Category: Religion

The Problem of ‘Racist Facts’

Posted on Comments

More than a decade ago, the first time some left-wing scumbag tagged me with the “white supremacist” label, I was both insulted and amused. The obvious question — which no liberal ever seems to ask — is this: “What does ‘white supremacist’ mean?” Historically, this term is associated with those who defended Jim Crow segregation in the 1950s and ’60s, and so the term is obsolete as a matter of political science. Anyone who supposes, at this late date, that America could feasibly reinstate segregation or any similar regime is a deluded fool. Even more deluded are Neo-Nazis, who believe they can stage a putsch and institute a 21st-century racial totalitarianism. Neo-Nazis are auto-marginalizing, for the simple and obvious reason that the American people overwhelmingly agree with Jake in The Blues Brothers: “I hate Illinois Nazis.”

 

My Dad was wounded within an inch of his life fighting Nazis in World War II, and irresponsible smear merchants (hello, Max Blumenthal) who thought they could get away with impugning my character in this fashion have been repeatedly exposed as frauds and liars. Friends who actually know me (as the fun-loving, gregarious human being I am) were stunned when, in 2009, a certain despicable lizard tried to recycle those smears, after he previously tried to defame Pamela Geller as a crypto-fascist.

Another problem with the phrase “white supremacist,” beyond its use by the Left as a crude pejorative slur, is that insofar as it has any meaning in the 21st century, it can only describe an adherent of a theory. One must ignore a lot of historical facts in order to embrace such a theory, and thus I am not a “white supremacist” for the same basic reason I reject feminism, another ideology based on counter-factual theory. We must live in the world as it actually is, rather than attempting to “reform” the world according to some intellectual theory of how the world should be, and this rejection of ideological schemes is equally applicable to Marxism, feminism, “white supremacy” or Keynesian economics. Think of all of the wicked mischief Americans have endured the past 15 or 20 years because of George Soros and his warped interpretation of Karl Popper’s “open society” theory. Popper is not to blame for Soros any more than pickup artists (PUAs) are to blame for Elliot Rodger, but the fact is that Soros is a fanatic devoted to an ideological theory, and it is this error — a preference for theory over facts — which makes Soros such a menace.

As I’ve stated before, in politics I am a conservative, in economics I am an Austrian, and in religion I am a Calvinist. All of these are reputable schools of thought, with many able defenders, which spares me the labor of always having to explain myself. Being an adherent of certain fundamental principles also prevents me from being tossed around like a feather on the wind by every controversy that comes along. My basic modus operandi, based on a simple logic, is to figure out what side of the issue the Left is on, and get on the other side. You can seldom go wrong in politics by betting against the prevailing beliefs of the New York Times.

All of that is preamble to something Steve Sailer linked at his blog Friday, a research paper by Florida State University psychology graduate student Bo Winegard and two of his associates, entitled “Human Biological and Psychological Diversity.” Winegard and his colleagues could be fairly described as disciples of E.O. Wilson’s Sociobiology thesis, members of a school of thought known as evolutionary psychology. A professor of biology at Harvard University, Wilson applied Darwinian theory rigorously to the problem of human social behavior, and his 1975 book was highly influential. Unfortunately, the arbiters of political correctness in academia (who have long embraced Darwinism as a justification of atheism) were willing to ignore even this eminent scientist’s work because it did not wholly confirm their own left-wing biases.

Darwin is only useful to the Left insofar as evolution can be used by degenerates as a weapon to attack Christian morality, but when Darwinian theory is made the basis of arguments the Left doesn’t like, we find reputable researchers condemned as crypto-Nazis merely for going wherever the facts about human nature may lead them. We may suppose that Winegard, et al., know the risks involved in their argument:

Many evolutionary psychologists have asserted that there is a panhuman nature, a species typical psychological structure that is invariant across human populations. Although many social scientists dispute the basic assumptions of evolutionary psychology, they seem widely to agree with this hypothesis. Psychological differences among human populations (demes, ethnic groups, races) are almost always attributed to cultural and sociological forces in the relevant literatures. However, there are strong reasons to suspect that the hypothesis of a panhuman nature is incorrect. . . . It is likely that humans also evolved slightly different psychological traits as a response to different selection pressures in different environments and niches. One possible example is the high intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jewish people. Frank discussions of such differences among human groups have provoked strong ethical concerns in the past. We understand those ethical concerns and believe that it is important to address them. However, we also believe that the benefits of discussing possible human population differences outweigh the costs.

