Category Archives: Social Engineering

Christian Sect Exploits Brexit To Recruit

Every so often, one finds a stack of leaflets in the mailbox, to swiftly move them to the recycling bin. Most are strictly commercial. Some, however, are more interesting.

It turns out a group known as Advent Books is “taking its message to the UK” by pushing a propaganda book, “The Great Controversy”, seeking to link the EU to Papal control starting with the Roman Empire. It is made available by mail order, online order or as a PDF download, completely free.

The great liberation from the grip of this international octopus, described as political but obviously referring to Catholicism, would (of course) be the Protestant reformation.

In other words, they are trying to recruit Brexit voters with some story about the Roman Empire, as if it necessarily had any relevance nowadays. Obviously, some structures have endured throughout the ages and participate in the political process, but give me a break; this is too transparent.

One might wonder who’s got the money to print this publication, potentially in the thousands, and send it out to people. Do they send these leaflets to just anyone, or is there refined targeting, ensuring that the number of orders is manageable?

There must be massive financial backing for this type of project.

 

Apparently, this book was being offered for free in the US as far back as 2006, using the same system. They must think the current rise in adherence to conspiracy theories is auspicious to casting the net.

In 2009 there were only 25.000 Seventh Day Adventists in the UK, more than half of them living in London.

As described in this BBC article, the “great controversy” is group jargon for the battle between God and Satan. It’s unclear how that can ever be correlated with Brexit and the European Union.

I can only speculate they are out to collect addresses so they can keep pestering those who unwittingly order the free book.

From the same article we find out the following:

  • There are impositions in the way they can dress;
  • They are not allowed to dance;
  • They are restricted from entertainment, aside from classical music; they are not allowed to watch films or listen to “dangerous music”;
  • They are sexual puritans;
  • Everyone outside of their sect is going to Hell.

But hey, they can tell you all about the EU, right? They just want to “keep you informed”.

One might think such a book can only be written by seasoned researchers; instead, it was written by the people described here by a former member, who was born into the sect and later renounced religion.

There is nothing in the leaflet indicating their intention to convert the recipient. It’s slimy.

In their own words (which I’m sure many didn’t research before asking for the book):

God’s work is supposed to be advancing and not receding. Here at Advent Books we are recognizing the problems within the United Kingdom and with God’s help we are addressing the need of reaching the millions of dying souls.

Just in the first 4 months of 2014 over 1.1 million homes have been reached and over 1500 books have been sent out.

Now we are planning to expand to reach more people.

Reaching the People of the United Kingdom…

Advent Books is dedicated to reaching the people of Great Britain. Over the last 11 Years 15,000 people have been reached and we are planning to expand to reach many many more people.

Advent Books is planning to wake up Great Britain through the Literature work, reaching more homes, more souls as quick as possible.

Would you like to Help?

Can You Imagine:

Every Home in Great Britain receiving an offer for the book The Great Controversy – Twice

Yes that is right every home in great Britain receiving the offer of The Great Controversy 2 times. And alongside this offer would be the opportunity of receiving the postal Bible studies. Great Britain has over 25 Million homes and already half of these have been covered.

It is our Job to get the literature out like the leaves of Autumn.

Other Denominations reading Ellen White Books

Can you imagine Pentecostals, Baptists, Methodists, Catholics reading books and compilations by Ellen White. Yes that is right it is our aim to offer books like Desire of Ages to other denominations inviting them to use them as their church study book.

Now is the time to act to reach other people and we as Seventh-day Adventists can reach other denominations through these books. Could you imagine when Easter comes Christians reading from Desire of Ages the closing scenes of Christ’s Life?

I can imagine this – lets go out there and reach the people.

Books available in Regular Stores

It is our goal to have Ellen White books available in regular book stores and retail outlets. To have the British public to be able to walk into their local book store or supermarket and pick of the shelf a Patriarchs and Prophets or Desire of Ages etc this will be a major achievement.

To know God’s books are available throughout Great Britain sitting on book stores shelves ready to be bought will certainly advance our Lord’s second coming.

How ironic is this?

A foreign sect, coming to “save the dying souls” of British people by claiming to educate them on what they perceive as their effort to remove foreign domination.

To Red-Pilled Ladies Who Somehow Think They’re Special

There are quite a few ladies nowadays who think that because they disavow feminism in its current form, their next logical step is joining the MRM, qualifying as “those who are cool and different”. Arguing against the legal overreach of feminism is one thing – for some it’s a path to taking the “red pill” (and swallowing, pretending not to notice the foul taste).

If, as a woman, you want to know what the Red Pill is really about, don’t start with what you reject about modern feminism, namely today’s exaggerations. Start with the “positives” – what they actually think and want out of life. And if you identify with that or don’t feel revulsion, good luck.

You’re not part of their gang, nor are you witnessing their discussions as an outside observer.The walking “flashlight”, the inferior animal with secret “rape fantasies”, the “use by date” commodity – that’s you. They’re not just talking about certain women or most women or women you don’t associate with, but every single one, including their acolytes, partners/wives, mothers, grannies, sisters etc. Logically, since it’s all about biological determinism, it would apply to their daughters as well.

Here is an excellently written account of a woman’s interaction with this crowd, initially neutral, out of sheer curiosity, wanting to better provide “what men typically want” to her partner. What she stumbled upon was a pit of glorified misery, on one side, and a bunch of  bona fide sociopaths on the other. In between there were a few masochistic women grovelling at their feet, in agreement with their judgement.

Whereas the MRM as a whole has a reputation of distancing men from women, the Red Pill aims to depict women as commodities, to be manipulated, exploited and discarded. It’s the sociopath’s handbook, so to speak. No empathy, no connection, no consideration. Obtaining sex is referred to as “game” (a term also used to describe the carcasses of hunted animals).

