Retorts to Hijab Apologists

I have listed some of the most common and inane arguments cited when highlighting the Hijab’s origins as a tool of patriarchal theocracy. These lines are most commonly heard in the West, where the vast majority of the world’s most privileged women reside; and typically feature ad hominem and fear-mongering tactics that seek to distract from Islam and Islamism as institutions and refocus on highly westernized and individual interpretations of the faith that have no relation to Islam’s historical meaning and practice.

But it’s about a woman’s choice! Prohibiting it makes one no different than ISIS!

Stating that the hijab is a tool of patriarchal theocracy to police women’s bodies and codify female worth as ancillary to man’s and primarily sexual, is not the same as arguing for the hijab to banned, such as in France. In fact, they have absolutely no relation to one another. So this first argument is a non-argument, and is a perfect example of the kind of re-framing that western hijab apologists will do when faced with the reality of religiously motivated headscarves.

Secondly, the hijab has nothing to do with choice, actually, quite the opposite. The hijab is ‘about’ policing women’s bodies and tethering them to patriarchal concepts of female purity, male property, and bearers of the burden of family honor. ‘Choice’ has nothing to do with the history and concept of hijab. To counter this is similar to asserting that the subordination of nuns to priests in Catholicism, another conveniently female to male power dynamic, is about choice and not the usual sexual politics. Such counters seek to deny the history, if not the present global practices, of that particular church.

Thirdly, these often made comparisons to ISIS are not just baseless, but grotesque. If one has doubts they may wish to live under ISIS for one day and then compare that experience to a year in Paris. Taking the exception in democracies and comparing them to the rule in terror-run dictatorships, is as teenage as it is hysterical.

The oppression of women and minorities we see in the Muslim world are not the product of the hijab but of American and Western imperialism.

This argument is another classic dodge to avoid holding cultures accountable for their values and instead blame foreign conspiracies for their inferiority complex. It goes without saying that Western imperialism has a lot to answer for, but contempt for human rights and free thought is a problem that Islam, like any religion, has created for itself. It did not need any outside help. Were this argument legitimate the imperialist Islamic polity, the Ottoman Empire, would have to be explained. Islamic contempt for science, free thought, and human rights developed alongside the religion, not after toxic Western influences. In short, ideologies are responsible for their own values, not conspiracies, real or imagined.

But indeed, the hijab is not the sole cause of female oppression in the Muslim world, it is however a symptom.

I don’t care what extremists say, the hijab means feminism and freedom to me!

If everyone just went about tailoring Islam to their own particular values, it would cease to exist as a cohesive institution. Islam either has something to say about the hijab or it does not. If it does, then there is one, defined thing the hijab represents. If it says nothing about the hijab, then a so-called extremist’s interpretation is as good as the so-called moderate’s. And guess which set of practitioners prevails? I’ll add here, simply because one’s interpretation of a faith is more peaceful than another’s, does not qualify it as the truer interpretation.

The strongest indicator would seem to be the interpretation of those countries that practice Islamic jurisprudence, Sharia Law. Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan all agree that the hijab exists to burden women with notions of female honor, male property, and emblemize woman’s worth as a sexual object. So you can ‘not care’ all you want, and invent all the cutesy representations of the hijab that you wish, but in the Muslim dominated world there is an overwhelming consensus that the hijab represents not female liberation, but female subordination.

In one Pew study asking what was appropriate for women to wear in public, the overwhelming majority of seven different Muslim countries supported some kind of head scarf. If the hijab was really about choice and freedom, then this study would leave me to wonder where the notion of ‘what’s appropriate’ figures into it.

But the Koran says men and women are partners, and that women should seek knowledge too.

Really? Well does it say what kind of partners men and women are? Or what sort of knowledge women should seek? Does the Koran ever explicitly state that men and women are equals? The word ‘partner’ does not necessitate equality. Nor does the command ‘seek knowledge’ translate to ‘seek equality’. And if men and women are equals under Islam, why don’t men wear a hijab? This is similar to Catholicism’s justification of male dominated power in the church. Are we to believe that men and women are equal in Catholicism despite the fact that women cannot hold any meaningfully high office there? Come on ladies…this is some pathetic reaching.

These lines are often used to ‘prove’ that the hijab is not a symbol of sexism. But these vague, optimistically translated passages say nothing about the relationship Islam intends between men and women.

Every person should have a right to wear what they wish. But the hijab isn’t just a necklace or scarf worn to keep the head warm. It is a religiously motivated symbol, and pretending that it doesn’t have a history or intent is as silly as wearing a swastika and claiming it is just a pattern. We need to be honest, not stupidly optimistic, about what these symbols represent and what their agenda is.


Identity Politics – A Critical Examination

Identity politics necessitates the acceptance of not a few transparently contradictory ideas. First and foremost, it inextricably ties identity to experience. When I say identity I am referring to both biologically established identities, such as being dark-skinned or female, and abstract or political identities, such as being spiritual or Marxist.

