Category Archives: Culture War

A Difference In Values

Leave a reply
A symbolic Hamas building is destroyed in retaliation for a brazen attack against Israel. As you can see, Hamas was dealt an “L”.

When our perspective is formed solely by our own culture, we tend to assume that certain values are universal. If you live in western civilization or the various cultures around the world that have been heavily influenced by it, you may have heard of the golden rule.

How it goes is pretty simple: treat others as you wish to be treated. There are other expressions that have a similar meaning, such as, what goes around, comes around.

It’s because of this that, even if a person has trouble remembering each of the Ten Commandments, which are considered the principal points of a Christian society, they’ll still function generally well. In fact, even in secular societies, some of the Ten Commandments might still seem to be upheld, because even the golden rule or a variant thereof seems to be respected.

After all, the Ten Commandments teach not to steal, kill, or bear false witness. Out of each of these, which would you be okay with happening to you?

One might think that these values are universal, upheld by people the world over. That seems reasonable to expect in an advanced and peaceful society that has heavily benefited from these virtues.

But that’s not the reality of the matter. The fact is, there are no universal ethics that are observed by all cultures all over the world.

In the western world, it’s taken for granted that you should not kill a person you disagree with, no matter how much you may disagree with them, as a virtue of freedom of expression.

However, freedom of expression is not a virtue of every society. There are societies today where it’s deemed okay to kill someone who is in “the outgroup”, and the way that you can tell that someone is in the outgroup is if they either say something that someone in the outgroup would say, or if you say something that would put you at odds with the ingroup.

Then there’s the topic of slavery. The British people did great in spearheading the abolishment of ownership of humans by other humans. They were so insistent that there be no slaves in Britain, that if any slaves set foot on British soil, they’d immediately become free. The Americans were not far behind with the Emancipation Proclamation.

As much as we like to think that slavery is a thing of the past, it remains in much of the world, including civilizations that are relatively modernized, such as China and India. In much of the Islamic world, slavery permeates their society. The reason being, according to their religion, it is impermissible to forbid what their prophet Mohammad allowed. And because Mohammad had slaves, slavery has been hard-wired into their religion and society.

While we might like to think that in terms of science, literature, and the arts, it’s the tendency of humanity to tend ever forward, there are cultures on this earth where all scientific and literary achievement has come to a grinding halt, because the prevailing ideology discourages the pursuit of anything outside of itself, and encourages its followers to fanaticism.

As much as certain skeptics may make light of the idea that the civilized world could become subverted by the same brand of ignorance and mysticism, efforts to bring it about have long been underway, and it’s something that they would do well to take seriously, because no society that has been ensnared by that same mystical ignorance has ever freed itself from it without external intervention.

Then there’s the topics of polygamy and pederasty. Most of the civilized world have criminalized these practices, and those who would attempt to engage in them are singled out for the worst treatment, even in the company of other criminals. Knowing this, it can be quite jarring to learn that there are still cultures, even an entire civilization, that refuses to outlaw these practices, simply because a person who they consider a prophet practiced them both.

As optimistic as people today may be about humanity’s first contact with extraterrestrials, it should be known that there is an X-factor involved. We have no guarantee that the first extraterrestrials we meet will even have the same values that we do.

Imagine for a moment that you live on an island community that has never made contact with other islands, or with the outside world. Imagine that you’ve been taught by your elders that a certain way to live is moral and right, and that’s how you’ve lived for your whole life. Then, one day, the people of your island makes contact with people on another island. Then, to the horror of your entire community, everyone on that island lives in a way that your community considers bafflingly immoral, and neither community speaks the same language.

It’s easy to see how, in this scenario, the people of your island might decide that it would be better to go to war with the other island in an effort to put an end to their immorality, and the other island might have already decided to do the same to yours. While most of the world today is hesitant to use force to resolve differences, there are people today who consider the use of force as always justified when confronting another culture with different values!

While the mask has slipped somewhat when touching on the topic of slavery above, it’s time to drop the hypotheticals and start being more specific. A couple days ago, during a holy day that the Jews observe, Hamas initiated a brazen attack on the land of Israel with thousands of rockets, some getting by Israel’s Iron Dome defense. This was concurrent with a ground invasion, in which Hamas militants attacked primarily civilian targets, killing some and taking others hostage. It is believed that foreign nationals are among the hostages.

While Saturday’s attack was brazen, it was an escalation of what has been ongoing for decades. For Hamas to fire rockets into Israeli cities, such as Sderot, has been an ongoing occurrence.

Not everyone understands the nature of the conflict between Israel and its neighbors. Contrary to a popular perception, most wars throughout history were not over religion, they were over resources. Superpowers have set up rule over vassal states to ensure their own prosperity. It’s been said that in order to achieve true peace, people need to come to a true understanding. While that helps, it also helps to understand that there is a ruling class that is complicit in fanning the flames of hatred.

