Apparently, Chris Chan is planning a collab with Keffals. This was according to Chris, as he posted the following on X:
You may know who Chris Chan is, as he is considered the most well-known of all lolcows. A couple years ago, he committed a sexual offense involving his own mother, becoming a case study in true crime, and ascending to horrorcow status.
Keffals is a bit more obscure, but perhaps far more enraging. He became known for making HRT drugs at home to sell to minors without their parent’s knowledge or consent, and ran an infamous “catboy ranch”.
The packaging for his bathtub-made HRT contains the phrase, “Keep out of reach of parents.”
Both persons are males who pretend to be women, and both hate Kiwi Farms with a passion, so it wasn’t terribly unlikely that the two would have eventually found each other.
If you’re unfamiliar with Kiwi Farms, it’s an online message board that initially focused on discussing Chris Chan, but has since pivoted to discussing the ridiculous things that social media personalities do. It’s often made out to be a hive for online bullies, and while it’s true that many of its members are unsavory individuals, I think the board as it is now can be justified. In fact, I’ll go ahead and do that now.
Suppose that arson was legal. As in, you could do it, and the law wouldn’t lay a finger on you. Would you do it?
If you’re like most people, your answer would be, “No!”. This is because most people would see arson as immoral, regardless of what the law allowed.
But suppose that, not only was arson legal, it was actually incentivized. Five dollars for each house destroyed. Odds are, most people would still refuse to do it, and would be outraged at such an incentive, if it were to exist.
However, some people would jump at the offer. “Five dollars, per? Hells yeah!” they’d scream, before getting to work. We would call such people “sociopaths”, because what little they’d have to gain is something which, in their minds, outweighs the suffering that they’d cause.
But suppose that homes were being destroyed, but rather than by acts of arson, instead through influence. Suppose that a level of abstraction separates the act that destroys the home from the home being destroyed, in such a way that allowed for plausible deniability on the part of the influencer.
The influencer might influence people to drink base liquids, eat laundry detergent, dive from moving speedboats, take prescription drugs without a prescription, idolize dangerous terrorists, make self-destructive lifestyle choices, and many, many more acts which, if people were to try them, the likely outcome is that families could be torn apart, property could be damaged, and even lives could be lost. And while all this is going on, influencers are financially rewarded just for the attention that they get.
If this were to happen, and if it were financially incentivized, would you see that as a problem?
Let’s drop the hypotheticals. After all, you probably knew what I was getting at when I brought up the influencers. The fact is, influencers do encourage destructive behaviors. These behaviors have caused damage that these influencers didn’t have to face consequences for. And yes, these influencers are being financially incentivized to accrete attention to themselves, even if the attention is through the promotion of destructive and socially corrosive ideologies and activities.
These influencers are the sociopaths who don’t give a damn what damage that they might cause for you or for anyone else, so long as they’re getting the attention that they want, and the money that they really care about.
These sociopaths are among the many influencers on social media.
They don’t have to believe what they’re saying. And they usually don’t. They don’t have to see the communities, families, or individuals whose lives they are destroying. And they couldn’t bring themselves to care. They might even convince you that they’re your friend, when in reality, your mere attention only slightly enables the transaction that is their sincere desire.
By now, you’re probably wondering what can be done about these influencers. The answer is to shine a light on them, and subject them to the ridicule and satire that is richly merited.
That’s where Kiwi Farms comes in.
If it weren’t for Kiwi Farms, deviants such as Chris Chan and Keffals would have a much easier time being the predators that they are.
And now that the two have found each other, it’s become much more important that an eye is kept on the two. Because if the two are the miscreants that they are independent of one another, just imagine what they can come up with working together.
It’s now been over three years since the riot that took place at the U.S. Capitol building on Jan 6, 2021. Since then, the left has taken to memorializing the event as a threat to democracy, and Biden himself has incessantly referenced it, including in his latest campaign ad.
No wonder Trump was such an effective real estate mogul, what with his ability to live rent-free in people’s heads.
It’s obvious that to the Biden administration the Capitol riot was no ordinary riot, even if all evidence points to it not being the deliberate insurrection that the left has made it out to be, but instead a demonstration that escalated to a level that was not originally intended.