This attitude might be understandable when coupled with teenage frustration. Yet Red Pill strategies were concocted by grown men, who claim they are applicable even in a marriage. Members egg each other on to cheat and emotionally abuse their partners as efficiently as possible, in cold blood, and then report back to the community for a gag. And indeed, there are accounts of men who applied these strategies to later regret it.

Nihilism is OK at 15. An adult is assumed to have enough life experience to consider the humanity of others and at least not harm them in a premeditated manner, after gaining their confidence. If they cannot do so, pathology is involved.

The much exulted channel Red Pill Philosophy claims women are biologically programmed to get down on their knees and “serve the cock”. Sure enough, by intermingling with them, some women appear to prove them right; for some, it seems, it would take being physically defecated on to become aware of their true standing.

There are men who get off by watching videos of women being slapped or punched “because they were looking for it”. It’s a YouTube genre by now. “The bitch got what she deserved”; “men strike back”; “here’s your equality”.  And even if those particular women pushed men’s boundaries to the very limit, what type of person does it take to enjoy watching that? One can agree with abstract concepts, such as men fighting back when assaulted, without jerking off to their depiction and replaying three times, just as one can agree from a distance that perhaps a military intervention was justified, without actually enjoying the sight of dead bodies. There is a difference. They get off on seeing women being hit; it really boils down to that. Even some titles exude delight.

Back to the Reddit story.

All these confident big-name gurus with their Red Pill channels made it easy to interact with actual adherents and my user name was obviously female so I thought I might enlighten them. Mistake. No matter how sweet and rational my comments, kindly pointing out that NAWALT and there are plenty of good gals out there, I was called “ugly” and a “liar” and told to leave. There were other female commenters who would suck up to the men and agree with all the misogyny and they would get patted on the head. But when I even quoted Jordan Peterson (oh boy) the boys club flipped out at me and labeled me a c&*t. Nothing short of full capitulation would appease these twerps.

Case in point.

AWALT (all women are like that) by definition includes present company, namely the ladies posting there in support of such views. It’s probably not their intention and they probably assume they are viewed differently; however “all” does not leave room for interpretation.

It was widely accepted that any woman my age (over 30) was a withered hag who had no real prospects but this did not match my life experience.

Not only is the “sell by” date meant to apply to their prospective partners, but as mentioned above, it logically applies to all their female relatives as well, should they be over 30 and single, for any reason.

Would one of these men say something like that in front of his divorced or widowed mother who is looking to remarry?

I felt pity and compassion.

Until I read the Married Red Pill subreddit.

That… was the darkest depth of human ugliness on the whole of the web. Holy crap. Instead of poor kicked puppies posting out of loneliness I found the Dark Triad masquerading as husbands. Men who hated their wives and called them “disgusting” and men who urged eachother to have affairs, all from a combat style relationship which made it hard to picture them ever standing up in a tux and saying their wedding vows. Post after ugly post. That was it for me, that was the end goal of Red Pill.

I’ve read some as well, out of morbid curiosity. They are exactly as described above.

Imagine that while a wife goes about her routine, even out of inertia, and keeps washing a man’s spunk off the sheets after he gets off thinking about someone else, he slumps over a desk expressing the most chilling contempt for her, as he wipes off the last crumbs of his desert. Imagine he describes her body and private parts for all to see; how sick the sight of her makes him and how sickening it is to have sex with her. Meanwhile she washes his socks and thinks of what to cook for him the next day. And after having received groans of commiseration from his fellow redditers, he goes to bed beside the “disgusting cow” and says good night to her.

It’s fair enough to fall out of love or to stop being attracted to someone. Shit happens. Divorce happens and sometimes it’s for the best.

What you read there isn’t a simple lack of attraction or wanting a divorce. It’s pure, unadulterated hatred; the kind that makes you think the OP might just smother his wife with a pillow one night for existing. No one deserves that just for failing to conform to someone’s physical standards.

For some cheating is not enough. Boasting about it is not enough. They have to actively humiliate their wives in front of complete strangers they share nothing with, except this hatred of “substandard women”. When you’ve been through years, perhaps decades of your life with someone, had children, shared powerful experiences, and still don’t grant them enough humanity to not describe their naked bodies on the internet, you are one sick motherfucker.

Either on Reddit or elsewhere, the same story, in a plethora of variations, keeps popping up – a man who is, to some degree, dissatisfied, comes across the Red Pill or MGTOW. He becomes increasingly abusive and, many times, the relationship or marriage falls apart. It’s described by men and women alike as a gradual process, often taking months for extreme  behaviour to manifest.

Again – if you’re a confident, attractive woman and think you can meet the standards of a Red Pill adherent, you are in fact:

  1. Conforming to being considered less intelligent by your social circle;
  2. Accepting that abusive tactics will be deliberately used on you in a relationship;
  3. Accepting that past a certain age (30) you will be considered valueless;
  4. Accepting that you will at best be tolerated but never respected.

As a last note, yet another Reddit comment which makes a lot of sense.

Forget about women for a second: Red pill is pure masochism for the supposed target audience.

According to TRP, 99% of all women are vile creatures always ready to backstab when you show the slightest weakness…

Yet you’re supposed to change your entire persona and your entire life just to bed as many as these vampires as possible. Is that schizo or what?

If women are indeed so terrible, than being “alpha” is even worse, because “alpha” exists only to sexually please the very same people he hates. Again, how fucking insane.

A 24*7 World of Warcraft playing virgin who genuinely enjoys what he does is a million times more alpha than any TRP lunatic.