Hamas is not motivated by resources. To them, resources are merely a means to an end. Rather, Hamas is motivated by ideology. They have a legendary hatred for Jewish people, and this is because this hatred is hardwired into their religion. In fact, just about everything about their ideology is hardwired into it.

I understand that religion is a sensitive topic, and quite nuanced. I also know that not everyone who professes a religion is the same as its extremists. Still, there are times when it’s more productive to deal in generalities, especially considering the fact that the state of peace in the world is increasingly at stake. What’s more, from what I’ve studied about Islam’s foundational materials and their history, there is ample cause for concern.

While I know that most Muslims want the same things out of life as most anyone else, it still remains that, out of them, the extremists are the primary difference-makers on the world stage, and they are becoming harder to ignore. And the fact is, it’s their ideology that’s making men into killers.

When you understand their ideology, you’ll understand why it’s often Jews who are targeted. In the Islamic theology, there’s a veritable tier list of people who are to be targeted. It goes as follows:

  • Muslims: At the top, whom Muslims are not to kill.
  • Christians: Merely tolerated, made to pay a backbreaking jizya tax, but might be killed anyway.
  • Jews: Tolerated even less, same tax, but are often killed outright.
  • Infidels: Not tolerated, usually killed right away. Consists of atheists and any religion not mentioned above.
  • Ex-Muslims: Any Muslim who declares that he’s leaving his religion. These guys can often count the seconds they have left on their fingers.

You might wonder how Jews came to be so disrespected by Muslims. This had to do with the Islamic prophet, Mohammad. At some point in his life, Muhammad was exiled by his own people, the Quraysh (they found his teaching a little intolerant). After that, Mohammad joined a settlement of Jews. At one point, he hired someone to read their Scriptures to him (Mohammad was illiterate). After learning about the Jewish Messiah, Mohammad claimed to be the Jewish Messiah.

They took it as well as you might have expected.

Only this time, instead of trying to have him executed as they might have attempted centuries earlier, they instead ridiculed him. For one thing, because the Messiah is supposed to be a descendant of David, not Ishmael. But also, because Mohammad didn’t know a word of the Scriptures until they were read to him.

Mohammad then told them that they’d know that he was the Messiah, if only they’d read their Scriptures. Mohammad then forbade Muslims from reading the Jewish Scriptures, saying that they doctored them. Putting aside, of course, that Mohammad wouldn’t have even had the idea to call himself the Messiah if the Jewish Scriptures weren’t read to him.

Mohammad handled the laughter the same way that most tyrants would. Once he had an army, he came back and seized the town, imprisoned the women and children, and any man who refused to accept his religion was executed.

Understandably, Jewish comedians today are more cautious.

Most political ideologies today are like EEPROMs: sophisticated, intricate, and with the capability to be updated.

But imagine a circuit board that is little more than a cluster of jumpers and transistors. Horribly inefficient, primitive by today’s standards, with a high potential for failure, and no potential for updates. That’s a great allegory for Sharia, the law of Islamic states.

The Islamic world is different from the rest of the world, because it’s a completely different society built on a completely different foundation. They don’t have the golden rule. They don’t have the same Ten Commandments, but instead a different code with a twist of fatalistic indifference. While they’ve got their own code of righteousness, they’ve elevated ritualism to the point that it becomes suffocating.

It’s a fact that the primary function of government for most of human history has been to mediate disputes between people. The Islamic religion is so dysfunctional in how disputes are to be handled, and how forgiveness is to be administered, that anywhere that Islam becomes the dominant ideology, brutal dictatorships tend to be what surfaces, because that’s the kind of thing it would take to maintain order.

When you understand that there’s a hardwired hatred for Jewish people in the Islamic religion, it’s easy to see their obsession with destroying Israel for what it is. But there’s more to it than that. There’s a difference in values, and it’s a difference that matters.

While western civilization does have its problems, including from those who would undermine it from within, the fact is, it’s a civilization that’s worth defending from those who would threaten it.

A man’s hatred is always concentrated on the thing that makes him conscious of his bad qualities.

Carl Jung

Cults and the Abuse of Language

1 Reply

It is difficult to convince a person who is in a cult that they are in one. But there are telltale signs that a person can notice if they know to look for them.

One such sign involves how cults use language. If the language your group employs is designed to stir up a strong emotional reaction, and shut down critical thinking, then you’re likely in a cult.

We all like comical examples. You probably remember Jamaal Bowman, the Democrat representative who pulled a fire alarm, disrupting a house vote in progress, then said he thought that that was how one opened a door.

He’s been in damage control since, but his team has managed to find a solution to keep the heat off him: by calling Republicans Nazis:

What Jamaal didn’t count on was for this brilliant plan to leak out. So being ever the diplomat, he took the opportunity to take the moral high ground, throwing his own strategists under the bus:

Which may seem like he’s making himself out as being above such abuse of language, until you consider that a significant portion of his constituents are sincere in their beliefs that their political rivals are not legitimate, but instead, actual Nazis.