You can read the whole thing in PDF format. Because I am neither much interested in theory nor qualified to discuss this paper in terms of science, I will not attempt to summarize the arguments made by Winegard and his colleagues. Being a father of six children, however, I can testify to my own observation that certain psychological traits tend to be passed along from parents to their children, and I think any parent who pays attention would agree that the acorn seldom falls far from the tree. Of course, every child has two parents, and one obvious way we can affect the traits of our offspring is by seeking mates who exhibit traits we find desirable.

 

My wife sometimes gets angry when I say that it was her excellent character and temperament which appealed to me as much as her high cheekbones and beautiful smile, but when a man chooses a wife — “Me Tarzan, you Jane” — he certainly ought to be conscious of such matters. What kind of mother will she be? How will her hereditary traits combine with his traits to create a the hybrid offspring of the next generation? Just yesterday my 18-year-old son remarked about the circumstantial fluke by which his mother and I met, a seemingly random coincidence to which he owes his own existence. As a Calvinist, of course, I don’t believe in coincidences, and so our children must consider themselves indebted to the grace of God for their lives, and also for their parents.

We have heard a lot recently about Planned Parenthood, but there is a popular saying among evangelical Christians, “If you want to hear God laugh, tell him your plans.” Man proposes and God disposes. What some people call luck or fate, the Christian must accept as divine will.

Poll: How do Americans feel about
Obamacare and Planned Parenthood?

Is the question how Americans do feel, or how they should feel? We know that the Democrat Party and the liberal media (but I repeat myself) want people to approve of abortion and socialized medicine, but what would people think about these topics if it were not for the media’s constant partisan cheerleading for the atheistic Culture of Death? Continue reading The Problem of ‘Racist Facts’ →

Catholic Girls School Taught Bisexual Singer to Vote Democrat and Hate Men

Posted on Comments

“F**K THE SYSTEM AND THE PATRIARCHY.”
— Lauren Jauregui, Jan. 21, 2017

Anti-American left-wing teachers at an all-girls Catholic school in Miami taught bisexual pop singer Lauren Jauregui the radical feminist beliefs that inspired her outspoken opposition to President Trump.

A member of the group Fifth Harmony, the 20-year-old Jauregui denounced Republican voters as “racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, a–holes” in a November rant in which she compared Trump to Hitler and declared her pride in being “a bisexual Cuban-American woman.” In that Nov. 18 message, Jauregui specifically cited her attendance at an all-girls Catholic school in condemning Republicans as “narrow-minded” and “selfish.” Saturday, Jauregui attended the pro-abortion “Women’s March on Washington,” obscenely condemning “patriarchy.”

Jauregui’s anti-GOP hatred shocked many Republicans, who have historically received strong support from Florida’s Cuban-American community, most of whom fled Cuba to escape the totalitarian anti-America regime established by Communist dictator Fidel Castro. Among Trump’s leading rivals for the 2016 GOP nomination were Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, both sons of Cuban immigrants.

In an interview with the feminist web site Nylon published today, Jauregui defended federal funding for Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider, and credited her feminist politics to attending Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart in Miami:

“I attribute everything that I feel and all of the passion that I have to that school. It’s an all-girls school, and it was instilled in me to be a confident and courageous woman. . . . And each individual girl was told how special she was and how much she could influence the world.”

In recent decades, many Catholic schools have emphasized a far-left “social justice” agenda influenced by Marxist “liberation theology,” a radical anti-American ideology that condemns capitalism. The role played by feminism in subverting the Catholic faith was exposed in Donna Steichen’s 1991 book Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism. Despite opposition from orthodox laity and clergy, left-wing feminists and militant homosexuals have taken over many nominally Catholic universities, including such schools as Marquette University, where the Gender Studies program promotes “queer feminism” and the administration threatened to fire a conservative professor for supporting Catholic moral doctrines. Lauren Jauregui’s condemnation of “patriarchy” echoes the anti-male ideology of feminists like Janice Raymond, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, and Mary Daly.

 

In her 1973 book Beyond God the Father, Professor Daly announced that “Christianity itself should be castrated,” describing “the Second Coming of female presence not only as Antichrist but also as Antichurch,” as a “rising woman-consciousness” destroying the “Christocentric cosmos” (see “The Radical Theology of Feminism”).