Also, hating 50% of humanity yet arranging one’s life primarily to have sex with them is sexual abuse of oneself. Sex becomes intertwined with these negative feelings, yet also becomes the most important thing in your life to boot. So negativity itself becomes your life-goal.

It’s a sure ticket to the psych-ward in the long run.

Writers Using Microsoft Word Should Be Very Concerned

In May, the new Terms of Service, freshly embellished by Microsoft, will allow the company to “revise the content” of a service user if there are suspicions of it violating their Code of Conduct.

That involves a sweeping freedom to police any material created using Microsoft Office for “offensive language”, whatever that means (no list of actual words is provided, therefore making it an arbitrary judgement).

By default, that would include any drafts (calling a typed document a manuscript may seem strange) someone isn’t sharing and is keeping for completion and editing. Private writings, to be specific.

Anything you keep there, from memoirs and journals to fiction, will be, as of May, potentially “revised” (policed) by Microsoft at their discretion in search of forbidden language, even though such documents are, I repeat, private.

If, say, a character you have created uses “offensive language” or “hate speech”, your document just might be flagged by a bot, resulting in someone peering into it and anything else you might’ve written.

No, they are not law enforcement and the only consequence would be the swift termination of your Microsoft account, with its potential ramifications (which could be substantial if OneDrive is the only backup you use for your files, for instance).

Nonetheless, it is downright creepy and too evocative of communism. At least a manuscript written in those days could be physically hidden or destroyed; nowadays that is not the case.

And if anyone is puzzled over people freaking out over this, please note it does not mean those people use racist, xenophobic, homophobic etc language or want to do so in the future. But this is just too creepy.

Not knowing exactly what words they’ll be looking for means they can set any criteria for “offensiveness”.

Whilst engaging in creative writing, the last thing you want to worry about is whether a term you use, either directly or through a character, is flagged by a bot, resulting in the complete invasion of your privacy and termination of your account (without warning and enough time to retrieve any information you might lose, I presume).

Your emails and Skype communications will also be policed. Yes, that is actually coming, pardon the alarmist tone.

Most emails are very private and unless they represent proof of some criminal activity, they should remain as such; it is unacceptable for someone to be scrutinised by a company for the language they use in that context; it would be like doing so for the language used inside their home.

That is somewhat like the Stasi opening up your intimate letters, looking through your journals and manuscripts to check for forbidden words. The feeling is causes is similar – that of being suddenly watched in everything you do and transmit to others.

Whilst I understand the need for restricting language on a public platform, where people interact and can cause or take offence (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc), this is like invading a person’s home; a person’s private space.

Of course, you do have options. Such as Libre Office (which I am now using). And Linux (which I will be using shortly).

We’re all aware surveillance is going on at some level. But this is too much.

It’s not law enforcement looking for potential (actual) threats, but what’s-his-face working for a corporation, behind a computer screen, going through your private material scouring for something to pick on.

I rest my case.

Later Edit

Apparently, the “revision” would have to be prompted by a complaint against you (although if they reserve the right to revise your material anytime they could do it regardless, and your consent would be presumed by continuing to use their services).

But even that leaves room for abuse and vindictiveness.

Let’s say you sent a joke, at any point, containing language deemed unacceptable by Microsoft, to someone you trusted, via email or Skype.

Let’s say the person later becomes angry and vindictive towards you, for completely unrelated reasons. They are now aware of you having broken the code of conduct, even in a minuscule way and in good spirits at the time.

They can now launch a complaint against you and prompt Microsoft to invade your privacy and possibly terminate your account.

So no, this is not a workable plan.

I understand that the comparison to communism may seem exaggerated.

However, in those days, and presumably now in some countries, reporting a person for having used a forbidden term or having expressed a forbidden opinion was sometimes a matter of retaliation for personal issues.

It’s not a far stretch to conclude that this policy would – and will – be used by some to settle personal vendettas.

 

Idealisation – A Plague For Free Thought

Many people today proclaim their healthy scepticism as a guiding principle, constantly reevaluating their views, absorbing more information and trying to be as objective as possible when taking a stance.

Apparently, at least.

When engaging in conversations on social media, I can’t help but notice how many are still enslaved by their biases to the point of rejecting proven facts, denying history and common sense, not to mention displaying double standards, in order to affirm their complete trust in a public figure, political movement or religious figment.

The enamourment of some leftists with Margaret Sanger runs along these lines.

She is praised as a hero for “championing women’s rights”, when her declared agenda was to rid her country of as many “undesirables” as possible (underprivileged, that is).

Rumour has it the left stands for those same people Margaret Sanger despised; the internet is littered with quotes from her books, praising eugenics as an efficient method of reducing the number of the “unfit”. She showed nothing but disdain for them.

However, since she is pushed forward by the religious as some kind of proof that atheists are utilitarian, some atheists have embraced her as a symbol of women’s liberation. That in itself shows they either know nothing about the woman’s actual views and simply propagate memes, or they don’t mind those views that much, despite adhering to the left side of politics, which now campaigns against these exact views today.

Honestly, it’s a mindfuck.

Propaganda in favour of eugenics has not been mere hateful rhetoric; it has had dramatic, life-altering consequences for large numbers of people, who were subjected to forced sterilisation in the US and elsewhere.

There is probably nothing more degrading to a human being than being told they are so unworthy of life that anyone potentially carrying one of their traits must be prevented, by force, from being born.

Nowhere does the elitist part of the left become more evident than in agreeing with or tolerating eugenics. Some commentators infer the measure was meant to reduce impairing conditions; however, it implies considering those singled out inferior by default, and less or not worthy of existing.

And where would one draw the line once the initial line is crossed? What would be acceptable to some?