The left has been trying for years to connect the right to the National Socialist German Workers Party, with no consideration for the sincerely held ideological beliefs of either the right or the Nazis, or for the left’s own alliance of convenience with actual Nazis in the Ukraine.

On the surface, it seems damnably idiotic. However, it does succeed in fooling the intellectually deficient among us. And, as it so happens, the intellectually deficient have votes that count just as much as the votes of those of us who can tie our shoes without getting distracted into furious masturbation.

You see, the left knows how to abuse language. And one of the ways that cultish movements like the western political left abuses language is by using emotionally charged language that is designed to bypass better judgement, and get you to assume the worst of the people that they describe.

Such as when they wage frivolous accusations of sexual misconduct against those who get to be a bit too influential, in an effort to snipe their careers and cause a chilling effect that serves to dissuade anyone who might consider taking up their cause.

So, while damnable, their approach is not necessarily idiotic.

Amanda Montell, the author of Cultish: the Language of Fanaticism, made an interesting contrast between how language is used by scientists and how it’s used by cultists:

“My parents, they’re scientists and they will use jargon that I don’t understand. But that jargon is there to make communication clearer. Cultish language has these ulterior motives and it’s there to make communication hazier.

“It’s there to divide people, to shut down independent thinking.

“And that’s how you know that language is cultish, when it causes strong emotional response, but you yourself have trouble translating what it is that you’re saying.”

Amanda Montell

Those of us who are sufficiently well studied are aware of what composes the Nazi ideology, how central Socialism was to it, and how its theology is a smattering of German folklore and dialectic philosophy. If you were aware of these things, the left’s divisive abuse of accusations of Nazism is much less likely to have an effect on you.

When it comes down to it, the intended use of language is to communicate clearly and concisely. However, what cultists see in language is an instrument of control. And to this end, they’ll craft mantras and load words so when they use them they’ll have the desired effect, regardless of their original definitions. A cultist may have the same vocabulary, but they don’t have the same dictionary.

Knowing this, do you think you’re in a better position to recognize a cult?

They’re Overplaying Their Hands

Leave a reply

In interesting timing with anonymous accusations against Russell Brand, accusations are now coming up against Tim Ballard. Yes, the same Ballard who starred in Sound of Freedom, and fights a continuing campaign against child sex trafficking.

The accusation comes from an anonymous source, and was provided to Vice magazine. A magazine which, by the way, stirred up its initial following with edgy bullshit stories.

There should be a new law: if an accusation is made anonymously, then the identity of the accused should be kept strictly confidential. That’s totally reasonable, and allows for law enforcement to perform an investigation, to determine whether or not the accusation is frivolous.

And, speaking of, if there’s any merit to the accusation, the sensible place for it would be law enforcement, not bullshit Vice magazine. The former is an act in the interest of justice, the latter is a petty attempt to assassinate character.

Here’s a statement from Tim Ballard, through The Spear Fund. He’s expressed a better opinion on this matter than Vice could probably muster:

“Rescuing kids and fighting child trafficking is an ugly and dark business, especially when—as the result of my work for more than 20 years—we continue to expose members of the powerful, well-funded child trafficking cartels.

“Evil pedophiles will stop at nothing, and they have allies in government, in the media, in big corporations, and even in public institutions. They continue to lie about and attempt to destroy my good name…and they will never stop.

“I want everyone to know that I and our vast army of supporters will likewise never stop. We will keep fighting for the vulnerable all over the globe, and we know that the truth will always prevail.”

“I am a faithful Member in good standing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I believe in Jesus Christ, the Holy Scriptures, and I believe in our faith with my whole heart. That will never change.

“It has been alleged that an unnamed LDS church spokesperson issued a statement about me through a tabloid that is often hostile to people of faith. Further, my church has not publicly verified its authenticity.

“We are also highly suspicious about the timing of such a statement given its close proximity to Mitt Romney’s announcement that he is retiring, and my own public comments that I am prayerfully considering running for public office. The LDS church does not engage in political activity.

“In any event, nothing will change my core beliefs. If someone within the church did release this statement, I am absolutely confident that the right people will step in and ensure that proper due process is followed as the rules of our church dictate.”

“I, my family, and the Spear Fund team will confidently move forward and focus on our mission of saving children from the horrors of sex slavery, and remaining fierce defenders of freedom. We invite anyone who shares this passion to join us.”

Whether there is truth to the accusation against Ballard, I don’t know. But what I do know is that false accusations have long been a chief weapon of the faithless.

And we’ve been seeing a whole lot of that going around, lately.

If I were to say that I hate child molesters, I wouldn’t be saying anything controversial. But as I see it, we as a society don’t hate false accusers enough. In fact, we should be placing both criminal groups in the same tier.

One punishment that I hear proposed for false accusers is for them to face the same punishment they sought to bring about for the people they accused. I think Ballard could get behind this, because that’s what the Bible says is the proper way to handle it.