This kind of politics relies most heavily on phenotype however, which comprises physical characteristics determined by genetics and epigenetics. Examples can be seen in the phrases and nomenclature of social justice groups, feminists being the primary example. Blithe references to entire swathes of people, united only by skin tone, gender, or sexuality, are not uncommon and are indeed inevitable, since the whole logic behind identity politics’ theory is invested in the idea that physical identity shapes experience and thus reality – which extends to virtually every member of the arbitrarily designated group.

The second premise, equally bizarre and spurious, is that objective truth of any kind does not exist. This is important to the first premise since it reinforces the notion that truth is defined by how one perceives it as opposed to how closely the facts of a situation cohere to reality. In other words, for the identity politicker, reality is defined by perception which in the nomenclature is called ‘narrative’. It is a fitting name since narratives are highly personalized and often fictional. So, for example, if I am a black woman and I feel unduly observed at a Target while shopping, the reality of the situation is not defined by what I can prove but rather by what I think is the case, regardless of the facts.

The new ‘guilty until proven innocent’ populist trend supported by many feminists in rape cases, offers us a supremely apt example. The feminist ‘narrative’ is that women absolutely, categorically, do not lie about rape and thus, any woman claiming rape should be taken at her word. To do otherwise is to ‘marginalize’ her experience by ‘invalidating’ it. If she fingers the wrong culprit or her story fails utterly to cohere, it is only because the trauma of the event has crippled her but this by no means impugns her story.

The rights of the accused become secondary to the accuser in rape cases in particular, all because feminist narratives define women as always right in the case of sexual assault. If men are falsely accused and socially pilloried in the process, this pales in comparison to even meek attempts at clarification on the part of the constabulary or public. This is justified by the claim that to question the victim does more harm than falsely accusing and socially alienating the accused. Asking for evidence, holding the victim accountable for their claims, and indeed, investigating the matter at all in any way that burdens the victim, is just more proof that we live in a patriarchal rape culture.

Rape cases are an interesting study since they highlight the contempt identity politickers have for evidence and truth seeking. They also highlight the practical cultural and legal implications of such an ideology being taken seriously. Investigation into any claim is often defined as a kind of attack, silencing at best, and violence at worst. This is quite simply because ‘narratives’ are considered truisms despite the overwhelming cornucopia of evidence that proves not only that witness testimony is colossally unreliable, proving that we should always buttress our stories with facts, but that individual interpretations of the same events can vary as widely as the individuals that experience them.

Instead of accepting that rape cases are difficult to try for numerous reasons, feminists and others have simply taken the unnuanced position that women cannot lie about rape and that there is a self-evident patriarchal conspiracy to codify it. This double-edged stance, that feminist orthodoxy can never be wrong, and that a coordinated global white-hetero-patriarchal conspiracy exists, can be found underpinning almost every argument a proponent of identity politics will make.

So far, we have the concept of collective experience and the belief that truth is entirely subject to one’s identity and that no objective metric can be reliably trusted. It should be noted here and now that already we have a contradiction.

If we can only know our own group’s experiences, how can we expect understanding from people who do not share our identity? The often quoted line, check your privilege, seems utterly pointless if in fact we cannot understand the perspectives of others without living them. And since identity politickers have rejected objectivity and its metrics, there can be no way to understand what is meant by any other person’s concept of privilege. Indeed, the command, check your privilege assumes an absolute truth through a lens that denies any such thing exists.

This is not to say agent and target groups do not exist. But it is to say that through identity politics no such thing can be reliably identified.

The third premise of identity politics is the concept of ownership, both of guilt and culture.

In the case of agent groups, such as men, heterosexuals, and white people, you must own a collective and generational guilt that spans the vast desert of humanity’s sins. In the case of oppressed groups such as gay people or black Americans, you own any and all aspects of a given culture or subculture, which you are free to police at will.

How anyone can own a culture or way of being is inexplicable, especially when we consider that no culture in existence today is at all the sole creation of one cohesive group of people. Ideas and cultures defy ownership by their very nature. Being nonmaterial they can be possessed by anyone and altered at will to fit changing contexts of existence.

The assumption that when supposed ‘non-owners’ engage foreign ideas or practices it automatically becomes a form of oppressive mockery is as paranoid and cynical as it is dismissive of intention. Again we see in identity politics an attempt to place an absolute judgement on how something should be done and yet it’s through a theory that by its very description claims nothing like an objective reality exists.

The fourth and final premise, and maybe the most risible of all, is the hierarchy of victimhood that identity politics and its adherents wallow in. Group capital and authority are defined not by the merit of your arguments or character, but again, by your identity. The more oppressed identities one possesses, the more currency you have in the economy of victimhood.

All other things being equal, if you can stack your minorityships, you are in a better position to socially police others with your identity credentials. This is yet another key factor in warding off truly critical debate in which evidence must be forth coming. By making oppressed identities the primary force behind an argument, you not only render logic and numbers toothless, but entirely sideline every privileged group you claim grievance against. Should any minority member challenge this orthodoxy they are immediately labeled an inculcated shill of the white-hetero-patriarchy. And should a privileged individual challenge it, they will be pilloried as a bigot and accused of silencing the victim in question.