What is it about the Jan 6 Capitol riot that gets under Biden’s skin? What follows is speculation about what might be happening with Biden’s thinking.
When a person would become President of the United States, they undergo a slight change in their thinking. They’ll begin comparing themselves to previous presidents.
While it’s true that there have been protests against the policy positions of previous American presidents, the Capitol riot was the first of its kind, in that people showed up in the thousands to resist the very certification of a man who supposedly had the support of the majority. While it’s true that the protesters don’t represent everybody, they acted on the frustrations of a significant portion of the electorate who believed that they weren’t being represented.
Again, this type of protest was unprecedented in its kind, and grand in scale. What’s more, it was a direct challenge to the Biden administration.
It seems as though a vast majority of people who would run for public office has at least a slight amount of narcissism. Seeing as though Biden has held office for roughly five decades, there’s higher potential for narcissism. In the eyes of a narcissist, they must be loved by most reasonable people, and anyone who would not love them must be unreasonable. This may be playing into how Biden has been coping with the Capitol riot: by making Democracy itself out to be in danger, and making himself out to be a hero, fighting the good fight. In this narcissistic fantasy, the people who don’t accept him must be acting out of malice or ignorance.
After all, to know a narcissist is to love one.
However, an American president doesn’t just compare himself to other American presidents, he compares himself to other world leaders, particularly other influential leaders like those who lead countries such as China, Russia, India, Japan, Germany, and the U.K., just to name a few examples. And, as it so happens, it’s rare for leaders of those countries to see such strong opposition to their leadership, particularly on a day as significant as the certification (or respective ceremony) of their particular appointments.
When you understand this, you understand why Joe Biden and his administration are as insecure as they are.
And, as a further blow to his pride, the candidate that serves as the spiritual representative of the frustrations against the Biden administration is the current frontrunner of the opposing political party, and it’s not even close. And this has occurred in spite of every petty legal obstruction that’s been waged against him, and every attempt to make him out to be an enemy of democracy.
In fact, if the upcoming election were to be held tomorrow, it’s likely that Donald Trump would win. If this were to happen, Joe Biden’s pride would be dealt the cruelest stroke. This would mean that the public, after hearing everything that he had to say about his opponent and his constituency, still sided against Biden. At that point, what would he have left?
While this was speculation, I think it’s reasonable to consider when pondering just what it is about the Jan 6 Capitol riot that Joe Biden seems to take so personally. I’m a bit concerned, because as history has shown us abundantly, when men of power are insecure, they tend to turn to desperate methods.
Personally, I think that this election year is going to be interesting. It’s obvious that there’s a whole lot of pride at stake. I’ve said before that in order for democracy to work, each side needs to see their opposition as legitimate. Both major factions have room to develop as far as that goes, and it doesn’t help that there are people all over who wouldn’t make that easy.
While people ascribe huge significance to the presidency, as I see it, his power should be limited to the point that it shouldn’t make much difference who he is. People should care more about local government, as that can make a far bigger impact on their lives. What’s more, other representatives are significant, considering that if one political party does not control all branches of government, they can’t just push through whatever they want.
Here’s hoping that cooler heads prevail, but to be honest, it’s hard to tell which ones those would be.
You’re not ready for this. You’re about to laugh the hardest you have laughed in a long time.
You sitting down? Here we go:
This tiktoker harassed a McDonald’s employee because their packaging was blue and white. He calmly explained they changed it a few months ago and it has nothing to do with Israel. She insisted it does. He stayed cool throughout. Give this man a raise! pic.twitter.com/5DaNngF0Fc
As much as I’d like to believe that this was all some act, I know that people like this actually exist. When you’ve had a job in which you have to interact with the public, you see many different kinds.
But this is truly special. Here’s the kind of person who listens to a televangelist, and thinks that the sermon had some kind of special, hidden message that was intended specifically for them. The kind of person who makes financial decisions based on horoscopes, and names their kids after the first name they hear after turning on the radio, because fuck any chance they could have at living normal.