But if we were to get into creative punishment, here’s what I propose for false accusers: The next time we test a nuclear weapon, we give them front row seats. Then, we let radiation poisoning take care of the rest.

Zombification FTW! For the rest of us. For liars, not so much.

So, what would you prefer, false accusers? Shall we get creative? Or would you prefer what the Bible says?

Things Are About To Turn Ugly

2 Replies

There’s something that’s been on my mind, and seeing the way things are playing out now, I figure that I’ll go ahead and say something, even if just so a few years down the road, I can say I did.

To get started, I’ll say that if I didn’t live in the United States, but instead lived in some shithole country where most people don’t have running water, I’d want to come here. And if I were to hear that even the poorest American lived in a way that most kings would have envied just a century ago, I’d probably do anything to get here.

It’s because of this that I don’t fault a person for wanting to emigrate to my own country.

However, the problems arise when you consider that I’d be far from the only one who would possess such a desire. And what’s more, few of the people who would set out on such a trip would possess the wisdom needed to not bring their culture with them, particularly the elements of their culture that brought about the problems that transformed their previous societies into the shitholes that they escaped from.

The fact is, we live in a reality that does not ignore the principle of cause and effect. If an established population is threatened with displacement by unchecked, unnaturalized immigration, the expected outcome is conflict, whatever the intentions of those who initially welcomed them.

While it’s easy to diminish concerns as being mere intolerance toward those who would terk er jerbs, this is a mischaracterization of the reality of the matter, which is that immigrants don’t take jobs, large corporations give them jobs, often with motivations that are exploitative.

The main reason why large corporations are gung-ho over illegal immigration is because undocumented migrants are easy to exploit for cheap labor, and if there is more competition on the job market with more people willing to do the same work for less, then it’s a job market that favors employers who stand to save immense amounts of money on wages. And if they get to virtue signal about diversity while they’re at it, they can also benefit from the positive publicity that comes with that.

But there’s more to the problem, and this becomes apparent when you see that out of all the migrants that we see pouring over the border, almost every single one of them is a fighting-age male. It doesn’t take a PhD anthropologist to understand that humans are sexual creatures. And it’s easy for anyone to understand that males are more fulfilled when they have a sexual outlet. When that sexual outlet is denied to them, they tend to become resentful, and blame their host society, which they see as having failed them (look at the incel community for a prominent example).

It’s because of this that a fundamental element for a stable and peaceful society is marriage, particularly monogamous marriage. It’s through this that males get a sexual outlet, but also from which they derive a sense of purpose, knowing that they are working for people who count on them. Knowing this, it’s understandable why many of the immigrants, particularly those bound for Europe, come from societies where polygamy is accepted, which usually hugely favors high-status males. What their own societies failed to deliver them, they’ll take from the host population.

In consideration of all this, it should be easy to see why in a society where men outnumber women, crime rates tend to be significantly higher, as men turn to increasingly desperate means to attain what is of limited availability, in some cases lashing out at a society that they see as having failed them.

As these trends and others play out, it’s easy to see why people seem to be blaming the immigrants themselves for these trends. It’s because of this that I suspect that people are going to turn more toward the right on the political spectrum. If the left caused this immigration crisis, and they did, then people are going to blame the left.

But my concern isn’t that people would simply turn more to the right, as they have been. My concern is that, as they do so, they are going to turn to extremes. And considering the fact that the left is dismissing any opposition out of hand as illegitimate, the people who are voicing their concerns are going to feel more like they are not being represented by the political establishment, and as they see this, they’re just going to turn more towards extremes.

In order for democracy to work, there needs to be compromise, which isn’t happening because both sides are demanding that only their own policy is furthered, and not that of the other side. Worsening matters is the fact that the two dominant political parties don’t even view one another as legitimate. The right sees the Biden administration as having cheated to attain power, and they see the left as being party to it. The left sees MAGA as being a bunch of political extremists, rather than a consequence of conservatives being ignored. It doesn’t seem to me that either side is willing to view their opponents as legitimate, or even listen to one another.

It’s because of this that the moment that the left seized the executive branch for themselves, they’ve decided to open the borders right up, consequences be damned, for no other reason than because this is the most extreme possible expression of their own position on illegal immigration.

The consequences are easy to find on X (formerly Twitter), where it’s easy to find video of immigrants pouring across the border in immense numbers. And because the consequences are easy to present to anyone in the connected world, to change someone’s mind on this matter is trivial.

https://Twitter.com/clownworld_/status/1704560277084324169?s=46&t=-WL6WgLk6G_iiC4EUX84Og

Now, let’s get on to what I’m afraid is about to happen. If you thought that racism and intolerance were bad at the time of the Civil War and the two World Wars, things are about to explode, not just in the United States, but also in Europe. While one might imagine that this could be staved off until right wing leadership assumes power, the way things are looking, it might begin before that happens. If you’re on the left side of the political spectrum, then when this happens, you can go ahead and admire your handiwork, it’s so obvious what was going to happen as a result of your policy positions that it’s hard to imagine that this was not what you wanted from the start.