“With this new administration and all of the corruption fueled decisions they will make for their personal interest, it is so important for all of our voices to be heard. . . . I BELIEVE IN WOMEN and the Matriarchy and finding a solution for our dying earth. I believe that our radical ideas are the shaping of the future . . . the oncoming wave of a hard revolutionary fight for justice.”
— Lauren Jauregui, Jan. 16, 2017

In her Nylon interview, Lauren Jauregui called the Trump administration “a fascist regime” and said there is “a lot of hatred in the heart of the country . . .because it was built on slavery.” She also claimed that anyone who opposes her feminist agenda hates women:

I think the whole stigma of the word feminism is such a problem. The only reason that anyone has an aversion to it is because it includes the word “fem,” even though it’s an all-inclusive term. I think that aversion in general is the reason why we need [feminism]. If the word “feminism” bothers you, there’s a reason why it bothers you, and only because it involves women. . . .
I think if I do anything political, it would be activism. I don’t believe in our government, currently. I don’t believe in the way that things are going.

Without any evident sense of irony, Jauregui praised her father, who “supported me 1,000 percent, all the way.” Her father paid to send her to the elite private girls’ school in Miami where annual tuition is $31,800 and she learned to support Marxism, abortion and homosexuality.



 

 

Why Lindsay Lohan Is a Muslim Now: Understanding 21st-Century ‘Oikophobia’

Posted on

Lindsay Lohan in 2010 DUI mugshot (left) and in Turkey, October 2016 (right).

Lindsay Lohan has made many bad decisions in her life, but her apparent conversion to Islam may be her worst ever, Robert Spencer explains:

Lindsay Lohan has sparked widespread speculation that she has converted to Islam by deleting everything on her Instagram account except for the Arabic greeting “Alaikum salam” . . . .
Lohan has fueled this kind of speculation in the past, saying in 2015: “My very close friends, who have been there for me a lot, in London are Saudi and they gave me the Qur’an and I brought it to New York because I was learning. It opened doors for me to experience spiritually, to find another true meaning. This is who I am.”
She didn’t say what “true meaning” she found in Qur’anic injunctions sanctioning wife-beating (Qur’an 4:34), devaluing of women’s testimony (Qur’an 2:282) and inheritance rights (Qur’an 4:11), allowance for polygamy (Qur’an 4:3), or mandate of warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers (Qur’an 9:29), but that’s just the beginning of the absurdity.
Is Lindsay Lohan prepared to venture out in public with everything covered except her face and hands, as per Muhammad’s injunction (Abu Dawud 4092)? Is she willing not to go out at all unless accompanied by a male guardian, as per Islamic law? Is she happy with being judged deficient in intelligence and religious commitment, as Muhammad said of women (Bukhari 304)?
Lindsay Lohan likely doesn’t know that any of this is in Islamic teaching. She probably knows about Islam only the things she has been told by her friends in Saudi Arabia and Dubai, who are no doubt anxious to add her to the list of celebrity converts to Islam.

Lindsay Lohan is a drug-addled celebrity dimwit from a broken home who was pushed into show business as a child. Like so many other former child stars produced by the Disney movie/cable-TV fame factory — including Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus — Lohan’s young adulthood seemed to be a constant trainwreck of public shame, played out in tabloid headlines.

Lots of teenagers who aren’t rich, famous and beautiful struggle with similar problems — drugs, alcohol, sexual promiscuity, mental illness — but we never read headlines about those troubled youth unless and until they commit some horrible crime. Ordinary adolescent trauma cases don’t fascinate us the way the Troubled Starlet does, because the celebrity trainwreck is so ostentatiously blessed with everything our popular culture values — youth, wealth, beauty and fame.

 

Here was Lindsay Lohan, who had captured America’s hearts as a wholesome freckle-faced girl in Disney’s 1998 remake of The Parent Trap and who, at age 18, became one of the most promising young actresses in Hollywood when she starred in the hit comedy Mean Girls. She had everything in the world going for her, it seemed, but by the time she was 21, her career and personal life were in disarray. She broke up with her boyfriend, That ’70s Show star Wilmer Valderrama, her movies flopped, and her substance-abuse problems escalated to the point that directors were no longer willing to work with her. Eventually, as it became obvious that she would probably never work again as an actress, the tabloids lost interest in Lindsay Lohan, and her brief stint in a “reality TV” show on Oprah’s network fizzled out in 2014, inspiring me to comment:

It’s wrong to say that Lindsay Lohan ever had a drug and alcohol problem. No, Lindsay Lohan had a Lindsay Lohan problem.

And so, in 2015, somebody gave her a Koran and she moved to Dubai and now, evidently, Lindsay Lohan is an adherent of Islam. Why? That is to say, why Islam, and not some other belief system? Why didn’t Lindsay Lohan move to Lynchburg, Va., and become a Southern Baptist? Or why didn’t she move to Dublin and return to her Irish-Catholic roots?