“Wow. What does that resemble?” Could it be the McDonald’s logo? A helpful reminder of where you just spent your money? The icon to blame for making you fat?
The moment you heard the woman say, “This is in support of Israel.”, you couldn’t see the guy’s face, but you could hear it drop. I know that wage slaves are under enormous pressure to maintain a veneer of professionalism, but I can’t imagine any manager out there would fault him for saying, “Are you serious?”
But you heard her tone, she was as totes cereal as a sack of processed grains at the supermarket.
What are the odds that two basic colors used on fast food packaging could coincidentally resemble the colors of Israel’s flag? So low that, according to the people who put watermelons in their X posts because the colors are similar to the colors of the Palestinian flag, it couldn’t be a coincidence, and must necessarily indicate support for the state of Israel.
I get the fact that stupid people believe in synchronicities to help them cope with the fact that they’re going to die someday, and that there is nothing special about them, but it’s time to keep it real: belief in synchronicities can destroy your mind. And the above video has shown us a great example.
A short while ago, I pointed out that unfettered immigration would lead to unrest. Since then, unrest has started to pick up in places like France, and particularly in Ireland, where things exploded after a piece of filth attacked children with a knife.
In light of this, I’ll go ahead and offer my opinion on the matter, and I’ll keep it brief, because that would suffice.
I don’t have a knack for seeing the future. I didn’t need it because I could already see the tension that was there. In this environment, all that’s needed for things to move along in a hurry is for someone to do something incredibly stupid, which will cause people to react in a way that expresses the tension.
Right now, the left is blaming the right for the public’s reaction, when in reality, the left bears the blame for what is the natural and expected outcomes of their policies.
The left believed that they could retire easier in spite of falling birth rates by inviting immigrants into their country with the idea that they could be put to work, and feed into the Social Security scheme. Such an idea is damnably idiotic. The outcome is that these very same immigrants have largely gone on welfare, turning into a drain on the system, rather than contributing. Worse yet, many of them turned out to be criminals on the run, some are human traffickers working for cartels, and some have brought a culture with them that is absolutely incompatible with a civil society.
As it turns out, assuming good intentions can be dangerously naive.
I’m not really worried that the political right is going to capitalize on recent trends, and gain institutional power with the support of a common population who would be more interested in leaders that more closely mirror their values. At this point, it’s all but a certainty. What’s worrisome is that those who assume authority will tend towards extremes in their positions. The right would do well to remember their own virtues regarding limited government and personal liberties, and know that the immigration crisis can be reversed in a responsible manner.
Having said that, it’s obvious that the responsible way to go about it involves mass deportations. The left will scream bloody murder over it, and bang their pots and pans together. They’re free to make their noise. But after decades of getting their way with minimal resistance, to not have their way would be something for them to get accustomed to.
The left has a bad habit of attempting to disassociate their policy positions from the consequences of those positions, even when the consequences are so obvious that any reasonable person could see them coming. To see such belligerent foolishness would be almost rewarding, if it weren’t the common population who pays the price.
In any case, it remains that one of the most rewarding things about basic observation of reality is seeing things play out predictably. And I hope you’re ready, because this is going to be quite a show.
Before we get into this, I’m curious how many of you had “leftists voice agreement with Osama Bin Laden” on your bingo card for 2023. It’s understandable if you didn’t, but what a year this is turning out to be.
In the year 2002, Osama Bin Laden, the very same Bin Laden that ran the terror network Al Qaeda, had issued a letter titled, A Letter to America, wherein he laid out his rationale for the 9/11 terror attacks.
I, for one, am skeptical that Bin Laden actually authored the letter, as he had initially steadfastly denied being involved in the attacks, and each of the hijackers actually attended the Al Quds mosque in Hamburg, Germany, which was never shut down, as far as I could tell.
In the letter, Bin Laden pointed out that there was no such thing as innocent civilians in the U.S.’s democracy, pointing out that his violent actions were a reaction to the policy positions of representatives that civilians voted into office. He voiced such an opposition to U.S. policy that it sounded suspiciously like it was intended to feed into a casus belli for further American intervention. Hopefully it’s understandable why I’m skeptical.