As for what you should do, let’s start with what would be useful to the most people: do not engage in violence, get away from it. If you live in a city, get out of it. The sooner, the better. You’ve already seen violence, you’re about to see a lot more.

If you’re interested in living the American dream (whatever that means), the getting is probably not going to get any better than it is now for a long time.

Having said that, there’s probably nothing that you can do to be unaffected by the coming crisis. Unless you’re phenomenally wealthy, in which case, you probably somehow played a role in bringing it about. Let’s us know whether it was worth it.

To paraphrase a popular Japanese expression, I don’t have a crystal ball, but I don’t need one to see what happens next. While I wish that the character in the anime screencap above was right, every indication that I’ve seen is that the western world is headed toward a dark place, and for that to be averted, both major political parties need to demonstrate the clarity that they’ve consistently failed to. But at this point, they can both be expected to blame each other for a crisis that they’ve both played a role in cultivating.

If it’s a white pill you want, consider the fact that conservatism is currently winning the culture war. Perhaps as conservatives regain influence, they’ll heed more moderate voices, rather than take things to extremes. If so, they’ll certainly have proven themselves more worthy than the deviant shrieking lunatics who have been propped up, lately.

Oh look, this again.

Leave a reply

It’s already abundantly evident that the #metoo movement has been hijacked, taken from its original purpose of encouraging sex abuse victims to come forward, and has been made into a tool with which one can snipe those that they don’t like.

Is that what’s happening with Russell Brand? I don’t know, but I do know that it’s suspicious that the accusations against him haven’t come forward in a timely manner, but instead were brought out nearly two decades after the alleged crime supposedly occurred, and shortly after he expressed non-establishment viewpoints, and picked up a substantial following.

I’m not taking a side on this matter, considering that the accusations have nothing behind them but the accusations themselves, but also because it’s possible that evidence can surface, showing that crimes may have actually taken place.

But that doesn’t mean that this whole affair doesn’t have the appearance of something sketchy. The accusations were immediately picked up by corporate media outlets, which ran the story with nothing to go off of but the accusations. Which, by the way, is not journalism. Moving in lockstep, Google demonetized Russell’s YouTube channel, in apparent presumption of his guilt.

If the intention were to create a chilling effect to discourage one from gaining a following by pointing out what’s wrong with certain corporate interests, one way to go about it would be to attack their character. And the most effective attack, historically, has been an allegation of sexual misconduct, considering that allegations of that nature have a stronger tendency to bypass a person’s better judgment, making them more likely to assume guilt on the part of the accused.

I’ve noticed in recent months that the methods of corporate media outlets and their butt buddies have been becoming increasingly indelicate. As I see it, there are two things which can cause such a change in approach, one being the confidence that comes from thinking oneself indestructible, and the other is the desperation that one sees out of one who realizes that they are fighting a losing battle.

When you consider the fact the culture war has turned heavily in our favor, it’s not hard to see their desperation.

What will come of this is something yet to be seen. But at this point, I can say that we can try not to be too suspicious of the accusers, in spite of the circumstances surrounding the allegations. They might actually be telling the truth, this time.

An Image To Describe 2023

Leave a reply

Normally, I wait until December is almost up to post an image that I feel best describes the year. I know that it’s only August, but the contest is over, we already have a winner.

Here it is:

I would have imagined that when Donald Trump went in for his mugshot, he’d put on a wide grin, as if to reassure the MAGA crowd that things are going to work out, and there’s no need to worry. Instead, we get a determined scowl, which means business. Speaking for me, I’d like to see that on a T-shirt. It’s probably already a thing.

Things are really turning up. For the first time, the lackeys of the current administration have arrested the previous president, and it was over something as petty as questioning the results of an election. Which was something that Hillary Clinton has done, but as we all know, this is a two-tier justice system.

To make matters worse, Trump’s lawyers are being charged as well, which has a disturbing chilling effect and sends a message that the Democrat-controlled system is going to come after you if you come to the defense of this person who is outside the cabal.

While the latest development is alarming, it goes to show that the woke elements of the Democrat establishment is growing increasingly insecure. As history has shown us again and again, when a dictator’s grip starts slipping, they become increasingly artless and indelicate in their methods.

The fact is, as much establishment power as the woke has held, they are losing the culture war, and it is becoming increasingly evident to ordinary people. The signs are hard to miss. Have a white-pill block:

The Biden administration’s approval rating plummeted in light of the botched Afghanistan withdraw. The boycott against Bud Light has been highly successful, and the brand is just about destroyed. A similar boycott against Target has proven the point that pushing sexual perversity on children can result in a company’s stock plummeting, and going woke can actually be a violation of fiduciary duties. Starbucks started taking down pride decorations in the middle of pride month, while trying to be quiet about it. The hit single “Rich Men North of Richmond” has debuted at #1 of the Billboard Top 100, and is already widely considered “the protest song of this generation”. Parents have taken notice that sexual perversity is being foisted upon children through the education system, resulting in pushback. Vanguard has ditched ESG. George Soros has lost billions of dollars in investments. High school senior males are tending conservative over liberal by nearly two-to-one and are entering the voting population. Roe v Wade and Affirmative Action have both been struck down by the Supreme Court. Twitter, now called X, is now privately-owned by a free speech advocate.