Oikophobia — a term that Roger Scruton has popularized to describe “the repudiation of inheritance and home”:

He argued that it is “a stage through which the adolescent mind normally passes,” but that it is a feature of some, typically leftist, political impulses and ideologies which espouse xenophilia, i.e. preference for alien cultures.
Scruton uses the term as the antithesis of xenophobia. . . . Mark Dooley describes oikophobia as centered within the Western academic establishment on “both the common culture of the West, and the old educational curriculum that sought to transmit its humane values.” This disposition has grown out of, for example, the writings of Jacques Derrida and of Michel Foucault’s “assault on ‘bourgeois’ society result[ing] in an ‘anti-culture’ that took direct aim at holy and sacred things, condemning and repudiating them as oppressive and power-ridden.”

This rejection of our own cultural inheritance has become widespread among the decadent elite in Western societies, where affluence fosters an alienation from the simple values of ordinary people. Oikophobia expresses itself in an attitude which, for example, considers the vile traitor Bradley “Chelsea” Manning deserving of presidential favor, but which disparages the loyal soldier who courageously does his duty.

 

The same liberal media that celebrates the cowardly traitor Manning, despises the genuine war hero Chris Kyle. Liberals hate real heroes because liberals hate America — this is oikophobia.

Likewise, after Lindsay Lohan destroyed her own show-business career, we could not expect that she would seek recovery by returning to any form of Christianity, especially not the traditional Catholicism of her Irish-American ancestors. Why not? Because to do so would be for Lindsay to admit that she was the source of her own problems.

Oikophobia is highly correlated to what Christopher Lasch called The Culture of Narcissism, a phenomenon I discussed in 2014:

What the narcissistic personality lacks more than anything else is an objectivity about the relationship between the Self and others. The narcissist is unrealistic about himself because he cannot step outside himself and view his own flaws and failures as they actually are. The gap between who he thinks he is and who he really is, and perhaps more importantly, the gap between how others see him and how he sees himself, creates an existential crisis which he attempts to evade through various rationalizations and psychological defense mechanisms. . . .
The narcissist’s devotion to self-image — what he thinks of himself, and what he wishes others to think of him — blinds him to his own faults and errors, so that he must always find scapegoats to blame for his failures. . . .
Feelings of entitlement and unrealistic expectations based on an inflated sense of superiority — this is classic narcissism. And when narcissists fail, their reaction is always predictably to engage in evasive blame-shifting and scapegoating.

The celebrity like Lindsay Lohan who wrecks her career through substance abuse has failed not only by the standards of show business, but she has also failed in terms of basic moral values. To return to Catholicism would require Lindsay Lohan to admit that she is the problem — “Mea culpa” — and because the narcissist is psychologically incapable of such an admission, instead she must turn to another belief system. Under the influence of oikophobia, the belief system she chooses must be exotic and foreign. Madonna turned to the Kabbalah, and some people turn to Buddhism, but Lindsay Lohan (who never seems to do anything in a moderate way) turns to Islam. If she continues down this path according to her usual immoderate habits, we may expect Lindsay Lohan to become a Islamic extremist. Comparing her to Bradley “Chelsea” Manning may be apt in another sense, i.e., the destruction of one’s own identity.

Because they are obsessed with their own self-image, narcissists tend to react badly when their self-image — their sense of identity — becomes associated in their own minds with failure. The narcissist’s typical grandiosity, a belief that he is an extraordinary personality, leads to cognitive dissonance when the negative feedback from reality does not match the narcissist’s overblown self-image of superiority. Transgenderism can be seen as the ultimate attempt to resolve this cognitive dissonance by destroying one’s own original identity. For example, after a rich white boy named John Walker Flynt drops out of college and squanders a small fortune in a failed business venture, he decides to destroy his identity and become “Brianna Wu.” (With typical narcissistic hubris, John/“Brianna” is now running for Congress.)

John Walker Flynt as a failed male (left) and after becoming ‘Brianna Wu’ (right).

One reason people like John Flynt/“Brianna Wu” become so enraged when their original identity is referenced is because they do not want anyone to discover any of the wrongdoing or failures of their past. By declaring themselves to be a new person of the opposite sex, transgender people claim that the person they once were never really existed. “Brianna Wu” claims to be an entirely different person, who cannot be held responsible for anything done by John Walker Flynt.