The letter had been published by British news outlet The Guardian, who took it down when a recent spate of TikTok videos appeared expressing surprise at the contents of the letter, with some expressing agreement with Bin Laden’s sentiments, saying that they’ve had their preconceived notions challenged, and encouraging their viewers to also read the letter.
Normally, I’d embed at least one example of such a video here, but I’m not doing that this time, for a reason that I’ll get into later on in this post.
When it comes to a letter from Osama Bin Laden, I’m curious what people were expecting. Did they expect something like five paragraphs of hand-wringing and mustache-twirling, proceeded by cartoon-villain cackling? The guy had a following, and he had a following for a reason: he was able to justify his positions, even if through faulty reasoning, and he did so in such a way that would have been considered convincing to those who lacked the ability to comprehend true evil, or at least those who would be dumb enough to fall for his arguments.
People with bad positions are usually able to justify their positions. Take the flat-earthers, for example. People know that flat-earthers are wrong. However, they take for granted that flat-earthers are wrong. So when they get into a debate with one, they imagine that it will be a piece-of-cake slam dunk victory. But then the debate begins, and the flat-earther runs circles around them, because they know how the game is played, they have rhetorical deceit down to a science, they came prepared with arguments that most people are not prepared for, and they themselves came prepared for the arguments and rebuttals that they could reasonably expect. The result is that a typical, middle-of-the-road thinker is left to kick dust on the way home, knowing that he lost a debate to a flat-earther.
While we’re at it, I’m curious as to what people think is in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. While it’s true that much of it is a hateful tirade made to appeal to one with an external locus of control, it’s also a political manifesto that would have been considered encouraging to a German who would have felt downtrodden in Hitler’s time.
Evil people are able to justify their wickedness, even if their reasoning is deeply flawed. To them, what most would see as wicked may be what they see as justifiable, or even banal.
By way of another example, there’s also the manifesto of Ted Kazynski, the person who is popularly known as the Unabomber. When his manifesto was published, the expectation would have understandably been the ramblings of a deluded psychopath who believed that the moon followed him as he walked around. As it turns out, he made some points about society that many people considered valid.
Returning to Bin Laden, I wonder how many people out there have forgotten that he was a religious zealot, whose own religion is pretty-much everything that a stereotypical leftist pretends that Christianity is. Bin Laden was an Islamist, who wanted to implement Sharia in the west.
The following is a few of Bin Laden’s policy positions:
Executing gays,
Normalizing slavery (and no, I’m not kidding),
Outlawing bacon,
Outlawing grown-up beverages,
Outlawing non-religious music,
A functionally-retarded banking system that’s somehow supposed to run without interest,
Normalizing pederasty, which has been legal in Afghanistan for decades,
State-sponsorship of a cult that discourages the pursuit of anything outside of itself,
That science is not allowed to question, among other things, that the earth is flat,
A judicial system that’s so capricious that tyrants are needed to maintain order,
That the testimony of a woman is either 1/2 or 1/4 that of a man in courts of law.
There’s a lot more. And a bunch of simpletons are impressed with this guy?
Now, let’s get into the reason why I’m not leaving a video embed in this post. Personally, I doubt that these people actually believe what they’re saying. The fact is, the TikTok algorithm boosts what gets plenty of engagement, and what’s rage-inducing (such as police-brutality videos) tend to get more attention. I suspect that these are just people who know how the game is played, and are attempting to farm the algorithm for views. I don’t want to give them a signal boost, because I don’t want them to have more attention.
But even if they don’t believe it, they still have followings that may take their words for it. And that’s how attempts to game an algorithm can have potentially harmful outcomes. We’ve already seen how videos of police brutality have inspired looting and rioting. Now, there are social media influencers out to make a quick buck who don’t care about the long-term social damage that can occur as a result of algorithmic manipulation.
But if the social media influencers were sincere, then there’s no telling how they’ll react when they get around to reading something that’s actually reasonable, such as the basic philosophical underpinnings of Libertarianism, or that of Austrian economics.