And there’s more. And by the looks of it, it’s going to keep going, as the left-wing establishment continues to lose control. And as they lose control, they’ll continue to make increasingly-desperate moves, abusing the power that’s slipping away from them.

Things continue to get more interesting.

Apparently, opposing child sex trafficking makes you QAnon, now.

1 Reply

Sometimes, I wonder whether the people (yet to be replaced by AI) in legacy media believe what they are typing. In some cases, they have to be malicious, because there’s no other way to explain what passes from their fingertips, into their keyboards, into the ether, and from glowing display screens to the disappointed eyeballs of those who have yet to move on to more relevant information sources.

I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but right now, I imagine you might be thinking, “Oh boy, now what did they do?”

Only writing hit pieces on a new film bringing attention to one of the worst crimes taking place today, child sex trafficking.

What’s amazing about the Twitter snippet above is that all that it gets right is that Sound of Freedom is about child-trafficking.

Every other data point was wrong. QAnon had nothing to do with it. It’s not a superhero movie. The implication of conspiracy theorism without using the term conspiracy theory is intellectually dishonest. And I prefer not to speculate as to why brainworms feature prominently in the thinking of the Rolling Stone author.

I’m noticing a trend where if a person expresses opposition to the real problem of child sex trafficking, then that person is called a part of QAnon, as if to suggest that being part of QAnon is a bad thing. I think it’s about time we handle such petty name-calling by deciding that we don’t care.

You think I’m with QAnon? Go ahead and think that. I don’t care. Think I’m pedophile-phobic? I don’t care.

Because of what Rolling Stone has to say about Sound of Freedom, a film opposing child sex trafficking, let’s see what they had to say about Cuties, a film about sexualizing minors:

Oh.

But, you know, that’s just Rolling Stone. Let’s see what Washington Democracy Dies In Darkness Post has to say about it:

The use of the term low-budget to describe Sound of Freedom is designed to get you to dismiss it out-of-hand, as though you’re supposed to think a film is not worth seeing unless it a big-name production with a budget in the hundreds of millions.

Now, I admit that I didn’t look into the star of the film, or his opinions on QAnon. That’s simply immaterial to the quality or content of the film itself, which mentions nothing about QAnon.

What I do know is that the film is based on a true story about a man who was on a sting operation to crash a pedophile island party and arrest the predators who were participating. During the film, the man embarks on a journey to reunite a family with two children who were abducted by a fake talent agency. It basically watches like a crime drama, but makes the point that child sex trafficking is a very real problem.

Impressively enough, this low-budget indie film has gone on to rival the summer blockbuster, Indiana Jones! That goes to show that there’s something about Sound of Freedom that resonates with people.

In writing it off as a QAnon film (as though that’s a problem), Washington Post risks alienating themselves from the few readers that they have left in this social media age. But at least they didn’t pull a Rolling Stone and call it a superhero movie, right?

But hold on, they had an opinion about Cuties, too. Let’s see what they had to say about that, presumably before painting their toenails black and lamenting democracy’s death in darkness:

You can tell a lot about a person by what they think is normal. Apparently a movie about sexualizing minors is “an unflinching look at what it means to be a preteen girl”. And if you have a problem with that, then the problem is that you “can’t handle it”.

Of course, if you’re of the opinion that sexualizing minors is not a biggie, then you’d probably have a problem with a movie that depicts child sex trafficking in a negative light.

I heard about Sound of Freedom, not by marketing, but by word of mouth. I was already considering seeing it when a fellow patriot offered to see it with me, so I accepted his offer.

It’s a film I recommend, but with the warning that it’s not for the faint of heart. There are no graphic depictions of abuse, but there are strong implications.

Having seen the movie, I can understand the strong desire to do something about the problem. If a person were to “go vigilante”, they might end up creating more problems than they solve, and perhaps even disrupt investigations already in progress. Perhaps the better course of action would be to contact representatives about legislation that could combat child exploitation. Also of benefit might be researching which candidates might be tougher on child exploitation prior to casting your vote in an election.

Of course, you can also tell other people about the movie, Sound of Freedom, and encourage them to see it. It would seem that word of mouth is still effective in bringing attention to media designed to heighten awareness.

When it comes to vigilantism, don’t do anything I wouldn’t do.

Apparently now we’re supposed to conflate any opposition to child sex trafficking with QAnon, who we are supposed to think are bad guys, even though their main deal is opposing child sex trafficking. What is legacy media’s stake in this game?

Thanks for making it easy to take the moral high ground, I guess.

EDIT: Not The Bee already published an article somewhat similar in tone to this one, with a similar title. I wasn’t aware of it when I published this article, but credit to them for publishing their opinion first.