Not coincidentally, Westerners who convert to Islam also usually change their names: “Esteban Santiago, who opened fire in the baggage claim area of the Fort Lauderdale Airport on January 6, murdering five people, was a convert to Islam who took the name Aashiq Hammad.”

Narcissism, oikophobia, self-destruction, transgenderism — all of these are symptomatic of pervasive decadence in 21st-century America.



 

 

FBI Arrests Wife of Orlando Killer

Posted on

Mike Arroyo of Fox News reports:

The FBI on Monday arrested the wife of the gunman in the Pulse Nightclub massacre on charges connected to the shooting rampage, investigators confirmed to Fox News.
The June 2016 shooting, seen as the deadliest in modern U.S. history, killed 49 people and wounded dozens more. Police shot and killed gunman Omar Mateen after a three-hour standoff, during which he pledged allegiance to the Islamic State terror group.
The charges against his wife, 30-year-old Noor Salman, included aiding and abetting his attempts to support ISIS, as well as obstruction of justice. . . .
In April 2016, Mateen and Salman took their 3-year-old son to Walt Disney World, but their behavior reportedly was alarming enough for Disney officials to have contacted the FBI to alert them that Mateen and Salman appeared to be scouting the theme park as a venue for a potential attack. . . .
During the attack that began around 2:00 a.m. on June 12, Mateen placed 16 calls, an FBI source told FoxNews.com, and communicated by SMS, a texting service.
At least three calls were to 911 and one was to a local news service, during which he pledged his allegiance to ISIS and expressed support for the Boston Marathon bombers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
He texted Salman during his shooting rampage, made posts to his Facebook account proclaiming his allegiance to ISIS and pledging more attacks, and according to an FBI source, used the social media platform Snapchat to communicate with at least one other person.

(Via Memeorandum.) There can be no doubt that the attack in Orlando was an act of Islamic terrorism. It was not, as feminist Amanda Marcotte tried to claim, a crime of “toxic masculinity,” and yet Democrats tried to use the Orlando attack to demonize Christians and Republicans.

 

Astrology and ‘Heteropatriarchy’: Two Things That Don’t Explain Your Problems

Posted on Comments

 

“Mercury in retrograde” — as soon as you hear someone offer this as an explanation for something, back away slowly and quietly. You’re dealing with a dangerous kook, and sudden movements might set them off.

“Mercury in retrograde” is a dye-marker of belief in astrology, and you don’t want to be in the proximity of anyone foolish enough to believe such ridiculous nonsense. Belief in astrology is like theosophy or voodoo or Keynesian economics — a hallmark of poor judgment. Bad things happen when you start hanging around losers like that. Avoid them.

Go take a look at the Twitter search results for “Mercury retrograde” and you will notice that it’s almost entirely women. You can explain that however you wish, but doesn’t the unusual prevalence of belief in astrology among women also tell us something about feminism?

 

Like astrology, feminism is a quasi-religious belief system that tells people that their problems are caused by circumstances beyond their control. It’s not her fault she didn’t get hired for that job, feminism tells the young women — she’s a victim of sexist discrimination. The college girl got drunk at a frat party and did things she regrets? That’s certainly not her fault, feminism tells her — she’s a victim of “rape culture.”

Or maybe Mercury was in retrograde.

Feminism offers a ready-made excuse for anything a woman might be unhappy about, so the feminist movement attracts a lot of unhappy women who need excuses for what’s wrong with their lives. Continue reading Astrology and ‘Heteropatriarchy’: Two Things That Don’t Explain Your Problems →

‘These Discourses of Heterosexuality Which Particularly Oppress All of Us’

Posted on Comments

‘The Straight Mind’ author Monique Wittig.

When did feminism become completely insane? Some of us would argue that modern feminism was always crazy from its inception in the late 1960s as the so-called Women’s Liberation movement. However, it took decades for enough of these hate-filled anti-male lunatics to secure faculty tenure and compile their ideas into a body of theory which, promulgated as a cult ideology in university Women’s Studies programs, could substantially influence culture, law and politics.