Despite identity politics’ inherent claim to solipsism, it consistently wields a hermeneutic double standard against its perceived enemies, demanding that they and only they hold the key to what is true or false as far as existential claims go. The ultimate conflict here, which we see occur increasingly, is that in such a diffuse movement with no identifiable keeper of doctrine, everyone and their mother holds that key.

Your # Isn’t a Movement

I recently came across #thisis2016 which is apparently some kind of ‘tell your own story’ about racism against Asian ethnicities. Admittedly I haven’t done in depth research on this ‘movement’ but as far as I can tell it was inspired by an editor for the New York times who, surprise-surprise, in walking among the 8 million people of New York experienced some verbal racism.

The suggestion is that others share their stories. This is the inane attention we now give to such mild experiences. If being told to ‘go back to China’ by an angry woman on the street ruins your day or is enough to anger you into starting a revolution, I have to wonder just how sheltered your life has been thus far.

It would seem that, given his extreme reaction, that this does not happen as often as the movement would suggest since he would otherwise have to spend all his time hashtagging about it.

I commented on this movement on facebook to a girl who seemed to support it and really believe in it. She was not happy when I said basically what I am saying here. She then commented that America is a country that ‘kills’ you for being different, highlighting just how exaggerated the problem had become for her.

Aside from young black men, I don’t really think there is a group of people in the United States that understands much about what it actually means to be mortally persecuted for difference. And even then, the numbers are not as impressive as the media would have you believe. In Saudi Arabia women are stoned for perceived adultery or even if they are the victims of rape. In Iran homosexuals are hanged. North Koreans cannot leave their own country and live in a constant state of inculcation.

These are real problems that require real solutions and are in fact indicative of what society at large feels about these groups.

I would argue that racial slurs at the hand of the odd pedestrian does not constitute anything abnormal when living in a large, multiracial society. When slurs, however, progress to systemic racial policy and practice, then we have a real problem. Until then, you’ve basically just been called a bad name.

My ultimate point here is that movements like these, which strive to act as a kind of wake-up call or barometer of society, fail utterly to do anything of the kind. They are not random, rather they are selected for, and they attract some of the most angry, self-righteous people; many of whom are time-privileged enough to sit around and think about how angry they are about name-calling and then make a video about it. It is like using youtube comments to gauge the frequency of profanity. Ridiculous.

A better barometer would be nation-wide polls in which people are asked what they think of Asian people or to ask Asian Americans themselves about the frequency and intensity of their experiences with racism, and whether it was at the hands of authority or just some rando.

Instead, however, we just get a bunch of self-righteous and indignant people whose worst experience is a taunt, discussing how awful it is to suffer at the hands of all these racists, many of whom don’t ever seem as frequent or present as these videos would like us to believe. Maybe because there is so much capital in victimhood in America today.






The Capital of American Victimhood

The most disappointing lesson any human being learns is the unfairness of life. Greed and ambition are usually the speedier stairs to success than meekness and modesty. A Muscovite friend of mine once remarked upon this truism, stating both wryly and aptly that the more democratic a society was, the slower its people were to acknowledge this reality.

In the United States we have a long history of taking what we know we deserve from our government. Some Americans very charitably depict the historical US government as having granted rights over time, some voting rights for women here, some civil rights for black people there. But the reality is that, as with all governments, we took what we wanted and we did it using a lot of time and moderate force.

Rights are a funny thing. In the West we talk about them rather academically and in condescending, entitled overtones that suggest they had been forthcoming since the inception of governance. As though we had always known these rights belonged to us and it was just a matter of heading to the lost and found to claim them. But the reality is, our rights were by and large thought up, discovered, witnessed in the hands of those luckier than us, and then viciously, desperately fought for and retained. Despite what we tell ourselves today, we were never entitled to them, and had we been we would never have had to fight for them, least of all consider which ones are fundamental to happiness versus just icing on the cake.

If rights were absolute and fundamental, the way we imperiously and pompously pronounce them to be, then why do we fundamentally disagree about which ones should be granted? Why does each country, even among liberal democracies, demonstrate such a variety of them? And if we’re entitled to these rights, how is it that they can be wished, washed, and whittled away without so much as a popular vote?

The answer is that rights are actually arbitrary. You are neither entitled to them nor owed them. Americans believe this because our fights for rights have often been successful. We have rarely lived with the aftermath of a truly failed rights movement. Though I imagine the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Iraqis, and many South Americans and Africans could instruct us on what that is like. They may well wonder where the American and European notion of rights entitlement comes from.

They may also wonder where the new trend in American victimhood comes from. In countries where rights are not arrogantly presumed all-inclusive with the lease of life, victimhood has no capital. But in the United States it comes freighted with all manner of squalid privileges. The psychology of American victimhood is as teenage as it is self-gratifying; quick to establish a fast and loose binary of winners and losers and even faster to declare what the losers are entitled to, the largely middle-class and over educated proponents of this feminist fueled infantilism have declared any and all who are perceived as winners indebted to them.