Sanger didn’t focus on the passing down of “wrong genes” (those causing impairments), but on limiting the number of poor people, not by reducing poverty but by encouraging the poor to stop breeding.

How that can coexist in someone’s mind with seeking equality and social justice, I’ll never understand.

 

 

 

The Alt-Right Fetishising Eastern Dictatorships

It’s something you’d have to see to believe – some who lament the “tyranny” of today’s left have developed a fascination with countries like Russia and Belarus.

Sifting through hundreds of comments below documentaries such as this one, revealing a system much like Ceausescu’s Romania, was a baffling experience. The blood-curdling accounts of people threatened with arrest for watching anti-system plays, the imprisonment of political dissidents and candidates, the assassination attempts, the executions and torture, the disappeared who have never been heard from again.

All this to some means absolutely nothing, compared to the fact that “in the UK you’re not allowed to bash gays or be racist anymore”. All this, compared to the drama of the persecuted “white cis heterosexual man”, is a side issue.

“Minsk is the cleanest capital in Europe”, some say. “The streets are safe and people are happy there; pay no attention to western propaganda; liberals are the true fascists.”

“I love how this documentary is like “this place is an evil dictatorship” and people look insanely happy.”

How deluded can these people be?

Just because it doesn’t happen in front of their eyes on a daily basis, while they’re on holiday, they’re willing to claim it’s not an issue. Guess what – communist Romania did a great job of creating an idyllic image while these horrors were going on in the background. In public, everyone laughed and clapped enthusiastically, and had to be seen smiling, while privately terrified of what could happen to them for having told a joke in a pub. To this day some around the world take that “happiness” as genuine.When are they going to stop believing those who claim a dictator is widely loved, for fear of losing their lives if they say otherwise?

Why must those who suffer brutality, genuine censorship and having family members murdered be spat in the face by basement-dwelling skinheads who call their situation “ideal”?

To some, Belarus sounds like paradise.

“They didn’t submit to the Jewish plan of flooding Europe with immigrants.” “You are not forced to adopt the gay agenda there.”

How fucked up must someone be, and how central to their life must it be to bash gays or be racist, to claim they’d rather live among KGB kidnappings and executions than endure the diversity of western liberalism?

That is why sane people are adverse to socialist states, shitheads. Because of what has happened and continues to happen in places like Belarus.

How can those who complain about Twitter bans drool over living in a place where one is arrested and tortured for having the wrong opinion? How can they even make that comparison?

Russia is an even greater example of popular misconception, as Putin has, paradoxically, become the hero of “free speech advocates” who “oppose the Soros-sponsored agenda of leftist censorship”.

What it boils down to, for these muppets, is that even though such countries are suffocated by human rights abuses, people there still have the crucial “freedom” to be bigots, which to them seems to be everything that matters.

 

It’s Not Zen; It’s Neurosis

Although the title is in jest, as by no means am I qualified to identify mental illness, I have to point out my perplexity in the face of the toothpaste commercial smiles, literal or figurative, displayed by religious zealots I have debated. More often than not, the glibness masks a deep anxiety, which surfaces as soon as their claims are disputed.

It’s almost as if they had something to prove to themselves, not to the world at large, about the purity of their positivity and beliefs.

At first sight, they look down on the rest of us mortals from a mountain top, convinced they have mastered not only the art of flawless living, but also boundless love for mankind and the perfect, guru-like composure.

“God has filled me with love; like Him, I love even those who hate me; I know it’s not their time to understand the divine plan yet. I look upon them with compassion, extending my hand with a fragrant flower and the holy scriptures. I know they will someday find the right path and I have a duty to point them towards it. I smile at them and speak softly, and nothing can ever disturb my peace.”

Not only are their claims about the world, so gently expanded upon, often offensive and repulsive (when not simply delusional); when they are challenged, this love swiftly morphs into indignation, false pity and even disdain.

However, there are those non-believers who take the “niceness” seriously for the sake of civility (though claiming to be free thinkers) and thereby defend it, regarding the drivel-spewer as an elegant dove of peace, as long as their tone remains a soft one. The grotesque nature of what they are actually saying seems beside the point. Pretending that it doesn’t bother me or insult my intelligence would be a lie.

The invisible Stasi 

When speaking to a believer, one must remain aware that they are not only preoccupied with what their interlocutors think, but also with how they fare before the omnipresent, ever-recording God, who takes note of their every word and thought, to someday hold them accountable. Which is why a natural dialogue, unrestrained by such concerns, is hardly possible. It’s like having an invisible oppressor over your shoulder, speaking only what he/she would like to hear, in anticipation of a reward or punishment, if not now then later.

Imagine this train of thought inside a believer’s head, in a real time conversation with a detractor.

“I’m calm because You want me to be calm. OK, this one is a little standoffish. Inspire me to persuade him. Nope, that didn’t work. He’s really getting on my nerves now but I must be kind, because he will eventually see Your greatness. Should I call him out? You called people out so I guess it’s alright. I can’t lose my temper though because I will fail you and I can’t afford that. OK, this didn’t work either. Let’s up the game a bit. I know it’s hypocritical; I’m far from perfect; but you want me to teach him, right? I’m doing your work here. Unless I lose my humility and then I’ll be guilty of pride and sent to hell. But this guy just blasphemed; it’s unacceptable. Will you please forgive him? I must pray for him; it’s my duty. I must show love. Alright; that’s it. Warrior mode now. There’s a time and a place and this is it. Give me strength to put up with this idiot and set him straight. Oh, here goes the pride again… I’m sorry. But I must fight your war. That slightly compensates for my sins, which are numerous. Oh shit; I’m going to hell anyway, aren’t I?”

Of course these thoughts would occur at the speed of light, but that’s a glimpse into how it feels to live with the divine Stasi in your head. Everything is filtered through what he would or wouldn’t want from his loyal minion.