A Federal Judge Banned the Biden Admin From Pressuring Social Media Companies To Censor Dissenting Viewpoints, But I Was Told That Wasn’t Happening

Leave a reply

You might know a kid who was interested in playing Chess. But just because a kid was playing Chess doesn’t mean he was good at it.

Oftentimes, when you play against a kid, you would allow special rules that were designed to give the kid an advantage, to give him a chance of winning.

It might be that his pieces couldn’t be taken when they’re on his side of the board. Or it could be that you couldn’t start the game with your strongest pieces. Or it could be that the child would be granted two moves on his turn, while you still have only one. Whatever the special rules were, they were designed as “kid gloves”, to give the child an advantage to help them win the match, which they usually did.

But imagine playing a game of Chess as an adult, being granted the opportunity to benefit from the same special rules that were designed to encourage children to play, playing with the same advantages that these special rules would afford. If you’re like me, you’d be embarrassed to accept such an advantage. But if you were to accept them and when victory occurs, would you really feel like you’ve outwitted your opponent?

Considering the unfair advantage that you’ve been granted, could you really succeed in convincing yourself that you’ve won on your own virtues and merits?

But for a long time, that was how heavily the social media landscape favored left wing viewpoints. Social media networks were run largely by those who were politically on the left. Not only that, the algorithms favored left wing viewpoints, while algorithmically burying any conservative viewpoint. Worse yet, moderation was dominated by leftists, who oftentimes deleted conservative viewpoints outright, not specifying any Terms of Service violations. In many cases, this resulted in a loss of income.

These leftists would even go as far as to shadow ban conservatives, limiting their potential for reaching a wide audience, without them being notified of this, with Facebook leader Mark Zuckerberg denying that such a practice was taking place, committing perjury before Congress.

Through it all, the book burners of the digital age had a partner in crime: the Democratic establishment. This government entity colluded with social media companies to suppress conservative viewpoints, in what is the gravest violation of the first amendment in the history of the republic, and it’s not even close.

While we’ve been repeatedly told that no such thing was occurring, there is a mountain of evidence showing that it certainly has been, not least of which are the Twitter Files. There’s also the fact that the government’s three-letter agencies are embarrassingly bad at keeping secrets, even secrets that are so damning.

Now, a federal judge has ordered them to stop colluding with social media to suppress dissent:

Can you imagine a grownup kid, one wearing a Burger King crown and a cape made of bedsheets, who for his entire adult life has been playing and winning games of Chess because he’s been playing by the kid’s rules, suddenly having to play grownup Chess with all the other grownups?

Can you imagine him, as his action figures are lined up outside the play area “cheering him on”, slowly coming to the realization that he’s not the brilliant strategist that he thinks he is, as he is suddenly made to play on equal footing with the other adults?

Can you imagine him throwing his toys on the floor, and storming off, stating his intention on making a “better game”, better than the “complicated” game that all the other grownups are better at?

And can you imagine him continually coming back, even though he gets soundly defeated again and again, each time retreating to the comfort of his soup and crayons?

Now, we’re at the point in which you don’t have to imagine it. And you love to see it.

The Bitterness of Ben & Jerry’s

Leave a reply

While ignorant political takes are no stranger to Ben & Jerry’s, they took things over the top on July 4th, when they appealed to the inordinate feeling of guilt of their fellow leftists.

If the name Ben & Jerry’s sounds familiar, yes, they are the brand of ice cream that you don’t buy because it’s way too expensive, bad for you, and not really that great.

Anyhow, here’s their crappy take:

Like many with a cereal box understanding of history, Ben & Jerry’s apparently believes that Native Americans were a peaceful lot until European colonists showed up, broke treaties by violently attacking them without provocation, then seized their land for themselves.

To get right to the heart of it, the Native Americans were not peaceful. The tribes were pretty much in a state of perpetual war with each other, and they were not gentlemen about it. They were so over-the-top that the ancient Assyrians would have wanted them to chill out.

What they’d do is gather raiding parties then proceed to attack enemy villages while they were asleep. The Native American tribes were in a constant state of war and were continually “stealing land” from each other. After European colonists showed up, the natives lost a game they were already playing to those who were better at it.

Also, Native Americans kept slaves. When a tribe conquered a village, an expected outcome for the conquered people (out of the many that were not off the table, such as torture) was to be enslaved. And there was no sign that this practice would have ended without the settlers showing up and eventually issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.

As many natives that may have been lost warring with the colonists, more were apparently lost to disease. Native Americans didn’t have the same immunity to viruses that were accidentally brought across the Atlantic with the European settlers. When these settlers moved across the land, they sometimes found entire villages which were empty.

Now, if Native Americans still held the land, would we have been better off with their culture?

Travel south to Central America, and you’ll find the Mayans, who performed human sacrifices. There were also the Aztecs, who also performed human sacrifices, but using war prisoners.