If you have any doubts as to the validity of this claim then consider their vocabulary. What is a safe space other than an entitlement to an echo chamber? What are microaggressions other than an entitlement to another’s intent? I don’t care what you meant, I’ve decided for you that you acted maliciously. And what is cultural appropriation other than the entitlement to own, reserve, or designate for others entire cultures? But what all this really condenses to is an entitlement to a society that functions precisely as one wishes it to function.

In a University paper I read the other day a girl complained about feeling unsafe when, after a neighborhood shooting, she was not warned by the campus police of the event’s happenings. She felt entitled to this warning. She felt that she was owed constant updates despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans, and indeed the world, exist without such notifications.

It is strange that so many Americans of my generation clamor and with such ease for so intense an awareness of their personal feelings while at the same time insisting as loudly that they are deeply sensitive to the needs of others. The reality, however, is that today’s social justice warriors wallow in the capital of victimhood; entitlement. I have been wronged by society, thus you all must give unto me. It is not I who should change, but all of you. It is always difficult to make real change when you wait for society to do it for you and avoid doing any of the work yourself. Complaining, after all, is much easier than doing.

You can’t understand because you’re not [insert identity]!

The single worst concept to spring from the ash of identity politics, a medium so fertile for the growth of stupidity it rivals libertarianism, is the notion that in order to understand or relate to a person’s experience you must actually share a relevant identity with them.

My apologies, did that not make any sense whatsoever? Well of course it didn’t, feminists developed it. But that’s why I’m here. Allow me to illustrate an example to better illuminate this retarded idea. (And no, I’m not sorry about using the word ‘retarded’.)

Let’s say you’re a man talking to a woman about rape and she says, ‘Well, you couldn’t possibly understand because you’re a man,” implying that only women truly understand the subject of rape since the majority of rape victims are women and rapists are men, blah, blah, and blah…

Here’s another example since I love beating dead horses. Let’s say you’re straight and you’re talking to a gay friend about homophobic discrimination and they say, “Well, you know, you don’t and won’t really get it since you’re a straight dude, you MUST be gay to fully understand it, or even understand it enough to be taken seriously when discussing it.”

If you’re thinking to yourself, “That doesn’t really make sense,” don’t worry, that just means your critical thought is still somewhat intact.

Let’s unpack this common conceit amongst the social justice crowd.

If we are all human beings, and if human beings are capable of experiencing the same emotions across a spectrum of experiences, understanding that many experiences can be extrapolated upon in order to appreciate others we’ve yet to possess, then what identity could be so unique that it becomes impossible for others to consider it a reality?

The answer to that is none. The human imagination is limitless in scope, it is kind of the point of an imagination. Conversely, human emotions, a crucial part of our reaction to experiences, are limited. If they were not limited, if they were not so defined and contained within our species, human to human emotive experiences would indeed be impossible.

Additionally, many seemingly different physical experiences ultimately boil down to the same emotive experience. Being unexpectedly pushed by another person ultimately elicits the same emotive reaction as being called a ‘fucking-faggot’, or being purposefully ignored, gossiped about, or even libeled. Yet all these people could say to each other, you don’t know how humiliating it is to be…or enraging it is to be…or hurtful it is to be…

Losing a leg is likely very different from losing one’s memory when you get into the practical consequences. But the sense of frustration, embarrassment, necessity to adapt, and anger that could spring from these two very different losses are really the same and are at least capable of being extrapolated upon.

So if a gay person says, ‘you don’t get it because you’re not gay’ or ‘because you’re not black’ or ‘a woman’, what experience are these individuals thinking of that actually necessitates the impossibility of an identity change in order to ‘get them’? What experience is so inextricably bound to identity that it actually derives from the identity itself rather than the many factors that assemble it? And if bigotry is socially constructed then how can it be identified innately, divorced from its social origins?

There is nothing unique about experiences with bigotry. What is fundamentally different about experiencing prejudice due to skin color as opposed to sexual orientation? And what is unique to these experiences that someone who has been seriously and unfairly misjudged for any reason could not extrapolate upon them to better understand? The only often cited difference here is the frequency and motive behind the events and it doesn’t take a guided tour through the Matrix to move beyond that.

In fact, claiming that a human being cannot understand another human being because of their sex, sexual identity, ethnicity, or class is itself remarkably bigoted and only proves my point. Such a claim on the part of social justice dumb dumbs elegantly counters their notion that the shoe is impossible to put on the other foot.

The claim that all white people are secretly racist if not overtly, or that all men are potential rapists, or that all heterosexuals dream of a homoerotic experiences, is not only condescending but intellectually hypocritical.

Lastly, I want to conclude by admitting that we can acknowledge that some experiences are harder to understand than others and that all experiences are likely best understood by having them without hoarding experience like covetous dragons that are so narcissistic they cannot imagine a person sophisticated enough to comprehend them.