To get to the heart of the matter, however eloquent that his justifications could have possibly been, it still remains that Osama Bin Laden was a murderous nutjob who hid behind his religion, which played a significant role in motivating him to become the killer he ended up becoming.
Now, the indoctrinators of the political left are looking on in horror as the very children that they indoctrinated went on to side with terrorists like Al Qaeda and Hamas, simply because those terrorist organizations have been using similar rhetoric to justify themselves. And now said indoctrinators are losing control of the very generation with which they had hoped to usher in a revolution, and are losing control of them to a bunch of religious fanatics who are far more hateful than even themselves.
I can think of no better way to fight back than to make it known why their new ideology is not worth fighting for. Just because it’s obvious to me why this is the case doesn’t mean that everyone can be reasoned with.
If it turns out that the letter actually was a U.S. psy-op, the consequences might almost be funny. Except not quite.
A normal, healthy mind supposes that if there are two mutually-exclusive viewpoints, then they cannot both be correct.
For example, if a normal thinker were to be presented with the two statements, “racism is wrong” and “discrimination against whites is okay”, they would perceive an irreconcilable contradiction, and understand that both statements cannot be true.
The use of “if-therefore” statements to determine what follows with axioms as the basis is logical thinking.
You might have noticed that many leftists hold the statements “racism is wrong” and “discrimination against whites is okay” to be simultaneously true. In the mind of a logical thinker, this is vexing, because to them, both statements cannot simultaneously be true.
So, why? Why do so many leftists hold to such a blatant and irreconcilable ideological contradiction? How can such a thing possibly make sense?
And the answer is, it doesn’t. Yet, leftists still hold such contradictory viewpoints due to what’s called dialectical thinking.
So, what is dialectical thinking? As relates to leftism and the related Marxist philosophies surrounding it, dialectical thinking involves the synthesis of conflicting ideas to form a new idea.
Consider how the typical leftist handles the two contradictory statements in the example above. They are told that “racism is wrong”, and “discrimination against whites is okay”, and they are told that, in order to be a good leftist, they need to hold both statements as simultaneously true.
A healthy mind would consider such a political ideology to be complete mushuganah, reject it out of hand, and perhaps even treat it to the sound ridicule it richly merits. However, people who are in cults are seldom of sound mind. They want to fit in, and they’re determined to do so, no matter how hard they have to force the square peg through the round hole.
So, to the end of winning headpats from their ideological superiors, leftists must somehow reconcile the statements, “racism is wrong”, and “discrimination against whites is okay”. But how?
As most of us know, to exercise discrimination on the basis of one’s race, such as in cases where a person is white, is racism per se. Considering this, to the end of reconciling the two contradictory statements, it’s plain to see that the leftist’s main obstacle would be the definition of racism.
So, what is the intellectually-confused leftist to do? That’s easy: just change the definition of racism to exclude discrimination against whites.
Obviously, a sound mind would not make such an exception. But, again, we’re talking about cultists. So, not only will they make the exception, they’ll attempt to justify it in an attempt to silence their conscience, which is probably screaming in agony. Knowing this, it’s easy to see why they continually point to the past crime of slavery as justification for their own Halal form of discrimination, while ignoring the fact that slavery was also practiced by nearly every culture to ever exist.
When you understand dialectical thinking, you understand why leftists are as prone as they are to simultaneously holding contradictory viewpoints.
The example above was not arbitrary, by the way. It was selected to help you understand why the word “racism” has gone from a word with a definition to a leftist snarl word that is used to describe people that disagree with them. Leftists use the word “fascist” in the same sense, while simultaneously engaging in collective action to the end of furthering Marxist economics. Unironically.
As I’ve pointed out before, if language is being used that evokes an emotional reaction, while bypassing your better judgement, you might be in a cult.
Dialectical thinking itself is a memetic holdover of Gnosticism, which had a particular influence on Marxism (remember that many Marxist cults were at one point religious in nature). Early in its history, Christianity recognized Gnosticism as a heresy, and dealt with it accordingly, before Christianity went on to become the world’s most popular religion. When you understand this, it’s easy to see why many Gnostics have a problem with Christianity, and that the dialectical thinkers on the left are fighting someone else’s battles for them.