Which is why a conversation of this type cannot unfold naturally.

Satan in the bush

Not only is God following and recording the believer in real time; Satan lurks nearby as well. And as we know from Christian teachings, he seeks to exploit someone’s flimsiest weakness. He reads minds too – that’s how they have to watch their thoughts constantly, lest they be intercepted and used for temptation.

That is why the believer is, deep down, in a perpetual state of anxiety – and that’s why a relaxed and “loving” conversation can swiftly turn into the non-believer being warded off as a propagator of devilish lies. Have you ever noticed how quickly they switch their mode? It’s no secret that, as the “Satanic panic” proves, devout Christians see threats to their purity everywhere and are quick to avoid potential corruption. There are countless videos claiming to identify satanic influences in popular culture.

The very next step, for some, is to claim that non-believers (and especially anti-theists) are, wittingly or not, “working for the devil” (hey Satan, cough up the dough; I’m due a few years’ wages).

A believer therefore cannot yield an inch, for fear of leaving God or Satan with the impression of taking their faith less seriously. If a mere “maybe” slips past their lips or keyboard, it’s bad news.

God’s persecuted soldier

One might wonder how a person can seem Prozac-happy while thinking the world is evil, adverse to anything pure and a constant source of corruption.  The cult member/religious fanatic grin, accompanied by a glazed stare, is partly rooted in the thought of being special.

We are the chosen ones, who will emerge victorious; we rejoice anything the world throws at us.

This mentality leads them to see anyone attempting to reason with them as their persecutors, their enemies, who seek to transform the world into a satanic kingdom of debauchery and cold, murderous utilitarianism (atheists are associated with Nazism, communism etc).

Hence even a simple debate turns into the ancestral fight between good and evil; not only are they inflating their role but seeing you as a revolutionary for the destruction of the world (for, say, agreeing with gay marriage). Every anti-theist position you hold, even mildly, grants you that label automatically. They are at war, imagining you want to destroy them (yep, that actually happens and it’s quite something to witness).

The prodigal son fetish

I’ve seen believers describe (so candidly) their fantasies of the day those who reject God will turn around and glorify him, as if positioned atop a hill, watching the end of a long torment they suspect unbelief is (indulge in some popcorn while you’re at it). This phantasm fills their hearts with warmth and produces a delighted smile, based on… well, a shit sandwich. Based on nothing, basically.

Somehow they’re unable to comprehend how alienating that is and how it facilitates cutting contact with them altogether. It’s uncomfortable to relate to someone when in real time they are developing this parallel fantasy in their head where you’re concerned (one you’re aware will never manifest). The fact that they don’t accept you for who you are is reason enough to distance yourself (when feasible, of course). Whilst you might exercise tolerance with an elderly relative, everything considered, when it comes to friends matters are very different.

The saviour/ teacher fantasy

Isn’t it every believer’s dream to bring a poor lost soul into/  back into the fold? The condescension and tone of the wise lecturer are enough to make someone vomit.The appeal to emotion, the manipulation and all the cheap techniques they imagine they can use on you only produce embarrassed laughter, in the vein of this is so pathetic. 

Holding the absolute truth, a believer is convinced of being able to outsmart you and gently prod you into joining the ranks. The bouts of creativity in approaching you don’t demonstrate genuine wisdom or profound thought, but a mere sales pitch.

Don’t you know it’s their duty to love and correct you, to feel sad when you sin (although they do it constantly as well)? The righteous have a duty to “preach the truth”, even after in practice they fall short of following it.

Which is why you must be made to believe that they are genuinely better and happier than the general population.

Mutual reinforcement 

“Don’t worry; these people are on such a low level; they lack the proper understanding of our doctrine. They’ve got their own role as our challengers. But we’re safe in our world (wink wink).”

Community spirit can be so helpful and yet so damaging, depending on the circumstances. When troubled by logical questions posed by nonbelievers, believers often seek comfort in the safe bosom of their echo chamber. In conversations with multiple interlocutors, a dialogue of this type feels like observing a case of folie a deux. There is no need for reason or logical arguments, only exultation on both sides.

Tell them all you like that Noah couldn’t have gathered and “housed” all species of subterranean animals, not to mention all animals living halfway across the planet, which wouldn’t even have survived in his particular climate. That he was not a tamer of lions and pumas and crocodiles. That a boat that size, with the available materials and technology, wouldn’t even float.”God made it happen”, because “God can do anything”.

The glibness sometimes comes from the reassurance that no matter how far-fetched the things they claim are, there is someone in the vicinity to provide an echo. In fact, in a fair number of countries, the religious constitute the majority, which is why they can happily spill any bullshit without worrying about how it sounds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Alt-Right Would Enjoy Living Under Sharia

If it weren’t for the dread of having to worship a different sky goblin, I swear these people would have a field day being able to revert their treatment of women to that of the 1800s.

Jordan Peterson claims women shouldn’t be allowed to wear makeup or high heels at work; that sexual harassment is their fault and women and men likely aren’t able to work together.

This guy has been praised for a good couple of years for his stand on newly invented gender pronouns; ever since, he has evolved into the go-to conservative academic for opposition to whatever the left tries to push. Although he sounded levelled to begin with and more tempered than the usual reactionary band, it seems that at the end of the day, philosophising aside, he holds the view of a religious puritan – women should be mandated to stop “provoking”, because men can’t help themselves.

Though his solution is not to have them covered from head to toes, as those in Islamic theocracies are, the drive is identical – women enjoy too much freedom of expression; they should be treated as sexual nitroglycerine and have a dress code imposed on them when men are present.