Western Women, Religion, and Self-Hate

There is a strange cognitive dissonance that echoes between the western and eastern halls of practicing Muslims, and it surrounds the question of headwear.

In recent years the West has taken a number of stances on the various head scarves and bags Muslim women wrap themselves in. In France, an uncompromising approach has been taken in regard to the fuller covering, the burqa. While in the USA, there remain, as far as I know, no laws that prohibit shrouding oneself like an embalmed corpse. For the best I suppose.

Traditionally Muslim countries have been equally varied though tending conservatively, ranging from mere suggestions to indulge in sartorial chauvinism to unequivocally demanding the burqa at all times in public.

There is an interesting trend among Muslim American and European women who claim their head scarves and coverings are in fact acts of female empowerment. Indeed, they seriously and resolutely claim that by exercising their right to these various covers they are joining the West’s ranks of radical feminists by defiantly showcasing an emblem of their supposedly oppressed faith.

The trouble with this logic is that no matter how one describes, rationalizes, or founds the practice of shrouding women, be it just their hair or their entire body, the inescapable reality is that an extreme and covetously violent chauvinism underpins it. A paralyzing fear and contempt for female sexual liberty and personal independence was and remains the only driving force for this nonsense and it is a truism to say so. Any person in disagreement is either deluded or insidious.

If you doubt this then ask yourself for alternatives. Why does it behoove Catholicism to forbid women from access to its hierarchy, the people capable of making real and meaningful decisions? Was not Mother Mary the purest Christian to ever live? Good enough to give birth to God but apparently not enough to be pope or even a mere parish priest. Why should the Mormons have permitted polygamy for men but not for women? Are there so few male Mormons? And again, why in Islam should family and male honor depend so desperately on female purity and virtue? Strange indeed that women alone should be burdened with so much responsibility and yet so little actual power.

It goes without saying that the vast majority of countries that do not forcibly segregate their men and women lead happier, healthier, and more fulfilling lives. Why anyone pretends otherwise seems bizarre and I can only assume that it is the overwhelming privilege of choice that convinces these women they are committing an act of bravery rather than surrender. Were they living in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan I ponder if they would remain so resolute.

I of course believe people should wear what makes them comfortable and if that includes mummifying yourself every morning out of submission to your husband and religion then hey, knock yourself out. But when it comes to these Catholic, Muslim, Mormon, and other such ladies that claim their respective faiths support equality, and that their acts of submission are in fact acts of protest against an intolerant world, I can do little but scoff. It is a desperate, pathetic, and very sad delusion these people exist in, convincing themselves that they are loved instead of despised. It reminds me of a chained and starving dog that thanks its abusive master for remembering to throw it scraps.

It must be that the deeply religious, especially deeply religious women, have some of the lowest self-esteem in all humanity. To allow yourself to be so debased, degraded, found so unworthy, can only be testament to a yawning void of self-love and reflection. These western women are so different from their sisters in other states where, more often than not, the ultimatum is behave or burn.




Orlando is about Religion, Not Guns, Homophobia or Mental Health

I am going to talk about the shooting in Orlando, perpetrated by a Muslim man in a gay club.

It fascinates me that everyone seems deliberately intent on diverting as much attention as possible away from this asshole’s religion and redirecting it toward gun control, homophobia, and mental health. It is as though everyone save for far right conservatives have immersed themselves in the grand delusion that ideology had no part to play here. What a sad day it is when The Right sees more clearly than The Left.

Indeed, had a Christian or white supremacist perpetrated this crime I question whether there would be such a poverty of self-reflection and self-criticism regarding the ideology ruddering it. But alas, the man was Muslim and so due to the liberal-feminist teachings of America’s newly founded nydus of pro-vegan hipster bull-dike speech police, it has become anathema to even consider the role a barbaric belief system like Islam might have played in motivating this young man to murderously assault a gay club.

Gun control is an important issue. Some might even venture to call it a culturally complex one. It deserves to be considered and discussed. That homophobia or mental health, however, should be bandied about as though separate and distinct from, as opposed to part and parcel to, extreme Islam is not only bizarre but intellectually dishonest, cowardly, and just plain fucking stupid.

Of course someone who takes Islam or any religion this seriously is bat-shit fucking insane. Many people call themselves Muslim or Christian but the only ones taking those colossally bad ideas seriously are the ones wielding the automatics.

We have already seen the pathetically convenient excuse, ‘that is not my faith’ or ‘that is not the true Islam’ but who the fuck are these people to make that claim? Where is their badge of authority on the subject? With books as poorly written as the Koran or Bible, who at all can claim any authority on them? I might add as well, only the literal interpretations have any grounding and guess which camp that favors?

As for the claims that this is truly about America’s problems with homophobia, what bosh! What utter nonsense! This country has made one of the fastest 180s in favor of LGBT people in the history of mankind, coming about from federally backed institutionalized hate to legal support of gay marriage, parenting, adoption, antidiscrimination, and even pioneering genderless bathrooms against the will of its own state governments!