As much as I’d like to ask whether I helped you to make sense of leftist thinking, we must admit that it still doesn’t make sense. Even so, it can be said that when you know about dialectical thinking, you’re in a better position to comprehend the senselessness of leftist thinking, including why they are in a constant state of redefining themselves, and why they embrace contradictions that more reasonable people would not.
The Trannifesto, the final writings of Audrey Hale, the Covenant school shooter, has just been leaked through Steven Crowder’s website, louderwithcrowder.com. The guy is a true patriot, please pay his site a visit.
The shooting, committed by a transgender person (who was in reality a woman), occurred over 8 months ago. Though law enforcement had obtained the shooter’s final writings, its release to the public has been repeatedly delayed, with perhaps no plans to release it, at all.
As has been stated previously, the Trannifesto is not so much a manifesto as it is a set of journal entries.
If you’re as skeptical as me, you might wonder whether the pages were a scam made by someone abusing AI. I ran the images through an AI detector, and the likelihood of the images being AI generated was 2.1%, 3.8%, and 34.2%, according to Illuminarty.ai. So by the looks of it, these are legit.
Now, let’s give these a look, and I’ll give my opinion.
I’ll say first of all that Audrey Hale sucked fuck at handwriting. Also, nothing conveys a psycho middle-school mindset quite like doodles of guns shooting at targets in a margin of a page. And then there’s scrawling out “DARK ABYSS DEATH DAY” as the title of the entry, as if to drive home the teen angst that she was way too old for.
I’m absolutely not surprised that Audrey’s broken, defective mind could not perceive that there is such a thing as an innocent person, which was evidenced by her choice of targets. What does surprise me is how far back that Audrey contemplated the crimes that she ended up committing, which goes at least as far back as the summer of 2021, when her plotting was nearly discovered.
Audrey Hale’s crimes were not a crime of passion, they were deliberate.
Audrey planned out her final crimes meticulously, planning out her last day alive down to the minute. One might wonder what was covered by the sticky note, and based on the marks that are showing, it looks like part of the sentence, “Spend time w/ stuffed animals and possessions” was obscured. So yeah, in her last day alive, right before committing mass murder, a psychopath prioritized spending time with her toys.
This entry, dated the previous month, gives a window into the mind of the killer, and tells us what motivated her. It was basically a racist and classist tirade packed with expletives and ranting about what she perceived as indications of wealth and status.
It pretty much comes down to Hale hating a bunch of children whose parents worked hard to ensure that their children had a brighter future, and hating their parents for having things that they either worked or taken on debt for. Like many of Hale’s ilk, hers was a highly superficial perspective that assumed that disparity in outcome must necessarily be a product of factors that she felt she could rightly resent another for.
It’s obvious why there was such hesitation to release this to the public, because it’s an indictment against the political ideology which, when taken to its extreme, would motivate a sick individual to lash out in the way that Audrey did.
I’ve often heard it asked what it is that motivates mass killers. After all, the targets are seldom someone that the killers knew personally. The reason why mass killers try to end as many lives as possible is because their target is society. They want to cause as much damage to society as possible. Oftentimes, it’s because the killer supposed that society has failed them.
By reason of Hale’s transgender identity, it’s reasonable to infer that she wasn’t in touch with reality. Such a person would certainly be considered a vulnerable individual, prone to manipulation. Thus, when Hale was presented with the idea that a difference in outcome is intrinsically related one’s immutable characteristics, combined with Hale’s lack of empathy, and her belief that children are valid targets, together with the ease with which Hale could be manipulated, it becomes easier to see why she could be influenced to commit murder.
As disturbing as all this is, what’s particularly disturbing is that much of her hatred was directed towards children. She hated them for their race, and she hated them because the decisions that their parents made were to the end of ensuring that those children would have a bright future ahead of them. This is no reason to hate anyone, for one thing, because a person’s race is something that they cannot control, but also because to ensure a brighter future for one’s own children is one of the strongest driving motivations for one to work hard in today’s world. That Hale could bring herself to hate someone for these reasons goes to show just how damaged her mind was.