Never mind that women who abandon their femininity in aesthetic terms (some radical feminists for instance), giving up makeup, cutting their hair short and at times growing their armpit hair, are referred to, by the same crowd, as a disgrace to womanhood and completely unappealing.

Nope. They don’t want them dressing like men (that causes impotence apparently), but they don’t want them excessively feminine either, as unwanted erections are also an inconvenience. They must want some virginal, nun-like characters whose sole intention is to make sure they are not noticed. Who would know that their appearance is likely to cause offence for all the wrong reasons.

Reinstate Magdalene laundries while you’re at it. Dickhead.

Why red lipstick, he asks. Well (I’m paraphrasing), it’s because it’s indicative of sexual arousal. Because every woman going to work, apparently, is not worried about the long hours, mortgage, debt, family duties or a boring job – she goes there specifically to show her male colleagues how she looks when sexually aroused. Every single day, as she gets ready, that is her drive. For an academic, such views are incredibly simplistic and idiotic.

Never mind that a woman goes out in public in a manner she feels comfortable in, and some wouldn’t leave their homes without the makeup routine – partly because they know that if they don’t look their best, they might be jeered at by the same entourage which also jeers at them for looking too appealing. They just can’t win, can they? And by winning, I mean be left alone.

I don’t suppose the same standards would apply to ladies well past their prime, considerably overweight ones or those with a visible physical defect. Men who think like Jordan Peterson are only concerned with the object of their own desire – young,  very attractive women. Maybe if they stopped wanking off to porn every day they would cease to look at a colleague and immediately think she is provoking through the colour of her lipstick, like a Playboy bunny. I understand male hyper-sexuality, but FFS, they can keep these obsessions to their private space.

I think it’s grotesque for a woman to set off to work each day keeping primarily in mind that her male colleagues or employers will study her from head to toes. And that she, just by being female, is some kind of threat to their mental well-being.

Which brings me to the fact that I don’t understand the alt-right’s opposition to Sharia law, where women are concerned; if someone were to formulate a similar doctrine for the west, changing only what specifically pertains to Muslim worship, I reckon they’d be more than happy. Apparently, they’ve got vagina on their brains to such extent that women in their vicinity are a danger/ in danger.

Stefan Molyneux, another guru for young men who can’t get laid and become nostalgic for eras they’ve never experienced, claims, among other things, that a woman belongs in the home, for breeding purposes (I know I sound like a feminist here, and believe me, I’m not; I simply find this approach vile, as is any attempt to impose a lifestyle choice to others). Being a homemaker is a choice, in the west anyway. It’s not my place or Molyneux’s to dictate what a woman should want out of life.

The illustrious bullshit spinner also has a rather strange obsession with the clitoris (a woman wants to tie a string to her clit and drag the man along, paraphrasing again). His misogyny, transparent down to his tone, which oozes anger and frustration, is poisonous to young minds.

One notable position he holds is that women are responsible for starting families with complete arseholes – as if, you know, during courtship an arsehole actually displayed his natural behaviour. In other words, if a woman finds herself in an abusive situation and is unable to leave, it’s her fault after all. The idea that women only date aggressive men and should instead date “nice” members of Incel was what motivated Elliot Rodger to go on a shooting spree. AWALT is not some innocuous groan of frustration thrown around on Reddit; it actually has consequences.

All in all, I can find clear congruence between adepts of Sharia law and this new generation of right-wingers (MRA, alt-right, Christian conspiracy nutters etc; they are all patting each other on the back for being “red pilled” when it comes to women). These are some of the points they seem to agree on:

  • A return to outdated moral values and social standards is necessary;
  • Attractive women should cover up to avoid male attention;
  • Men just can’t keep it in their trousers and sexual assaults are provoked;
  • There is rampant sexual immorality in the world, with a focus on sexual minorities;
  • Women either belong in the home, with alpha males as providers, or should be rejected altogether as whores and deviants;
  • The alpha male must protect his territory, status, ego etc;
  • Militarism and hawkishness are apparels of “true alpha males”;
  • Men should be the unquestioned leaders of their households and communities (it’s not like Jim Jones and Warren Jeffs didn’t do a splendid job);
  • Adultery on a woman’s part is unforgivable, whilst men can fuck about all they like, or have multiple wives, respectively;
  • Women’s nature is to be submissive and a variation in that sense is deviant/ rebellious;
  • In group interactions (work for instance), men and women are better off separated.
  • Women are immature and unworthy of leadership positions or intellectual endeavours.

It’s slightly amusing that just today I learned of research carried out by Dr. Hector Garcia, regarding the god archetypes humanity seems to construct. “The Alpha God” details the links between our late primate ancestors and our current behaviours and aspirations, culminating in the kind of being we imagine as worthy of worshiping.

The archetype of an all-powerful alpha male, before whom mortals must bow (I’d never known apes also bow before alphas in their group, hence that’s where all the submission rituals must come from…and believers think they are establishing a connection with the divine… when they are in fact just imitating apes).

The being Christians and Muslims worship is very, very concerned with men’s inability to control their sexual urges and women’s moral duty to cover up.

This has nothing to do with ethics or spirituality but with Cro-Magnon understanding of human nature.

 

“Everyday Feminism” Revisited

One might think that due to the backlash received in recent years, feminists were slowing down or reconsidering what they’d chosen as priorities in their activism. One might also hope they come to terms with the role they have played in harming the causes they are promoting.

Intersectional feminism is an ill-inspired attempt to intermingle a vast array of social issues, some very real and pressing, with the so-called grievances of western women, not only failing to help but dragging these causes down. Activism addressing political asylum, the protection of non-criminal illegal immigrants, poverty and racial discrimination has now, in the minds of many, been conflated with  the voices of hysterical bra-burners whose main efforts, centred on trifles, cause general frustration.