A major source of feminist insanity in the past 25 years is Professor Judith Butler’s 1990 book, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, a jargon-filled work of postmodern theory. Despite being nearly unreadable — trust me, nobody ever read this book for fun — it is consistently a top seller in Amazon’s Women’s Studies category, because it is required reading in so many university classrooms. If by chance you do attempt to read it, however, you will discover that Professor Butler relies heavily on the work of French radical lesbian Monique Wittig (see pp. 25-28, 34-38 and 151-174 of Gender Trouble). We might argue that it is precisely because Professor Butler’s jargon is so opaque, and her sources relatively obscure to those outside the world of academic feminism, that Gender Trouble has become such a successful source of fashionable nonsense. No sane American familiar with the career and works of Monique Wittig would endorse her ideas, which were considered radical fringe extremism even in France. When her ideas were imported and recycled in pretentious academic jargon by Professor Butler, however, this French kook acquired an impressive authority within the Women’s Studies curriculum. Scarcely any professor can publish anything on the subject of gender and sexuality nowadays without citing Wittig or her sockpuppet Professor Butler. Therefore, if we wish to understand feminism in the 21st century, we must study Wittig.

A quick Google search finds that Wittig’s 1992 anthology, The Straight Mind and Other Essays, has been assigned reading at the University of Virginia (Feminist Ethics), the University of Alabama (Feminist Theory), the University of New Mexico (Queer Theory/Queer Lives), the University of Pittsburgh (Introduction to Feminist Theory), and Cornell (Women’s Studies Seminar), among many hundreds of other courses. Having demonstrated the vast influence of this French lesbian’s work, now let’s quote Wittig’s titular essay, “The Straight Mind” (p. 21):

In recent years in Paris, language as a phenomenon has dominated modern theoretical systems and the social sciences and has entered the political discussions of the lesbian and women’s liberation movements. This is because it relates to an important political field where what is at play is power, or more than that, a network of powers, since there is a multiplicity of languages that constantly act upon the social reality. The importance of language as such has only recently been perceived.

Thus she begins, and let’s note a few points:

  1. Wittig speaks of “recent years in Paris” — i.e., the 1970s, since this essay was originally a 1978 speech to the annual conference of the Modern Language Association;
  2. According to Wittig, lesbian liberation and women’s liberation are basically the same movement;
  3. Wittig asserts that language is a source of political power, which shapes “social reality”;
    and
  4. This political power wielded by language “has only recently been perceived.”

Of course, George Orwell clearly showed how the deliberate corruption of language is a source of power in totalitarian regimes, but Monique Wittig was pro-totalitarian, an enemy of capitalism and democracy, so perhaps she didn’t want to give Orwell credit. Having begun with the quote above, Wittig then spends three pages discussing semiology (Roland Barthes) and psychology (Jacques Lacan) before making this assertion (pp. 24-25):

The discourses which particularly oppress all of us, lesbians, women, and homosexual men, are those which take for granted that what founds society, any society, is heterosexuality. . . . These discourses of heterosexuality oppress us in the sense that they prevent us from speaking unless we speak in their terms. . . . These discourses deny us every possibility of creating our own categories. But their most ferocious action is the unrelenting tyranny that they exert upon our physical and mental selves.

So, we are told, “discourses . . . which take for granted” heterosexuality as the foundation of society “oppress” not only homosexuals, but also are an “unrelenting tyranny” that oppresses all women, whatever their sexual orientation. Three pages later, after discussing, inter alia, pornography, anthropology (Claude Levi-Strauss) and radical feminist Ti-Grace Atkinson’s “analysis of sexual intercourse as an institution,” Wittig then makes this assertion (p. 29):

“Man” and “woman” are political concepts of opposition . . . It is the class struggle between women and men which will abolish men and women. The concept of difference has nothing ontological about it. It is only the way that the masters [i.e., men] interpret a historical situation of dominance. The function of difference is to mask at every level the conflicts of interest, including ideological ones.

Wittig finally concludes (p. 32) that the entire concept of womanhood “has meaning only in heterosexual systems of thought and heterosexual economic systems. Lesbians are not women” (emphasis added).

All of these ideas, you see, Wittig simply asserts. Any skeptic must ask, why are the categories of “man” and “woman” political? Why is there a quasi-Marxist “class struggle” between men and women,” what does it mean to describe heterosexuality as an “economic system,” and what manner of “society” could exist without heterosexuality? All of these questions are left dangling in Wittig’s essay, and the shrewd observer understands why: Wittig’s purpose is to destroy “society” as it exists. Because her purpose is wholly destructive, Wittig feels herself under no obligation to describe a feasible alternative. Here she echoes (perhaps not unconsciously) the Communist ideologue Friedrich Engels’ invocation of a quote from Goethe’s Faust: “All that exists deserves to perish.”