And oh, in case anyone was stupid enough to not notice, Islam is categorically anti-homosexual, anti-sex, anti-equality. So, shocker, ladies and gentleman, but Islamic extremism and homophobia are not mutually exclusive, nor is mental health.

I want to continue this diatribe to lambast the gay Muslims who have with such squalid glee taken the opportunity to use this event to further their own sad agendas and talk about how they are the ‘real’ victims of Orlando.

A religion is an institution. We can join and leave institutions. In America you do not have to remain Muslim for fear of mortal reprisal. I am exhausted of religious people comparing their plights to gays, ethnic peoples, and women, who cannot change their identities. A Muslim can stop being Muslim. No one can stop being black, gay, or having a vagina!

Gay Muslims, get a fucking grip, have some self-respect, and abandon that barbaric institution that has done absolutely nothing but hold humanity back. I extend the same exhortation to LGBT people in all religious circles. Start taking yourselves seriously. Your religions do not support you and they never will and no twisting of their words will make it so. Be honest with yourselves!

It may well behoove us to exhort our religious citizens to speak out against the ghastly evils their comrades commit but it would benefit us even more greatly if we simply acknowledged religious beliefs for what they are; silly, primitive superstitions that conduce to profoundly sinister consequences.

This man might have been crazy and he might have been homophobic and his gun might have been gotten too easily, but at the end of the day the only certain thing is that a very bad idea looms over it all, and surprise, it had consequences, just as bad ideas often do.

The Fascist Pillars of Feminism (a 5 part critique)

There was a time, I’m told, when feminism was a realistic, meaningful movement in the United States. It had leaders, was focused, and possessed worthwhile goals it sought to fulfill. Moreover, it was also united and constructive.

Unfortunately, today feminism has devolved into what can only be described as an ideologically fascist, fear-mongering extremist movement with cult-like obedience to popular party lines and a culture of public humiliation. In this editorial I’d like to examine the many ways in which feminism has deteriorated into a self-destructive and toxic ideology, one that has borrowed and broken Marxist and progressive ideals, and transformed itself into one of the single most dangerous movements in the West today.

PART ONE: Free Speech is Hate Speech

When critics accuse feminism today of having much in common with ISIS they’re not being facetious. Both are remarkably contemptuous of free speech, the only difference being one has absolute power to prevent it while the other must work within a disagreeable legal framework. Personally, I consider it a truism to say that when it comes to social justice warriors, had they the opportunity to silence their opponents Stalinist style, they would.

Exhibit A : Poll showing discontent and confusion over the definition of free speech.

Exhibit B : British university bans controversial comedian from campus.

Exhibit C : President Obama criticizes the coddling university culture.

Exhibit D : Watch those pronouns you transphobic monster!

Exhibit E : US Department of Education asked to censor websites and punish racist speech.

Exhibit F : How trigger warnings are destroying the American university.

I could go on. This trend is largely within universities, which is not surprising when we consider their make-up. Liberal, naïve, largely middle-class and so on; types that have no grasp of how the world actually works, especially outside of America. Taught to make ubiquitous use of emotional assumptions and to replace critical thought for post-structuralism, young people today no longer need silly facts to make sense of reality, instead reality becomes a personal narrative in which everything is just a matter of perspective.

The ways in which social justice warriors and feminists obfuscate their absolute contempt for free speech are numerous. An entire lexicon has arisen to define the ways in which dissenting opinions are evil and is constructed in the most vague and self-righteous of terms so as to deflect as much scrutiny as possible. Here are a few.

Microaggression: any word, phrase, expression, or action that can be interpreted as bigoted, regardless of the number of alternative explanations.

Safe Space: an arbitrarily designated space in which only the most pro-intersectional feminist rhetoric and post-structuralist drivel can be discussed – essentially any location containing 2 or more feminists.

Mansplain: a term used to silence anyone, though especially men, who attempt to offer a legitimate or alternative point to a discussion on anything, including those topics in which they are experts.

Rape Culture: the entirely out of proportion conspiracy theory that America legally and socially sanctions rape despite an overwhelming lack of evidence, leading to the idea that women should always be believed at the expense of the accused and that rape is a crime more heinous than murder or genocide. To counter this claim only legitimizes it.

Patriarchy: the entirely out of proportion conspiracy theory that white men around the world collude to oppress women, especially women of color, despite both genders having exactly all the same rights.

Intersectionality Theory: a feminist theory resembling pokemon which states the more oppressed identities you’ve collected, the wiser and more knowledgeable you are about the ‘true nature of reality’.

Narrative: any of a number of competing perspectives with no bearing on facts or reality, the importance of which is gauged by how oppressed the narrator is.

Privilege: any form of success.

Oppression: any form of failure.

Problematic: an adjective used to draw attention away from the fact that its user misunderstands the situation at hand.

Shitlord: anyone with a critique of feminist pedagogy, especially a legitimate one.

Trigger Warning: a warning tag for people seeking to be pathologically offended.

Cultural Appropriation: the heinous act of a white person eating sushi.

