell the difference between good advice and bad advice.

It’s difficult to sympathize with any loser who’d pay Julien Blanc a nickel for his advice, but when you see stories of guys making these creepazoid moves, you see why there is no shortage of opportunities to defraud these desperate losers of their money.

What we are witnessing, I believe, is the consequences of a breakdown in the social order. Rates of divorce and illegitimacy have been spiraling upwards for decades, producing many millions of young men who have grown up with the civilizing influence of loving families, without decent male role models, without the advice, discipline and example that fathers should provide young men. Our education system has only worsened these problems. Adults have abandoned their proper authority, so that young people are influenced more by peer pressure than by the responsible expectations of the adults who supervise them. Young people are allowed to wallow in the mire of their own childish impulses, rather than being required to strive for respectability.

It’s like Lord of the Flies, and these uncivilized brutes are never taught even the most basic rudiments of common courtesy, much less the charming manners appropriate to gentlemen.

Whatever else we might say about the creepazoid loser whose approach set alarm bells ringing for this woman in London, he was unspeakably rude. Yet we live in a culture where rudeness is celebrated on TV every night, and the degradation of manners has become so ubiquitous that people no longer have the courage to resist the floodtide of barbarism.

 “Get away from me, you weirdo, before I call the cops.”

Really: You’re standing in front of a supermarket in broad daylight, and an annoying stranger decides he’s got a right to demand your phone number? Humiliate that son of a bitch.

Maybe the decline of civilization has reached the point where this kind of creepazoid act is commonplace and women feel they must tolerate the menacing behavior of barbarous scum. Alas, the feminist offers a misleading explanation:

This is rape culture in action. The notion that my body is to be objectified wherever I am; that men are entitled to it if they want and that to say no is put yourself in danger. I know this because, out of my own experience and of the experiences of those close to me, those who say no to these men are verbally abused, followed home, and/or assaulted.

You can read the rest of that. It’s both crazy and wrong, but the problem is that so few adults are willing teach what’s sane and right.


Death Toll 147 After Muslim Terrorists Target Christians at University in Kenya

Posted on | April 3, 2015 | 30 Comments

The latest atrocity in the global jihad:

Up to 150 people have been murdered by masked al-Shabaab terrorists who stormed a Kenyan university and shot and beheaded Christians in the worst attack in the country in 17 years.
The group raided the Garissa University College campus shortly after 5am local time yesterday, overwhelming guards and murdering people they suspected of being a Christian.
The death toll rose to 147 last night and the 13-hour siege ended. A total of 79 were injured and 587 were led to safety.
Most of those killed were students but two police officers, one soldier and two watchmen are among the dead. . . .
The attack is believed to be the worst terrorist attack on Kenyan soil since the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi in 1998 which killed more than 200 people.
The terrorists stuck mid-way through Holy Week, the most solemn period in the Christian calendar. Last night, the Christian students were planning to celebrate the Last Supper in preparation for Good Friday.

(Via Memeorandum.) Islamic violence continues daily around the world. Most of this violent savagery goes unnoticed by the major U.S. media. Pamela Geller is one of the few sources who monitors the global jihad regularly. A few of her recent headlines:

UNHRC Confirms 200 Kidnapped Christian Girls
in Nigeria Murdered by Devout Muslim Group

Muslim mob attacks Sikh Temple in the UK

Two New York Muslim Women Arrested in Bomb Plot

No Insurance Available for Jewish Kindergartens in Belgium

Wait — what was that last headline?

A Belgian insurance company has refused to insure a Jewish kindergarten in Brussels.
The company claimed the risk of a terror attack on the European Jewish Association-run institution was too high.
EJA General Director Rabbi Menachem Margolin called on all European governments and heads of European Union institutions to provide security to all Jewish institutions that would satisfy insurance companies, and establish an alternative insurance mechanism that would secure any institution that might fall victim to anti-Semitic attacks.

Read the whole thing. This is both insane and unnecessary.

Sixty years after the Allies defeated Hitler, why should European Jews have to live with this kind of fear every day? Why should Christian students in Kenya have to fear being shot or beheaded by a gang of bloodthirsty Muslim fanatics? And why should Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative have to fight court battles — and media smear tactics — to run its advertisements in Philadelphia?

On Wednesday SEPTA buses first began rolling with ads the transit agency was forced to run after losing a legal battle on First Amendment grounds.
“Islamic Jew-hatred: It’s in the Qu’ran,” state the ads, which feature a picture of Hitler.
Eighty-four articulated buses operating out of three depots will carry the ads, SEPTA said.
That message doesn’t sit well with local Muslims.
“That’s wrong,” said Amira Muhammed, 30, of Northeast Philly, of the ad, after she got off a Route 33 bus carrying the new advertisement. “That’s not in the Koran. It says we have to respect other religions.”
Muhammed was shocked to learn that SEPTA lost a legal battle with the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), which paid $30,000 for ad space, and that SEPTA is required to run the advertisements.
“What we need to do is go in front of City Hall and say that this needs to stop,” she said.

You can’t stop the truth, Ms. Muhammed. The Koran does advocate violence against Jews, against Christians, against everyone who refuses to bow down to the hateful doctrines of the ignorant murderous “Prophet” for whom you are named.

How Irrational Is ‘Islamophobia’?

The truth is not “hate” and facts are not a “phobia.” Some people just don’t want you to know the truth about Islam and its founder.

“Muhammad was a bloodthirsty polygamous warlord
and also the prophet of a religion that
commands the murder of non-believers.”

All honest and intelligent Americans know this to be true. It is simply a fact of history, and anyone who doesn’t know the truth can read Robert Spencer’s books The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and The Truth About Muhammad. You can read Brigitte Gabrielle’s Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America. You can read Pamela Geller’s Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. No one has an excuse to be ignorant of the truth, nor should any American ever be afraid to speak the truth.

What we need is more courage. I just gave a donation to the American Freedom Defense Initiative and I hope others will do the same.

“Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself . . . she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786


How Irrational Is ‘Islamophobia’?

Posted on | April 2, 2015 | 30 Comments

A few headlines today at the Drudge Report:



Al-Qaida storms jail, frees 300 inmates…

This morning, I quoted a young Canadian feminist blogger who denounced “Islamophobia” as racial prejudice and “baseless hatred” that causes “the suffering of countless victims.” Meanwhile, there is this breaking news:

Two New York City women inspired by ISIS were arrested Thursday for allegedly plotting to set off a bomb, authorities said.
Noelle Velentzas, 28, and Asia Siddiqui, 31, allegedly conspired to prepare an explosive device they planned to detonate in a terror attack in the U.S., according to court documents.
Velentzas and Siddiqui were roommates from Queens. They are expected to appear in federal court in Brooklyn later Thursday afternoon. . . .
“Arrests were made by the JTTF and the NYPD in a national security investigation early this morning in New York City,” John Miller of the NYPD said.

Another headline via Memeorandum:

Al-Shabaab ‘holding many Christians alive’
amid attack on Kenyan university

A “phobia” is by definition an irrational fear, but there is nothing irrational about the fear inspired by Muslim violence.

 They Want to Kill Us All

UPDATE: More breaking news:

What is irrational is any attempt to appease these monsters.


« go backkeep looking »