Because Audrey Hale was once a student at the same school where she would eventually die a murderer, it’s hard to say that she was motivated by envy of what other children had. But it seems apparent that she was motivated by racism, and I think it would be interesting to find out from whom her racist ideas came from.
As disturbing as all this is, it gets worse in context. While Audrey Hale’s thinking is aberrant, it’s far more common than it should be, to the point that it’s all but guaranteed that the tragedy that it resulted in will happen again.
And with her thinking being fed into by academia, the pharmaceutical industry, banking cartels, the Biden administration, and more, it’s not so much a question of whether it will happen again, but when and where.
I’ve said before that if you don’t address the real problem, don’t expect a real solution.
When you have an enemy, you could fight them. But if you don’t address the problem right at the heart of what motivates them, then it’s a conflict that might never end. Therefore, to the end of securing a lasting victory, it’s best to know what motivates your enemy, so you can strike their motivations, and eliminate them as a threat.
When it comes to Islamists such as Hamas, they made it easy by straight up telling us what their motives are. They are doing what they’re doing because of their religion, and what they believe their prophet wanted them to do.
Thus, to the end of eliminating them as a threat, the most productive course of action would be learn about their religion from a critical perspective, with the intention of learning how to convince them that their religion is not worth killing anyone over. And not just them, but make it widely known the fallacies of their ideology.
If a person has come to the point that they believe that paradise awaits them for jihad, they are probably lost, and therefore would only be fit to meet the end that an enemy combatant would. It’s hard to think of what else to do with them.
However, if the general public were to become aware of how ridiculous their brand of mysticism is, the less likely that they’ll be able to replenish their numbers from among the more ignorant among us, and the violent bands of miscreants will diminish.
Of these, I can suggest WikiIslam, as it has lots of information that can be searched by topic (such as slavery, jihad, or women). The Religion of Peace focuses on current events. If you’re up for a deep dive, Prophet of Doom provides a chronological account of the life of Mohammad, Islam’s only prophet. Even if you disagree with the author’s religious perspectives, when it comes to Islam, he has a high amount of insight.
Remember: When you tell the truth, you take power away from those who profit off of lies.
The recent bombing of a Christian hospital in the West Bank has resulted in a controversy, as Hamas has blamed Israel for the bombing.
Watching the controversy unfold has been fascinating, as details came out that show that matters may be far different from what Hamas has claimed.
For one thing, the hospital has not been bombed. It wasn’t even damaged. The bomb went off in a parking lot. The death toll of about 500 may have been exaggerated. What’s more, it’s looking likely that Israel is not responsible for the bombing, but it’s becoming increasingly evident that the bomb was an attempt on the part of Hamas to launch a rocket, which backfired.
In spite of all the evidence that’s adding up that goes against the Hamas narrative, their sympathizers have flown into a frenzy, storming embassies, and Hamas leadership has called for yet another “day of rage” to be observed around the world, with a clear implication of blind idiocy that’s on brand for that particular faction.
How Hamas handles truth is yet another illustration for why the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas is yet another manifestation of an ongoing clash of cultures and civilizations that are totally incompatible with one another.
As a disclaimer, I’ll point out now that the purpose of this post is to inform and increase understanding. Sometimes, achieving this requires pointing to matters that may be uncomfortable to consider. This can sometimes be necessary to get to the truth of a matter.
To get started, let’s consider how Christianity views lying. It’s impermissible. The Bible tells us that liars will have no place in the kingdom of Heaven. God Himself is incapable of lying, doing so would be against His nature. Lies are considered by Christians to be beneath the dignity of God. Christians are so firmly against lying that, if given the option to tell a lie that could save someone’s life, they’d still worry about whether it was the right thing to do.
The Islamic religion, which is the religion of Hamas, handles lying differently.
In the Islamic religion, there is a concept called taqiyya. The word itself literally means “prudence” or “fear”, but has come to refer to “feigning unbelief”, or more broadly, it’s considered to be “divine lying”.
Basically, in the Islamic religion, it is considered permissible to tell a lie if that lie were to further the cause of the Islamic religion, such as it’s expansion.