Anyone who has spent any amount of time on the internet or Huffington Post would find it difficult to deny the notion that feminists and social justice warriors want to remake the definition of free speech. Anything they dislike or don’t understand is a glaring example of misogyny or racism. Anyone who disagrees and even those who simply choose not to participate, is automatically labeled part of the white heteropatriarchal matrix of oppression. In short, disagreement is harassment, criticism is violence, and silence is hateful.

Feminism seems fundamentally incapable of hearing any story or stance that does not confirm its world view and will go to great lengths to silence detractors. Take the examples of such atheist ex-Muslim speakers as Maryam Namazie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, both of whom have been picketed and censored by feminist groups despite having personal on-the-ground experience  with the real oppression of Sharia Law in their home countries of Iran and Somalia. These are women that have had death threats made against them for their very real activism, unlike the feminism of Tumblr which is done over tea and biscuits.

Until now, feminist supporters have tried to claim that these are extremists and that they are few and far between. But the growing body of evidence suggests that at universities across America, free speech, discourse, and the nature of reality is under attack. But instead of countering these offensives, people are cowering and apologizing for exercising their first amendment rights. Be assured, however, that these kinds of people are ideologically and intellectually opposed to the free exchange of ideas, not unlike the theocratic fascists of Syria’s ISIS.

To be continued in PART TWO: The Additive Property of Victimhood



The Double Standards of America’s Rising P.C. Fascism

Political Correctness in America has been hijacked by the far left language fascists of the social justice warrior and feminist bloc. The word ‘racist’ is now so in vogue that it essentially means nothing. Once a word that clearly identified someone of bigoted beliefs, it now describes any person who is found disagreeable by this odious, irascible, and generally hypocritical bloc of far left ‘social activists’. Let’s review some of them shall we?


If a black woman says it, then it’s cool, if a white man says it, then its racist or homophobic.

No. Something is either bigoted or it is not, irrespective of who is saying it or what they look like. What matters is intent. What is the intent of the person making the joke or said statement? Do they have a history of bigotry? Does the context surrounding their statement support that claim? Is there another more reasonable or less sinister explanation for their comments? And even if we find the comment ultimately ignorant, is it still racist or just misinformed?

It seems to me that a true racist is someone who has the right information but blithely dismisses it in favor of a preferred worldview, sort of like what the religious do all the time. This, as opposed to say a young or particularly cloistered person who has made a monolith of Asian cultures not because he or she knows better, but because it is all they have been exposed to. The question is, do they change after learning?

Being a member of a minority does not make you impervious to bigoted acts and statements. Most of the homophobic people I have personally come into contact with have been black or Asian. I’ve met bigots of all backgrounds, and no skin color or culture acts as an automated shield against it.

A statement is either wrong or right, depending on certain facts. A statement is either bigoted or not, depending on certain facts. Not, the statement is either bigoted or not depending on what color and gender they are. That, my friends, would actually be racist and sexist.

Only [insert particular minority] understand what it is like to be [insert particular minority].

If this is true then why is it that everyone seems to understand what it is like to be white? If it is the case that understanding any one person’s experiences requires being their ethnicity, gender, or sexuality, then ultimately, no one can understand what ‘it is like’ to be anyone who does not share all of their physical and psychosexual characteristics. If it is not the case, then anyone can dare to discuss the experiences of anyone else.

In essence, if the SJWs and feminists believe in statement two, then anyone who isn’t white cannot talk about what it is like to be white, just as they claim white people know nothing of what it is like to be black or Native American. Moreover, black people and Native Americans couldn’t discuss what it is like to be each other.

It is obvious, however, that statement two is bosh. Human beings, no matter their physical or psychosexual characteristics, are members of the same species with the same brains. We all share the same depth of emotions and potential range of experiences and as a result, it is not hard to know others if one is committed to the simple act of empathy. There is actually nothing so unique about being black or gay, for example, that makes it impossible for white or heterosexual folk to understand.

In short, if you can imagine what it is like to be discriminated against for a particular reason, then you can imagine what it might be like to be black or gay. And, since everyone has experienced some level of undue discrimination or hatred, it is not difficult to imagine. It is only a matter of scale.

Generally speaking, there is nothing one group of people can understand that cannot be understood by another, were that not true then foreign languages could not be learned and cultural diffusion wouldn’t exist and no one would ever be able to talk about or learn from another person, ever.

White people are responsible for all the sins of all white people everywhere, and the rest of us are just victims, free of any and all possible blame.

No again. You either believe in transgenerational sins or you don’t. If you do, then it applies to everyone and not just white people, and if you don’t, then again, it applies to all or none. We are only responsible for the acts we commit and commit to ourselves.

But let’s role with this one for a moment. SJW’s and feminists love to lay this one and thick. They are constantly clamoring for reparations and demanding apologies from all the wrong people. They especially love to claim that ‘being silent’ is no different than perpetrating the act in question, as though they have the final say on that deeply philosophical question.