Through this they have created a bridge between the increasingly radical Men’s Rights Movement and the far right, the first starting to adopt the positions of the latter in order to counter the pussy hat parades. In spite of their obvious role in “feeding the monster”, they’re taking it as confirmation of the validity of their claims (that all evils of this world can be traced back to “the privileged”, namely cisgender heterosexual white men).

Hence they are persevering.

Everyday Feminism, for instance, maintains its goal of coaching and radicalising those sympathising with its stances, and remains as absurd as ever.

To start with, here is a recent list of ten things every intersectional feminist should ask on a first date.Needless to say, it reads like an interview for joining a socialist organisation.

There is nothing reflecting a human being’s desire to engage in romance with another – but a cold and dry inventory of requirements. In real life, this conversation would raise the cringe level to the ceiling, unless it involved a radical male feminist as the interviewee. And yet, this is meant to be a guide with practical application.

1. Do you believe that Black Lives Matter?

If they are willing to learn and listen and make the space to decenter their whiteness (if they are white), that’s a good place to start.

The use of capitals suggests this is a reference to the BLM movement, though when verbalised it can be taken literally; in other words, she’s asking her date whether he thinks the lives of Black people are as valuable as all others. The question implies her suspicion he might think otherwise. You don’t suddenly ask people if they’re raging racists; it’s not only rude; it’s insulting.

Making space to decenter their whiteness is very vague; some preaching on her part is implied though, as in “I’m going to educate you about this and you’re expected to listen and react in a certain way”. In addition, she presumes that just because he is white, he needs to change his attitude for the conversation to go well. Presumptuous and insulting, again.

 2. What are your thoughts on gender and sexual orientation?

One out of many important elements to dismantling patriarchy is to abolish gender roles as well as the limited understanding that we have about sexuality and gender itself.

Now that we’re clear her date is expected to shoulder dismantling the patriarchy, I don’t get what sexual orientation has to do with abolishing gender roles.

Civilised societies are for individualism; there is no mandate to live a certain way, hence there are no imposed gender roles; they are only traditional. With no imposition there is no oppression against anyone who wants to live differently.

The need to change everyone’s mind about gender roles is solipsistic and difficult to understand. It’s not other people taking issue with how feminists want to live, but them taking issue with everyone else, for private choices. It’s nobody’s business how adults voluntarily associate with each other; whether they adopt traditional gender roles or not.

It seems he also has to acquiesce to the list of 300 made-up genders, which, sorry to burst your bubble, is a step too far even for many leftists.

3. How do you work to dismantle sexism and misogyny in your life?

I’ve met cisgender heteronormative (cishet) men who hate women. They say they love women, but that love is conditional on not having their toxic masculinity questioned or threatened in any way. And they love us as a monolith, they love what women have to offer, whether it is sex, food, love, care, emotional labor: they love us for what we can do for them, not because of who we are for ourselves. It is crucial for cishet men to learn how to decenter their male privilege in order for them to understand the multitudes of interpretations of femininity and womanhood.

Again with the insults, assuming his tendency is to be sexist and in order to be a decent person he must “work” against his nature constantly. That he’s got male privilege; that he (by default) doesn’t get what women are about and needs to learn (I can only hope she’s not dating a ten-year-old). Speaking that way to another adult is monumentally cringe-worthy.

And guess what – what you have to offer is part of who you are and someone appreciating certain aspects is not depersonalising or objectifying. Just because you might’ve run into some arsehole who discounted your other qualities does not mean “all cishet men are like that”. This whole BS has generated the famous AWALT in response (“all women are like that”) the Red Pill proudly brainwashes men with.

4. What are your thoughts on sex work?

You may scratch your head at this one, but much like racism and misogynoir, being pro-sex worker is a necessary pillar of dismantling the patriarchy. I don’t mean pro-sex worker in the sense where non-sex workers write op-eds and think pieces about how sex work is amazing and feminist.

I don’t see how that should matter; it’s a controversial subject, not for outdated religious reasons but the circumstances around sex work (poverty, exploitation, sustaining a drug addiction, forced prostitution etc). I doubt anyone grows up with this career choice in mind. It’s common sense that most sex workers would rather be doing something else for a living.

And I certainly don’t blame anyone for disagreeing that it’s “just a job”. There are parents out there who can’t help the visceral reaction at the thought of their daughters ending up in that situation. There is a difference between being pro-sex workers in terms of agreeing they should be protected and helped, and being pro-sex work per se.

I find it more misogynistic to consider women pieces of meat who should be encouraged to rent their bodies, putting their health at risk, for the day’s meal, as if they were incapable of using their brains instead. It’s nobody’s place to judge, but let’s not glorify this; it might just trivialise the very real problems around sex work. It’s a last choice for many.

But that’s feminism for you. It glorifies issues women are often forced into by circumstances (prostitution, abortion, wearing the hijab etc), as if they were freely made choices and proof of women’s liberation.

5. Are you a supporter of the BDS movement?

BDS stands for “Boycott, Divest, Sanctions” — an effort to end international support for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians. (…) I shouldn’t even have to express that, but being pro-Palestine and BDS is a necessary part of intersectionality.

Of course it’s anyone’s prerogative to be passionate about a political cause and hope they can convince others to join; however, making it a prerequisite for speaking to a person is a far stretch. It’s like saying if someone’s not interested, for whatever reason, they are not worth your time or they couldn’t be decent people in a hundred different ways.

6. What is your understanding of settler colonialism and indigenous rights?

It required a good deal of my own research to really understand how settler colonialism works and how devastating the erasure and violence against Native Americans is and was.