In practice, Muslims have used taqiyya to appear to be Christian, even going as far as undergoing the Christian practice of baptism, while concealing their sincere belief as a Muslim. Others have used the concept to deny that certain practices are Islamic if those practices are against the sensibilities of their host society.
There’s an enormous and fatal problem with the concept of taqiyya. That being, the concept of a god that considers it acceptable to lie should be horrifying to you. After all, if that god tells you that it’s permissible to lie, how do you know that that god isn’t lying to you?
Such a god may tell you that doing something would guarantee your entry into heaven, when the act might be so immoral that the person who does so might instead go straight to hell!
Like with the concept of the “suicide bomb”, where a Muslim attempts to ensure that they’ll die in battle, because they want those 72 virgins. They’d be little aware that the Islamic prophet Mohammad was so opposed to suicide that he wrote a passage ridiculing a Muslim man who committed suicide, but that’s beside the point. We all know that murder is immoral. Of course, even murder can be forgiven. But suppose that murder is a person’s final act, and they didn’t seek or want forgiveness. A suicide bomb would ensure that, for the killer, this would be the case.
Returning to my point, if a god tells you how to stay out of hell, but they say that lying is permitted, how do you know that you can trust anything that that god says? After all, they said that lying is okay, so they might be lying to you!
Knowing what Hamas believes about taqiyya, or lying, consider the choice that Hamas is faced with. On the one hand, they could admit that one of their rockets misfired, destroying a parking lot, and in so doing they inspire less confidence on the global stage. On the other hand, they could say that a nearby hospital was destroyed, killing hundreds, blame Israel, and call for Islamic militants the world over to lash out in furtherance of their cause.
It looks like they’ve already made their choice. And with the Islamic practice of taqiyya, most of what they say can be counted on to be self-serving.
Now, here’s where it gets really uncomfortable. Once you know about Islamic taqiyya, when you’re speaking with a Muslim about their religion, it’s possible that they may be lying to you. It’s possible that they believe what they’re telling you, but they themselves may have been lied to. In any case, it’s likely that you can’t take their word for it, as much of what Muslims say about their religion is curated to serve the religion’s interests.
As sobering as that may be in consideration of your interactions with Muslims, the implications are much worse for Muslims themselves. After all, in line with the point I made above, you can never trust a god who tells you that lying is permissible. What’s more, in their religion, they’re not so much concerned with what they say, but with the sincerity with which they say it.
For example, one can convert to Islam at the drop of a hat by reciting the shahada with sincerity, the shahada being a specific phrase that expresses monotheism and Mohammad’s prophethood. But the problem is, how does anyone but the speaker have an awareness of a person’s sincerity?
What’s more, in the Islamic religion, it’s considered an unpardonable sin to ascribe companions to the Islamic god, Allah, whom Muslims suppose is the same as the Christian God. If someone says that they are a Christian, they are saying that Jesus is the Son of God. How are Muslims sure that their god would forgive them for saying something that he said he would not pardon them for saying? Does the doctrine of taqiyya extend to some phrases and not others? And if sincerity is taken into consideration, how is another Muslim within earshot to know whether someone is being sincere?
These are questions that become all the more sobering when you consider that the religion that practices taqiyya wishes to bring about a worldwide theocratic empire. If the foundation of a society is a lie, the expectation is that society cannot thrive in the long term, which most of the Islamic world certainly hasn’t, where only a few people have prospered, while most people live in abject destitution. What’s more, the world would be a dark place if everyone practiced a religion whose priesthood simply cannot be trusted.
As much as one might like to think that the Israel/Hamas conflict is something that doesn’t affect them, and they can simply ignore, the fact is, it’s another manifestation of a clash of cultures and civilizations that are incompatible, and is already being fought in the U.S. and Europe, whether you realize it or not. Hamas is just one arm of a continuing struggle to bring about a change in society and a change in virtues, right down to every society’s very foundations. As flawed as western civilization may be, humanity is still yet to come up with anything better with its own thinking, and is certainly worth defending.
But if it’s just the truth of any matter that interests you, then your interests certainly don’t align with Hamas.
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.
Magnetricity 