If it is true that we are responsible for the institutions we are a part of, willingly or not willingly, then the minorities of America have a lot to be responsible for. If you are a citizen of the USA then by statement three’s logic, you are responsible for all the horrors the State Department has ever committed and they are manifold my friends. Including but not limited to, supporting the theocratic fascist government of Saudi Arabia, toppling the democratic governments of Iran and Guatemala, invading Iraq and Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, and chemical warfare over the people of Vietnam. Prepare your kids folks, because they are thus guilty as charged.

This logic functions the same for religious folk. If you are Catholic, Mormon, Protestant, Muslim, or a member of any religion really, you bear responsibility for all those institutions’ sins and hideous acts of unbridled evil. Even more so since membership is optional, not like being white or in most cases, a citizen of this country.

Obvious nonsense.

Oppressed people deserve reparations and etc.

That depends on what you mean by ‘deserve’.

No one asks where the money will come from, and who will suffer as a result. Let’s take slavery for example. If the government decided to pay reparations to black Americans for slavery where would they find the money? Who would get it and how much? Not all black people in America today were slaves. The vast majority of white people never owned slaves and none own them today. And what about rich black people? Would they get as much money as poor black people? Would poor white people have to pay as much as rich white people? See what a cluster fuck this is?

Reparations only make sense when the people who deserve them are still alive and the people who owe them can be targeted and taxed.

There is a larger point at issue here, however, then just reparations. History is rife with examples of people oppressing other people and it was rarely race related.

Do the Mongols owe Russia for its invasion and yoke? Do the Italians and Iranians owe the Greeks due to the depredations of the Roman and Persian empires? Do the Sioux owe something to the other tribes they warred with? Does Spain owe something to England or the Netherlands for its religiously motivated attacks in the 16th century? And what do the Arabs owe Africa for the Arab slave trade, which was greater and crueler in scope than the North Atlantic. I wonder if Korea, China, and Japan, have figured out their reparations for World War II and prior. And isn’t it too bad the Aztecs aren’t around anymore to pay reparations to all the tribes they fucked prior to being fucked themselves by the conquistadores? And if the indigenous people of the Americas have a right to their land, why don’t the indigenous people of Europe have the same claim?

Get my point? How far back in history must we go before it becomes meaningless to assign blame? No one is faultless when you decide to represent a group.

 We believe in free speech but not when it nebulously hurts feelings. HEY! DON’T SILENCE ME!

Then you don’t believe in free speech. You either believe that people should be allowed to speak their minds in public or you do not. The only real exception to this rule pertains to advocating for immediate harm against a person or people, and no that doesn’t include hurt feelings.

Also, it isn’t ‘silencing’ when someone’s argument destroys yours. That is just you experiencing the hysteria of feeling butthurt.

[Insert minority] failures can be explained by society’s oppression, so it isn’t their fault.

If society can explain away the behaviors of one then it can explain away the behaviors of others. Society’s influence is either too powerful to overcome or it is not, this goes for black people and white people. It also goes for heterosexuals and homosexuals. So if you claim that society has made black people a certain way you cannot wince at the same argument made to excuse white racists.

These are just a few of the major double standards of America’s far-left fascists. Many of these issues are complicated ones and require deeper thought than that of a sophomore women’s studies course to deconstruct them. That being said, the lesson to be learned here is this, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.


Counter Arguments to Anti-Syrian Refugee Rhetoric

Counter Arguments to Anti-Refugee Rhetoric

We need to focus on our own people, we have too many problems to solve here.

Oh, I guess America’s leaders can only deal with one problem at a time.

This is an obvious strawman and it is used whenever someone is too lazy or cowardly to resolve the emergent situation at hand.

But some of them might be terrorists!

And the overwhelming majority of them won’t be. Do I need to mention what happened in Colorado Springs the other day? It should go without saying that home-grown gun violence presents a much greater danger to the American people than terrorist refugees do.

Again, how cowardly must our leadership be to deny refuge to dozens of thousands because 2 or 3 may be saboteurs? If that’s the case, ISIS has already succeeded in using fear to kill our compassion.

On another note, when was taking in the huddled masses supposed to be convenient?

This is a problem of the Middle East, they need to work this out on their own for once!

May I remind you that the United States is an interloper in the affairs of the M.E. We were never asked to engage in their affairs and even if we had been, we have always had the option to do otherwise.

Our government is responsible for the regime change in Iraq and the famously weak and incompetent government we established there. As a direct result, Iraq was unable to deal with the political and military turmoil of ISIS, leading to the vanished border between Iraq and Syria, greatly strengthening the terrorist organization.

In our bumbling attempts at resolution, we unintentionally gave weapons and money to ISIS, and contributed to the vitiation of Assad’s forces, again aiding ISIS, and all due to our infantile stance on the nature of good and evil.

The next time some patriotic asshole tells you Assad must go because he is a dictator, mention our allies, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. And if they bring up barrel bombs, mention our use of the chemical weapon ‘agent orange’ in Vietnam. Oops.

Anyway, that should do it.