Probably no professor of Women’s Studies has ever explained this to a college classroom full of naïve teenagers, but someone certainly should. No one was actually being “oppressed” by “discourses” when Wittig gave her MLA speech in 1978, and still less can anyone claim to be thus “oppressed” nearly four decades later. Wittig was simply rooting around for some basis to advocate destroying “society” with its “unrelenting tyranny,” etc. Wittig’s destructive purpose was utterly irresponsible, as she did not seem to consider the potential consequences of her anti-social radicalism. The wise reader realizes that heterosexuality is crucial to the preservation of our culture of liberty because, as Mark Steyn has so eloquently said: “The future belongs to those who show up for it.”

Whatever our “discourses” may be, in the present tense, no modern “society” exists in isolation. If we do not produce enough offspring to sustain our population (i.e., “replacement fertility,” an average 2.1 children per woman), then our society will first become dominated by the elderly (gerontocracy), and will eventually be overrun by younger immigrants from societies with higher birth rates. What has been happening lately in France? After last year’s Bastille Day attack that killed 86 people, Australian journalist Andrew Bolt wrote this:

Why have jihadist terrorists made France Europe’s bloodiest battlefield?
Simple answer: Because France let in the most Muslims.
This link between immigration policies and terrorism largely explains why the French are the greatest victims of Europe’s jihadists. . . .
No European Union country has a higher proportion of Muslims than France — up to 10 per cent of its population, or six million people, though statistics are vague, and vary. . . .
Another example: Belgium’s capital, Brussels, is Europe’s biggest Islamic city, with 300,000 Muslims, and has paid terribly for it.
It suffered mass murder by jihadists at its airport last March, its police have had two shootouts with terrorist networks, and an Islamist murdered four Jews at its Jewish museum. But it is France where the fiercest frontline runs in this war between Islam and the remnants of European Christendom.
France has the most Muslims, and that is why four people were killed, three of them children, in an Islamist attack on a Jewish day school in Toulouse four years ago.
That is why 20 people were murdered in Paris in last year’s Islamist attacks on the Charlie Hebdo magazine and a kosher supermarket. . . .
That is why 130 more people were murdered in Paris last November in an Islamic State assault on restaurants, a concert hall and a football stadium.

Paramedics treat a victim of the November 2015 attack in Paris.

You see, when Monique Wittig attacked heterosexuality as an “unrelenting tyranny,” she evidently did not take into account the simple math of differential fertility rates between the West and the Islamic world. Nor did Wittig show any understanding of an aging society’s need for young workers, which was the economic justification for France’s immigration policy. Neither do we have any reason to believe that, circa 1978, Wittig had reckoned with the “discourses” of radical Islam.

Europe’s Rape Epidemic:
Western Women Will Be Sacrificed
At The Altar Of Mass Migration
— Breitbart, Oct. 6, 2015

Muslim Male “Refugees” Are
Gang Raping Women in Europe
— Townhall, Jan. 7, 2016

Three Algerian teens charged
after woman lured to Eiffel Tower
via Facebook and gang-raped
— U.K. Mirror, Sept. 17, 2016

The destructive effects of feminism have consequences for women that most feminists evidently never considered. After all, feminists advocate the whole slaughter of children by the abortion industry. The typical Women’s Studies professor is childless and has no stake in the future, where the freedom and safety of other people’s daughters will likely be jeopardized by the consequences of her insane ideology.

Permit me to conclude by asking you to consider this: No university Women’s Studies department has ever been the target of Muslim terrorists, perhaps because our enemies know who their friends are.



 

 

Unhinged by Hate: Georgetown Professor Harasses Trump Voter @AsraNomani

Posted on Comments

 

The paranoid rage, anxiety and depression within the Democrat Party in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s defeat has been most intense inside elite academia. At Yale University, students were reportedly traumatized by the election results, a Rutgers University professor was sent to a mental ward after his bizarre Twitter rant, and a Women’s Studies professor at the University of New Hampshire accused Trump supporters of “terrorism.” Universities have become insane asylums run by lunatics.

Georgetown Professor Christine Fair (left) lashed out at Asra Nomani (right).

Georgetown University Professor Christine Fair is, among other things, a member of the International Institute of Strategic Studies and the Council on Foreign Relations, and also, a deranged hate-filed nutjob:

A Georgetown University associate professor had a month-long meltdown after a Muslim woman explained why she voted for President-elect Donald Trump.
Asra Q. Nomani, a former Georgetown journalism professor and Wall Street Journal reporter, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post Nov. 10 explaining why she, as a Muslim woman and “long-time liberal,” voted for Trump. “I support the Democratic Party’s position on abortion, same-sex marriage and climate change,” Nomani wrote. “But I am a single mother who can’t afford health insurance under Obamacare.”
C. Christine Fair, a previously “friendly colleague,” went on a 31-day screed against Nomani spanning across Twitter and Facebook. According to Nomani’s Dec. 23 follow-up complaint to the university, the “Peace and Security Studies” professor called her a “wretch,” “clueless dolt” and a fame-monger.
Fair also compared Trump to Adolf Hitler and asserted that Nomani’s vote for Trump “helped normalize Nazis in DC.”

