Yes, the vast majority of people who claim to be anti-Zionism probably are anti-Semitic. (This has certainly been my experience.) But it’s still important to keep the two concepts distinct, or else you risk demonizing people for something they are not. And the more empty charges get flung around, the more dismissive people become of the real thing.
It’s also important to recognize that true anti-Zionism needn’t entail being anti-Israel. It’s perfectly possible to reject the principles of Zionism while remaining a strong supporter of Israel and its people.
NOTE: Update to follow (eventually, I swear), because there’s a Part II to the genderqueef shit, and it’s seriously one of the craziest things I have ever seen from the Regressive Left. Which is saying quite a damned bit.
October has not been a month for friendship. My friends are dropping like flies — and it’s largely the fault of Lindsey Graham. He has released from within me an utter abhorrence for unethical shams.
About a dozen people have unfriended me on Facebook since the Christine Ford farce, and I’m pretty sure the majority of those who didn’t are no longer following me.
For the most part, I have been silently unfriended. By whom, it’s hard to tell, which suggests no major loss. But here are two cases in which I played an active role in the dissolution of a friendship — for better or for worse.
Hi, [Awesome Journalist Dude]. Fan here. There’s something I hope you will look into, because it helps explain a lot of false accusations and why sex assault is (supposedly) so underreported: What feminists actually mean when they talk about sexual assault.
A good place to start would be with ‘sexual violence’. It’s a catch-all term feminists employ because it allows them to make a lot of false equivocations.
Sexual violence can entail anything from a “verbal assault” (which includes catcalling) or sexual harassment (includes unwelcome flirtation) to rape — which isn’t necessary ‘rape’ in any conventional sense. Rather, ‘rape’ can refer to any sex act that fails to meet the feminist criteria for consent.
You’re probably aware of the term ‘affirmative consent’, but did you know that feminist ideology permits a woman’s ‘yes’ to be nullified AFTER the fact if she decides she didn’t really mean it?
Consent can also be revoked if the sex didn’t go according to her expectations, or if she suffers from any mental illness (e.g., bipolar disorder) and later concludes it had affected her judgement.
I was involved with radical feminism in my late teens, and nearly every girl I associated with had “attacker” stories to tell. And these she-roes were eager to tell everyone BUT the cops, complaining our laws simply weren’t strong enough to prosecute their “attackers”. In that much, they were correct.
In Europe, people are afraid to call out Islamic terrorism for fear of being targeted — or otherwise violating some ridiculous “hate speech” law, resulting in fines or even imprisonment.
In America, we’re afraid to call out Islamic terrorism for fear of being labeled “racist”.
The verdict? The terrorists won. And Islamic terrorism is going to keep on winning unless we can agree to speak openly and honestly about it without fear of unwarranted reprisals.
This doesn’t mean we need another round of Team America World Police or any further invasions of our privacy.
What it does mean is not being afraid to identify the motives of people who have dedicated themselves to the destruction of an entire civilization. It means recognizing religious extremism for what it is rather than drawing from an arsenal of ad hominems, red herrings, and false equivocations whenever someone proves bold enough to raise the subject.
It means recognizing that while Christians have indeed been responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history — and Hindu extremists seem poised to slaughter Muslims over every little religious beef (lol plz) — the predominant form of religious terrorism the world faces today is Islamic.
It also means recognizing that condemning radical Islam does not make one Islamophobic. (Nor a racist, seeing how we’ve managed to extend the concept of race further than any other society in human history.)
Why aren’t we as willing to identify acts of Islamic terrorism as we are so-called “hate crimes”? Is it somehow more acceptable to despise an entire civilization, rather than an ethnicity or skin color?
If so, would it not follow that the man who kills a stranger over the color of his skin is somehow LESS guilty than the man who kills over a personal grudge?
Facts may be swept under the rug to keep our Safe Spaces looking pristine, but Reality has a way of creeping up behind us. And sooner or later, Reality will sweep the rug right out from under our feet.
To those who seek to hold Western Civilization responsible for Islamic terrorism:
Can you imagine blaming the Jews for the Holocaust?
Can you imagine blaming the slaves for the bloodiest war in our nation’s history?
Was the rape victim “asking for it” because of the manner in which she dressed?
If you answered ‘no’ to all three questions, then you likely hail from a modern, liberal society — be you from the East or the West. For this very reason, there are people who would like to see you dead.
We need to stop whitewashing the past and present for fear of offending Muslims — most of whom don’t have a goddamned thing to do with terrorism anyway.
And to anyone looking to blame the Western world for the overall violence in the Middle East: I encourage you to open a history book, because the Middle East has been a hotbed of violence since the dawn of civilization. It predates Israel, it predates America — it even predates Islam.