And if they remained the dominant culture of the land, do you suppose that Native Americans would have developed the same science and technology that helps ensure that life as we know it isn’t a living hell? After all, we’re talking about cultures so primitive that many of them, at the point of their discovery by Europeans, still hadn’t developed the wheel.

I don’t know about you, but I like the advances that were made possible because a bunch of violent tribesmen were displaced by the civilized and industrious. I like antibiotics because I prefer that small scrapes not be fatal. I like modern agriculture because I like having a full belly, me and billions of others. I like automobiles because I have places to go to. I like climate control because I don’t like trying to sleep in a puddle of my own sweat. I like smartphones because having access to the summation of human knowledge appeals to me.

But hey, if Ben & Jerry’s is serious about returning “stolen indigenous land”, it’s on them to demonstrate how serious they really are. A cadre of Jewish students are calling the ice cream company out, daring them to make good on their own words:

Will Ben & Jerry’s surrender the land their corporate headquarters is situated on to Native Americans? I have my doubts. When leftists like Ben & Jerry’s shoot off their mouths like this, it’s usually just to virtue signal. They don’t actually believe what they’re saying. If they did, they’d act accordingly.

Religious Liberty Just Prevailed.

Leave a reply

It would be great if we had nine Supreme Court justices who understood the Constitution. We have six, but that’s still enough to hold the majority.

The first amendment of the Constitution prevailed today, after the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving a website designer who objected to design a website promoting a gay wedding, which was requested by a client.

From NPR.org:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 long ideological lines that the First Amendment bars Colorado from “forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.”

Why was this even a question? The first amendment protections for one’s religion does apply to the state of Colorado. What’s more, freedom in principle is opposed to the idea of anyone being coerced in any way. A business merely existing does not create any obligation for that business or any of its employees to take an action. If the business decides that it won’t take an action, even in exchange for money, that’s the choice of the business owner, and anyone in their employ can be expected to direct themselves in a manner consistent with their convictions.

Believe it or not, one’s religion isn’t just a name on a banner to be waved about, then promptly ignored at the dictates of some psychopath who is out to create cultural uniformity. A person’s religion actually has an influence on the way they think, and the decisions that they make. Therefore, one’s religion does influence the way they live.

Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said: “Ms. [Lori] Smith seeks to engage in protected First Amendment speech; Colorado seeks to compel speech she does not wish to provide. As the Tenth Circuit observed, if Ms. Smith offers wedding websites celebrating marriages she endorses, the State intends to compel her to create custom websites celebrating other marriages she does not. … If she wishes to speak, she must either speak as the State demands or face sanctions for expressing her own beliefs, sanctions that may include compulsory participation in ‘remedial . . . training,’ filing periodic compliance reports, and paying monetary fines. That is an impermissible abridgement of the First Amendment’s right to speak freely.”

This is the United States, after all. This is a place where freedom of speech is recognized by its foundational document. Compelled speech, by its nature, cannot be free.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”

Sotomayor’s use of the term “protected class” implies privilege. The ideals of our nation uphold equality of all people in the sight of God, and under the law. There is no special class that can compel anyone else to either speak or take an action, and no one can be deprived of their God-given freedoms without due process.

A Supreme Court Justice is expected to know that.

She would, as you might expect, attempt to frame this as part of a “backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities”. This is, of course, intellectually dishonest, as there are no gender minorities, there are only men and women, and the “sexual minorities” she is alluding to are actually sexual behaviors, and is actually is valid to question the sociological impact of these behaviors.

But even if she’s dishonest and misinformed, at least Sotomayor isn’t getting what she wanted.

Smith who believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, said she wanted to create a custom web-page business for weddings, but could not do so because under Colorado law she would have been forced to create websites that violate her faith. Colorado said it didn’t want to dictate what Smith said in her web designs, but that if her business is open to the public–as it is–it had to serve everyone.

What kind of state compels a business to serve anyone and everyone, just by virtue of being open to the public? I’m trying to wrap my head around this. Is the idea that, in the act of opening or being employed by a business, a person forfeits their personal autonomy? Did the state of Colorado really believe that there was a point in which an individual, complete with freedoms recognized by the Constitution and the superordinate principles of all of western civilization (and not only the United States), was no longer a partaker of those freedoms by virtue of being employed?

Or perhaps this is actually about power. Perhaps certain people get a thrill out of commanding people, and watching them work because they are compelled to. If so, they need to learn pretty quick that having money does not give them power over everyone. Not everyone is willing to give themselves up just for money.

On Friday, the court ruled against the state and for the web designer in a decision that could have profound consequences in Colorado and 29 other states that have laws requiring businesses open to the public to serve everyone, regardless or race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.

Or, if NPR were to frame the matter more correctly, the freedoms of people and businesses to act in consideration of their consciences has been recognized in a society that proclaimed these principles to begin with.

A sincere “thank you” to the six Supreme Court justices who voted in favor of the web designer for knowing a few things about the country we live in.