After weeks of enduring Professor Fair’s online abuse, Asra Nomani complained to Georgetown on Dec. 2, and the university took no action. Then on Dec. 23, Asra Nomani sent a lengthy letter detailing Professor Fair’s abuse, which clearly violates the university’s policies. What has Georgetown done? Nothing, as Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff observes:

Georgetown has taken no action to curb Fair’s attacks, and Fair has continued to launch them. . . .
I take no position here about whether Georgetown should try to rein in its vicious associate professor. The unhinged Fair does seem like a dubious choice to be teaching America’s future diplomats, but that’s Georgetown’s call.
My point is that there’s probably not a major university in America that would stand by while one of its professors spewed Fair’s kind of venom against a Muslim-American — venom that includes questioning the Muslim’s religious sincerity. Unless the target had strayed from left-liberal orthodoxy.

Georgetown University, like nearly every other institution of higher education in America, is controlled by left-wing Democrats, who use their institutional authority for partisan political purposes. It is impossible even to imagine a Republican being hired as a professor at Georgetown, but if there were an avowed GOP supporter on the faculty, can anyone imagine the university would tolerate such behavior by them? However, because Georgetown is run by Democrats, Professor Fair is permitted to abuse and harass her former colleague, Asra Nomani, with the complete approval of the university’s partisan administration.



 

 

Muslim Who Killed 12 in Berlin Terrorist Attack Is Caught, Shot Dead in Italy

Posted on

German officials issued a bulletin seeking Berlin terror suspect Anis Amri.

 

Immediately after Monday’s deadly truck rampage in Berlin, it was reported that police had apprehended a Pakistani suspect in the Islamic terrorist attack. However, evidence showed that a Tunisian immigrant — a man well-known to European anti-terrorism authorities — was the actual perpetrator. He managed to elude capture for three days:

Video has emerged of the Berlin Christmas market attack suspect Anis Amri pledging allegiance to ISIS. The footage emerged hours after he was killed in an early-morning shootout in Milan on Friday morning.
The Tunisian man, who has been the subject of a Europe-wide manhunt since Monday’s market attack in which 12 people were killed, was stopped in Sesto San Giovanni — a district in the northeastern part of Milan — just after 3am local time, Italian police said on Twitter. . . .
When the man was asked for his papers by Italian police, he pulled a .22 calibre gun out of his backpack and fired at them. . . .
The driver of the police car returned fire, killing the 24-year-old suspect. . . .
Italian Interior Minister Marco Minniti said the man shot was Amri “without any doubt.” The Tunisian had previously lived in Italy. . . .
Italian news agency ANSA said Amri arrived in Milan by train from the French region of Savoy. . . .
It suggests that Amri passed through at least two European borders after fleeing Berlin. . . .
German officials are now working to determine whether Amri had a network of people helping him flee from Germany to Italy, German federal prosecutor Peter Frank said.
Amri was considered to be one of the most dangerous Islamists in the country months before Monday’s attack, according to German intelligence officials.
He was put on a German security services list of dangerous people in March, which currently includes 549 individuals. . . .

(Via Memeorandum.) So, a Tunisian who was on a German security watch list nevertheless managed to pull off a major terrorist attack in Berlin, eluding authorities in Germany, crossing the French and Italian borders without anyone noticing and, if he had not randomly encountered a police patrol in Milan, Anis Amri might have escaped altogether.

 

Is anyone surprised by this? Europe’s political elites have effectively surrendered their countries to Muslim invaders. The elite have celebrated this invasion — #RefugeesWelcome, as Emma Watson says — while claiming that the real danger is “Islamophobia” and the “far right.” Even when police are successful in identifying dangerous Muslim extremists, government policies prevent them from taking measures to prevent terrorist attacks, because political leaders are under constant pressure from left-wing activists in the media to protect the so-called “refugees.”

People in Europe are being slaughtered by Muslims because European governments have effectively abolished their own borders, and anyone who complains about this insanity is denounced as a far-right “racist.”



 

 

RELATED: