If this post exaggerates, generalizes too much, fails to acknowledge exceptions, exhibits too much scorn and impatience, well – no wonder. It was written by a woman. 

She writes:  

A female professor of Women’s Whining, Suzanna Danuta Walters, wrote an opinion piece titled Why Can’t We Hate Men?  (No useful link – it’s in the Washington Post behind a paywall). 

She doesn’t say who is stopping her hating men. And the publication of her piece does not support her implication that there is some hindrance or impediment in her own case.

And considering that most women in the world are heterosexual, put enormous effort into attracting mates, celebrate marriage with joy, and find their greatest happiness in their children of both sexes, that must be the stupidest question ever asked.

Here’s a part of her silly article – for which no self-respecting newspaper would pay her – in which she gives instructions to men:

Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy.

Good grief! Not only are American women in general the most pampered and privileged class of persons in all of time and space because of what “the Patriarchy” has achieved, invented, built and provided for them, but as a class they have made shockingly little contribution to the mechanisms which sustain them. For how many aeons did they sweep the floor with the same broom before a MAN gifted them the vacuum cleaner? For how many did they wash clothes and dishes by hand before MEN got machines to do those chores? Fetch water from rivers or hand-pumps before MEN got water flowing through pipes right into their kitchens and bathrooms? Light their houses with naked flame until MEN gave them gas and electricity?

Who protected them by fighting foreign enemies? Invented the rule of law and systems of impartial justice? Women would never even have thought of such a thing as impartial justice.

Women would never have conceived the idea of Freedom as a condition of life for everyone.

If men were to “step away from the power” we’d all be plunged into dirty, cold, dim, hungry misery faster than you could say “Prohibition was a rotten women’s idea that bred crime on an unprecedented scale”. The first thing American women did when they got the vote was bring in Prohibition.

Europe is now governed by women. Invading armies, plague, even Christianity could not totally destroy Europe, but the female Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers, Ministers of Defense, “High Representatives” of the EU, and above all Angela Merkel, are doing the demolition job rapidly and thoroughly.

Are women good for anything?

The great founder of Singapore, for 50 years the inspiring leader of the city-state, the free-market visionary who made his country the most prosperous in the world, Lee Kuan Yew, gives the answer to a young woman:

Or “only joking” lest they get a race war?

An extreme racist and sexist by the name of Sarah Jeong has been hired by the New York Times to flavor its opinion columns with disgust and loathing for white people and men – so above all of course for white men. And old white men are the worst of the worst, deserving only cruelty. (See examples of her tweets here.)

But all in a good humored way, you see?

She says she was “only joking”. So she is excused by the Left because the Left thinks what she says is really funny, and if the Right can’t share the joke and laugh it off, it’s because the Right just doesn’t have a sophisticated nuanced sense of humor.

Sultan Knish writes:

What part of the “social justice left” or “left” is really producing Sarah Jeongs?

To answer that question we have to talk about what no one really talks about, the alt-left. Unlike the alt-right, a subject of numerous essays, news reports and investigative pieces, the internet culture of racism, misandry and heterophobia that is the millennial alt-left is mostly undocumented.

The alt-left’s norms of discourse are defined by the same harsh contempt and winking racism that appear in Sarah Jeong’s tweets. It’s an internet culture where “white people” is an inherently derogatory term and new slurs, such as “caucasity”, are coined. Ironic racism is defined as “resistance” to whiteness. And what better way to resist whiteness than with racial slurs aimed at white people?

Sarah Jeong’s hateful tweets  … [are] variations on the typical memes and jokes on the alt-left. When we talk about Jeong’s racism, we’re really talking about the bigotry of an intersectional movement that is obsessed with punitively destroying the “privilege” of white people and other majority groups with racist memes, taunts and harassment.

The alt-left preceded the alt-right. The features of the alt-right that the media has attacked are mirror images of its origins counter-trolling the alt-left. When Sarah Jeong’s critics and defenders claim that she was “counter-trolling”, they hilariously get the origin of the internet culture species completely wrong.

Long before the alt-right (at least in internet years), the alt-left was weaponizing racist memes (“white tears” was a popular one) and harassing targets with online mobs (today’s social justice mobs are alt-left online harassment coordinated with alt-lefties in the media). The current trend of media stories that dox targets on the right almost all tend to come from media millennials aligned with the alt-left.

This isn’t the first time that the alt-left’s ironic racism has gotten its members in trouble. There was plenty of outrage when Drexel University’s George Ciccariello-Maher had tweeted, “All I want for Christmas is white genocide”. Just like Jeong, the defense was that Maher was just kidding.

The claims by Vox lefties that Sarah Jeong and the “social justice left” are being ironic in their racist remarks about white people, is not a defense, it’s an indictment. Ironic racism was prevalent on the alt-left before it was mirrored by the alt-right. It’s also a misuse of the term. Non-ironic irony is typical of millennial internet culture that uses humor as a distancing mechanism to normalize repellent views.

That’s not ironic. It’s cowardly and disingenuous. 

The “ironic” alt-left humor of Sarah Jeong uses absurdity and winks to convey actual hatred for white people. …

When we talk about the alt-left, it’s often in terms of antifa …  [But] most of the alt-left, like the rest of the left, is white. Its racism isn’t the outcry of an oppressed minority, as the pro-Jeong pieces have contended, but of an ideological bigotry.

So the New York Times whose publisher, A. G. Sulzberger, is white and male, and whose executive editor, Dean Baquet, is male, employs a racist and sexist to attack Whites and men.

It’s still the same old story. Middle class Utopians pouring scorn on the middle class. That is the nature of the Left since the days of Karl Marx. White “anti-racists” pouring scorn on Whites. That has been the nature of the New Left since 1968.

The only idea the self-haters on the Left now embrace that does not come from their own class and race, is Islam.

And there are no jokes in Islam.

And it has nothing to do with class or race.

And it subjugates women.

The unfunny war is less likely to be over race than ideology. 

It will be – it is – jihad. 

Paul Joseph Watson gallantly tries to tear the veil off Muslim women:

Evidence of collusion between a US presidential candidate and Russians has been found aplenty. 

Only, the candidate was not Donald Trump, it was Hillary Clinton. 

Victor Davis Hanson discusses this at American Greatness, and concludes:

Mueller originally was appointed due to the contrived leaks from the Steele dossier — a misnamed document that was more likely cobbled together by Glenn Simpson and his wife of Fusion GPS for purposes of destroying Donald Trump’s candidacy and then presidency. Mueller must have analyzed carefully what amounts to this font of his entire investigation. And yet his team has so far shown no interest in whether their own foundational document was used fraudulently to obtain FISA warrants.

Mueller’s lawyers show little concern for whether Christopher Steele himself colluded with Russians to find his dirt, or whether Hillary Clinton’s hiring of Fusion GPS and Steele constituted a sort of Russian collusion in and of itself — or whether Steele was mostly a fraud whose distant espionage past was seen by the creative writers at Fusion GPS as useful window dressing in efforts to peddle and seed the fictitious dossier as the work of serious spooks.

Much less does Mueller worry whether John Brennan, former CIA Director, improperly seeded the dossier to various agencies to ensure it reached the media before the election, or whether FBI Director James Comey lied about its pivotal importance in obtaining a FISA warrant, or why Bruce Ohr, the fourth highest official in the Justice Department, before and after the election, was meeting with a fired Christopher Steele — supposed severed from FBI support — to pass along his further gossip and dirt to the FBI, fueled by the suppressed fact that Ohr’s wife was working with Steele and was a Fusion GPS operative intent on seeing her “research” fertilized in the right government agencies to delegitimize Trump.

… Mueller sought with the dossier to find wrongdoing elsewhere, when it was right under his nose all along.

Robert Mueller’s legacy … will be one of willful blindness: he saw nothing ethically or legally wrong, or dangerous to the republic, in a bought and fictional dossier that fueled … his own reason to be [special counsellor investigating “Trump collusion with Russia”], and in various ways was central to an historic [Obama] government effort to surveille, to infiltrate, to undermine, and to discredit a political campaign first and later to derail an elected presidency.

If Hillary Clinton’s complicated conspiracy involving collusion with Russians is not itself a crime, there was many a crime of fraud, deception, cheating, leaking, breaking rules as the conspirators implemented their foul plot.

But will the guilty be brought to justice? Will Americans know what happened – how dishonest were the people they trusted to keep them safe?

If there are to be no indictments, will the facts at least become generally known? Or is it possible that the Clinton-supporting mass media and the indoctrinators of distorted History in the schools and academies can keep the nation in perpetual ignorance of it? They seem to think they can.

In Washington DC yesterday (Sunday, August 12, 2018) the masked fascists that call themselves “Antifa” marched through the streets shouting:

No border! No wall! No USA at all!

They are encouraged to violent insurgency by the media, and the media are stepping up their campaign.

A conservative opinion on these dire developments comes from Blabber Buzz:

At what point do outlets like The Washington Post, The New York Times and CNN cross the line from being far-left sites who irrationally despise President Donald Trump to potentially inciting indiscriminate violence with truly despicable and dangerous words?

With one of its latest attacks on the President, The Washington Post shamefully reinforced that the point has long since been reached.

In an outrageous screed going after Trump titled The Path to Autocracy is all too familiar, the liberal propaganda sheet for the “Resistance” attached a photo of Hitler Youth gleefully burning books.

Hitler Youth burning books.

As irresponsible and disgraceful as that photo was, it paled in comparison to the words in the piece.

Fully understanding that multi-billionaire Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos may himself be biased against Trump and may not grasp – or choose to ignore — the escalating danger of such potentially violence-inciting pieces, there are still some well-respected “adults in the room” at the paper who most certainly do understand that threat.

Where are their voices? Why are they silent? Who has the courage and decency at that paper to say that these reprehensible connections of the President of the United States to Hitler, the Holocaust, and genocide must stop?

Not only are they obscenely insulting to the millions of Jews and others put to death by Hitler and his collection of Nazi psychopaths, but they are purposeful lies seeking to facilitate a desired political outcome for reasons of ideology. …

The Washington Post’s much-mocked tag-line – even by liberals – states: “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

What could be “darker” than an American news organization working in concert with elements of the far-left to delegitimize, destabilize, and potentially bring down a constitutionally elected President of the United States?

Where are the voices of the leaders in the Democratic Party? Where are the voices of academics and historians?

Every single one of them knows this is falsely dangerous partisan trash masquerading as “news” or “opinion” and yet they all remain silent. …

Most do, but not every single one. Two academics, Alan Dershowitz (who says he “voted proudly for Hillary”!), and Jonathan Turley, are liberals who criticize the lengths the Democratic Party and its allies are going to, and even doing so on the Fox News shows of pro-Trump hosts.

Do they truly want to incite violence? Do they truly want people to take to the streets against Trump? Do they want a real revolution?

Are they prepared to accept responsibility for the injuries, deaths, and destruction of property that may come about because of their wretched insinuations and outright lies?

Yes, they do. Because they do not understand and cannot imagine what it means.

The Western Journal reports:

A Boston newspaper wants every newspaper in America to attack President Donald Trump in response to his criticism of the news media.

The Boston Globe on Friday began reaching out to newspapers across the country to publish editorials on Aug. 16 denouncing what it called a “dirty war against the free press”, according to a report in The Boston Globe itself.

“We are not the enemy of the people,” said Marjorie Pritchard, deputy managing editor for the editorial page of The Boston Globe.

As of Saturday, “We have more than 100 publications signed up, and I expect that number to grow in the coming days,” she said …

What did President Trump say that occasioned all this fake outrage?

“The Fake News hates me saying that they are the Enemy of the People only because they know it’s TRUE,” he tweeted recently. “I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American People. They purposely cause great division & distrust. They can also cause War! They are very dangerous & sick!”

Last weekend, at an Ohio rally where the crowd chanted “CNN sucks,” Trump delivered his critique of the media.

“Oftentimes I’m getting ready to do the fake news with CNN or MSNBC — MSNBC is so corrupt it’s so disgusting,” Trump said … “I would say they’re almost – they’re worst,” he said. “They’re really a fake news group of people.”

Those comments followed similar ones at an Aug. 2 rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

“What ever happened to the free press? What ever happened to honest reporting? They don’t report it. They only make up stories,” Trump said then.

Good questions. Thoroughly deserved accusations.

… Pritchard said the newspapers want Americans to see Trump’s comments as an attack on basic American rights.

“I hope it would educate readers to realize that an attack on the First Amendment is unacceptable,” she said. “We are a free and independent press, it is one of the most sacred principles enshrined in the Constitution.”

As if theLeft doesn’t want the Constitution changed or even abolished. As if it doesn’t particularly want the First Amendment changed or abolished. As if  it really was for free speech, rather than for the exclusive right to express its own opinion and the forcible silencing of all others’ as the Nazis were.  

And as if the Left’s toadying media weren’t actively encouraging the street marchers who shout for the total abolition of the United States.  

Needless to say, President Trump has not and would not attack the First Amendment. He accuses the Leftist press of  extreme partisanship, false reporting, and sustained hostility towards him personally. And of all that it is guilty.

He is right that most of the media lie. In order to harm him and if possible destroy his presidency, they spin scandals out of unimportant incidents, and bury important news that would throw a good light on him for his numerous achievements.

Since they are not reporting truthfully, they have made their work pointless,  and themselves redundant.

For a bit of fun on a Sunday –

We quote two articles from Inside Edition.

First:

God

What does God look like to you? That was the question raised by a University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill study assessing America’s take on the Christian creator.

Their conclusion: God is an average white guy, according to the majority of 511 people, 74 percent of whom were Caucasian.

Participants were shown hundreds of randomly varying face-pairs and were tasked with selecting the face from each pair that looked more like their vision of God …

Researchers combined all the selected faces to assemble a composite “face of God”, the site says. The composite appears average-looking and white, with twinkling eyes.

The study found that some black Americans polled also saw God as a white male, though not all of them.

“People’s tendency to believe in a God that looks like them is consistent with an egocentric bias,” Professor Kurt Gray, a senior author told the College of Arts & Sciences’ site. “People often project their beliefs and traits onto others, and our study shows that God’s appearance is no different — people believe in a God who not only thinks like them, but also looks like them.”

God was also perceived differently down ideological lines.

While liberals tended to see God as more feminine, younger and more loving, conservatives saw God as more Caucasian and more powerful-looking.

Next (but with an illustration of our choosing):

God’s son Jesus

What did Jesus Christ really look like?

He has historically been portrayed as a light-skinned man with wavy brown hair down to his shoulders, with a full beard and moustache.

The look has been prominently featured in churches around the world and reinforced in classic Hollywood movies like King of Kings and The Passion of the Christ, as well as hit TV shows like The Bible.

Although the image can be traced back to the 3rd century, Dr. Tom Beaudoin, a professor of religion at Fordham University, explained the depiction is inaccurate.

“Jesus was modeled as a combination of a Greek god and a philosopher,” Beaudoin explained in an interview with Inside Edition.

He said many historians believe that the fair-skinned Jesus was actually inspired by the heir to the Borgia clan in Italy in the 15th century, Caesar Borgia. The Italian Cardinal was famed for his handsome features, and his father, Pope Alexander VI, commissioned Leonardo da Vinci to paint a portrait of Jesus modeled after his son.

But, citing historian Joan Taylor and her latest book, What Did Jesus Look Like?, Beaudoin speculated the real Jesus probably looked much different.

He said historians believe Jesus was much darker of skin, and stood at only 5 feet tall. He would have also worn his beard and hair short.

Instead of a long robe, Jesus likely wore a knee-length tunic with a short mantle or shawl, and wore leather sandals.

“He would have presented very typically, she argues, as a Jewish man of his day, which is quite different than how Jesus is often imagined in Christian churches today,” Beaudoin explained. “Think about Jewish people in Iraq today and this is how we should imagine Jesus. He would have looked like what we think of Middle Eastern presenting people today.”

Despite that characterization, Beaudoin speculates that the image of a light-skinned Jesus persisted to reflect the demographics of some churches in the United States.

“It reflects the whiteness of Christianity in the United States,” Beaudoin said. “We tend to have a very white Jesus in the United States, especially in white churches.”

So to believers in an anthropomorphic universe-creator, God is no longer, or not so much, an old man with a white beard sitting on a cloud. Now he just looks like lots of guys. Not old. Clean shaven. Amiable. Ordinary.

A face snapped in many a selfie.  

And though his son Jesus is still most often depicted as a pretty youth with beautifully shining shampooed well-brushed hair (brown, reddish or blond), and matching neatly trimmed beard and mustache, some believers, in need of verisimilitude, prefer to imagine a Middle Eastern type of Jew in the period of the Emperor Tiberius. Such a one as we show above. A mature man. Only a stumpy five feet in height? If they say so. Hair? He might have worn the hair on his head short like a Roman, but his beard would have been full, at most lightly trimmed. Short tunic like a Roman, even though no longer a youth? Hmm. More likely a long garment with, yes, a mantle – like the pious man in the picture. Sandals, sure. But maybe boots in winter.

And after Jesus rose in the flesh to rule enthroned at the right hand of God in perfect harmony with the not-so-old man? What did he put on his body then? What garment, made of what heavenly cloth – or none? With what razor do they trim or shave their beards?

What air do those four nostrils breathe? What divine foods pass those lips, growing in what gardens or wandering in what forests, and gathered, hunted, cooked by what ethereal processes? Do they digest as we digest, only with unaging entrails and no requirement for sewers?  What immortal hands made their thrones? Their own, that made the planets and the stars? And do they sit there through all the ages, and after time eternally? Do those bodies need no exercise?

And what of the Holy Ghost? Has anyone done a study of how believers visualize him nowadays? Is he still a “he”? Is he still a white dove? White? Are you sure?

Now that the Democratic Party has “come out” as proudly Socialist, the American electorate has a clear choice: vote Trumpist Republican and be free and prosperous OR vote Big Brother Democrat and be collectivized and poor.

Nobody has ever explained why the free market is “just” AND creates wealth, better than the great economist Friedrich von Hayek. Here he is explaining why to William F. Buckley Jr. in 1977, supported in his argument by George Roche III, president of Hillsdale College.

Hayek explains that in order for a ruling power to make people economically equal, it would have to “treat people very unequally indeed”. (Some would have to work and be robbed of their wages,  while others would be able to sit back, do nothing, and receive the bounty of the stolen funds).

Buckley, who was actually strongly conservative, plays “devil’s advocate”, putting the (sentimental) case for Socialism to his two interlocutors.

We would have preferred Hayek to use the word “fair”, or “equitable”, rather than “just”, because justice can only apply to the individual. George Roche’s argument for freedom on moral grounds comes close to making this point, if not very clearly. We understand that Hayek had to say “just” because “Social Justice” is the subject and title of the discussion.

The Democrats want no southern border.

Mark Steyn accurately describes the Democratic Party moving ever further to the Left, and how, without the border, the US would become Mexico.

Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the publisher of that scurrilous daily, the New York Times, is a white male.

So why does he appoint someone who declares that she hates whites and males to his editorial board?

It’s not a question that can be easily answered (except of course by psychologists and sociologists who know everything about the human mind and heart but can only explain what they know unintelligibly).

A similar question is: Why do Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, and the ladies who rule Sweden want to hand over their countries to Islam?

And another in the same genre is: Why do intellectuals who claim that their political mission and life-goal is to raise the folks at the bottom of the social hierarchy and sink the rich by robbing them until they are no richer than anybody else in order to achieve and establish an egalitarian society, despise and insult the working class?

At American Greatness, Victor Davis Hanson writes (in part – the whole thing is well worth reading):

Recently Politico reporter Marc Caputo was angered at rude hecklers at a Trump rally who booed beleaguered CNN correspondent Jim Acosta.

(Yay!)

So Caputo tweeted of them, “If you put everyone’s mouths together in this video, you’d get a full set of teeth.”

Politico had not employed such a crass journalist since before it fired Julia Ioffe for tweeting, “Either Trump is f—ing his daughter or he’s shirking nepotism laws. Which is worse?” (Ioffe was then snatched up by the Atlantic …). 

I suppose Caputo meant that Trump voters intrinsically lacked either the money to fix their teeth or the knowledge of the hygiene required to take care of them or the aesthetic sensitivity of how awful their mouths looked. Or Caputo was simply rehashing the stereotypes that he had seen on reality TV shows like Duck Dynasty and The Deadliest Catch.

Or none of the above: the journalist grandee was just stupid.

That last alternative seems most likely since Caputo then escalated and called them collectively “garbage people”.  …

What did “garbage people” mean? That by birth or training such toothless, smelly people were subhuman, like refuse? And if Caputo had substituted any other racial minority for his slurs, would he still have his job according to the cannons of progressive censure and Internet lynching? Could he have said something similarly degrading about the attendees of after an open borders or Black Lives Matter rally and still have his job?

Last week, the New York Times named tech writer Sarah Jeong to its editorial board with apparent knowledge of her long history of racist tweets, as well as verbal attacks on police and males in general. Perhaps such gutter venom was proof of militant orthodoxy to be appreciated rather than medieval racism to be shunned. Her mostly empty résumé seems compensated by her identity and her politics—as the Times more or less confessed in its sad defense of her racist outbursts.

Jeong claimed that white people smelled like wet dogs. She had bragged that she hated them, and hoped that soon they would become childless and disappear. Her final solution of demographic extinction was, she said (in historically dense fashion), “my plan all along.”

One wonders whether she will canonize her collected tweets into something like My Struggle … 

(The translation  of the title of Adolf Hitler’s book, in German Mein Kampf …)

… replete with less abstract territorial theories how to reify her “plan” or add pseudo-scientific details explaining why and how whites, as she alleges, smell or have had no cultural or scientific achievements. …

Many whites smell. (Or “stink” as the great lexicographer Samuel Johnson told a lady he did when she complained to him that he “smelt”, while she, he said, was the one who “smelt” – transitive verb, meaning she smelt him). But (to state the obvious for the average American Lefty who may have some academic degrees but has learnt little and cannot even spell) whites are responsible for most of the scientific achievements that have made our lives longer and better and our civilization great. The old Greeks who launched science were white. Isaac Newton who relaunched science and so also the Enlightenment, was white. The Age of Science began then and is with us still.  As for other cultural achievements …

What’s that you say, Ms. Jeong? Shakespeare was black, and actually a woman? Einstein too? Good grief, we never knew!

In the text message trove of disgraced FBI operatives Lisa Page and Peter Strzok there was the same sort of barnyard contempt. Georgetown graduate Strzok claimed to Page that a local Virginia Walmart “smelled” of Trump voters—a progressive stereotype of white Neanderthals that is increasingly freely expressed.

In another government text, an unidentified FBI agent, assigned to the Hillary Clinton email investigation, had written of the Trump voters that they were “lazy POS that think we will magically grant them jobs for doing nothing.”

Again, demonizing the Trump voter as beyond cultural redemption is nothing new. During the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton infamously dismissed Trump supporters as “deplorables” who were“irredeemable” and were “not America”. …

In some sense, the rebranded Clinton simply continued where Barack Obama had left off in his denunciations of the “bitter clingers” of Pennsylvania, who were prone to simplistic trust in their guns and religion and, out of insecurity, scapegoated others.

When Obama periodically wrote off Americans as “lazy” and ignorant of the world beyond them (this, from another Harvard law graduate who thought Hawaii was in Asia and Austrians spoke “Austrian”), he was, to use a progressive metaphor, dog whistling the themes of his clingers speech.

Elites are confident that there is nothing either ethically wrong or career-endangering in smearing middle-class Trump supporters with such crude stereotypes.

When pundits on television go after Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), they inevitably resort to attacking his Tulare roots, and his dairy-farm upbringing (“A former dairy farmer”; “way over his head”; “nothing in his résumé that would have qualified him for the post”, etc.) to claim that he is mismatched by Harvard-trained Adam Schiff. Again, how strange that egalitarians always revert to base snobbery and class stereotypes in lieu of an argument or an idea. …

Jeong is a Harvard Law graduate. Strzok has a master’s degree from Georgetown. The ridicule of the white working class by NeverTrump conservative pundits is read on the pages of the nation’s premier newspapers or voiced in hallowed symposia.

Is such ignorance of an entire class because of, or in spite of such, elite training?

Does the university-bred cursus honorarium have room for real-world experience beyond the campus and laptop?

Has Jeong ever worked welding alongside the grandchildren of Dust Bowl diaspora to adjudicate their actual skin-colored advantage? Did her class and gender studies work at Harvard Law constitute a tougher curriculum than a 12-hour shift at Denny’s? Is the soybean jack-of-all-trades farmer really denser than the Yale English major?

Which reminds us of this best of all satires ever. We cannot resist re-posting it:

Robert Spencer is an Eastern Orthodox Christian, so we make allowance for his mistaken belief that our Western civilization is “Judeo-Christian” rather than the product of the Enlightenment.

We quote him because he is expert on the history, texts and teaching of Islam.

Here he talks about Pope Francis appointing himself a defender of that intensely anti-Christian religion:

So the old joke question “Is the Pope Catholic?” is no longer funny. The serious answer is “No.”

The Pope’s opinions derive from various political religions, among them: Marxism, New Leftism, Liberation Theology, and Islam.

Let’s review what the Pope is defending when he defends Islam:

The subjugation of women, including the religion-sanctioned beating of wives, sex slavery, honor killings, and the stoning to death of women and little girls who have been raped

A death sentence for anyone who leaves the faith 

A  death sentence for homosexuals

Intense anti-Semitism; anti-Jew, anti-Christian, anti-Yezidi, anti-polytheist, anti-rival-Muslim-sect terrorism, persecution and enslavement

Routine torture of prisoners and extreme torture to death even of civilians, notably: slow beheading with a knife; stoning; burying alive (of children as well as adults); burning alive; drowning in boiling oil; the amputation of limbs; crucifixion; the throwing to the ground of homosexuals from high places; starvation.

So to defend Islam is to defend oppression, savage cruelty and murder. Judged by contemporary Western criteria, Islam is a deeply immoral religion.

Oppression, cruelty and murder are not, however, against traditional Catholic practice. Catholics can defend the use of torture and murder on the grounds that in the past the Roman Catholic Church needed to have people burnt alive in order to discourage heresy. For hundreds of years the Catholic Church tortured and murdered untold numbers of men, women and children who were guilty of nothing worse than a personal opinion that was not in conformity with Church dogma.

But not now. Now the Pope is virtue-signaling without reference to – and, he must suppose, without taint from – the past.

Now he has decided that capital punishment is “inadmissable”.   

This is a political decision against the teaching of the Roman Catholic religion:

Prior to the changes announced through the Vatican press office Thursday, the Catholic Catechism taught that recourse to the death penalty was not to be “excluded” as a legitimate punishment “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

The Pope probably intended his ruling to have an effect chiefly on the laws of the United States, where capital punishment is still available to judges as a punishment for murder.  

And his decision may be taken notice of in the US.

But it will not make any difference in Islam. On that he relies. If he thought it at all likely to offend those stoners, burners, crucifiers, boilers, buriers, throwers from heights, beheaders and amputators, he would be very unlikely to announce it.

Possessing a fine talent for cognitive dissonance, Francis must be confident that his condemnation of capital punishment will not make his defense of Islam into a bad joke.