Your date thinks Native Americans are tropes or relics of the past? NO THANKS.  A key part of intersectionality is having a complete understanding of how historical and current policies endangered the lives of millions of people, simply because of white supremacy and the colonialist entitlement to finite resources and land.

This seems to be aimed at Americans, yet obviously, it could apply anywhere in broader terms, as colonialism has impacted the entire planet. I agree to a point that a decent person would not discount the trauma it has caused (and continues to cause). Failure to do so might indicate insensitivity or callousness (unless the person simply isn’t knowledgeable or interested, which is also a possibility).

As always, there’s a “but”. Colonialism hasn’t been exclusive to white people throughout history. And since the author demands in-depth historical knowledge from her date (which he is not guaranteed to have), she should demonstrate the same.

7. Do you think capitalism is exploitative?

If your date says they’re anti-fascist and part of the resistance but they’re cool with exploiting labor from communities of color and they support the school to prison pipeline, then there’s a good chance they’ll only value you for your ability to nurture them without any reciprocation.

Again, this references American issues, whilst the guide is meant to be for any intersectional feminist. The exploitative prison system is an exclusively American problem, not to be associated with capitalism as a concept. Of course, it’s common sense that capitalism allows for exploitation – but where exactly does the last assertion fit in? What connection is there between capitalism and romantic relationships? Oh, right. None.

What she’s saying is “always date a socialist, anarchist etc”. Obviously, someone doesn’t necessarily favour capitalism for its exploitative side; they might just think other systems are worse.

8. Can any human be illegal?

White Americans stole this land, colonized this land, created so many borders, pushed out, killed and enslaved people of color and somehow they have the audacity to claim that this land is theirs and that black and brown immigrants are stealing their jobs, land, and homes? Miss me with that bullshit.

No, humans are not illegal. And I agree that scapegoating immigrants is a red flag, a rather ominous one, for a whole array of similar ideas.

The stretch of claiming borders could successfully be abolished makes you seem a bit detached from reality though; there can be a middle ground. People who advocate for this unfeasible utopia pollute the conversation around real ways of improving the situation of undocumented immigrants. Whenever such ideas arise, the right counteracts by quoting the radical left as a scaremongering tactic. They warn that showing clemency to a certain group would be a slippery slope towards having open borders and rally others against any helpful program.

Extremism halts the ability to compromise, which is needed in these situations.

9. Do you support Muslim Americans and non-Muslim people from Islamic countries?

Don’t waste your time and energy on dating someone who thinks that Islam is inherently violent or misogynistic. Instead, read some Huda Sha’arawi or Mona Eltahawy to educate yourself further on Muslim feminism.

Supporting Muslims who are unfairly subjected to prejudices is one thing. They are individuals who might have nothing to do with any stereotype thrown at them.

But supporting the inherently violent and misogynistic religion Islam has always been is another. Many religious people live peacefully by cherry-picking the best parts of their dogmas, whatever their  “label” is. But that doesn’t obscure the rest of those dogmas or their broader impact. This also applies to Christianity, of course, and feminists have no problem denouncing its misogyny or violence.

They spend their days “dismantling the patriarchy” and “abolishing gender roles”, and in the next breath defend an ideology which imprisons women in innumerable ways.

Downplaying the cruelty suffered by women because of Islam is the most anti-feminist attitude I can think of; it’s a paradox and proves the cognitive dissonance these activists are afflicted by. It just can’t get any crazier.

10. Does your allyship include disabled folks?

Disabled folks are subject to shaming and violence because humans are awful and lack empathy. Be mindful of others who mock disabled people; that kind of cruelty is inexcusable.

On a date with someone who uses ableist slurs? Walk away.

It’s fair enough to start disliking your date if you hear him needlessly insult others or refer to them in cruel ways. However, the article prompts me to think the interviewer/ feminist would simply ask, out of the blue, whether the guy is in the habit of belittling disabled people. And that is one weird question when not provoked, just like the one about race.

As some of the stuff above, it’s like directly asking “are you by any chance a complete arsehole”? Pardon this guy for being taken aback by her suspicions. And pardon me for thinking the first date will also be the last one.

Then there is a comic posted last year, containing shockingly little logic, not to mention hysteria, titled “5 ways we ignore children’s agency that perpetuate rape culture”.

Since I can’t post the comic due to copyright laws, I’ll merely describe the images and copy the text.

  1. The affection mindfuck (feminists just don’t understand it).

“Give auntie a kiss! She came all the way to see you.” Versus “Aw, after that nice dinner don’t I get a kiss?”.

Children are told that adults are owed their attention and affection. When that idea is internalised it can be difficult to accept that no one is owed physical contact or emotional energy.

No; they are instead encouraged to show affection in appropriate circumstances (towards family members etc). Not constantly, towards just anybody. Of course no one can force them to at any time. Homes where no displays of affection are present are cold and in my opinion, a thing of the past (when rigidity dictated every step someone took in public or at home). Warmth helps children (and adults alike) to feel comfortable around others.

This is just insane. It infantilises adults, as if they had no capacity of discerning whether they want to become close to someone or not, their interactions being reduced to running an old script.

By the way, asking for a kiss is not part of “rape culture”, just as asking someone out is not “sexual harassment”. That’s why it’s called “asking”. They are free to say no and that’s the end of it.

2. Submitting to just anything, by default (like some kind of vegetable).

“You have to do what I say because I’m in charge. No more arguments.” Versus “Why didn’t you tell him to stop?” “He’s my captain, my boss. I didn’t know how to say no to him.”

Children are told not to argue with authority and to accept commands without question. After growing up being told you must respect authority for authority’s sake it’s difficult to refuse requests from someone in a position of authority for your own sake.

It is known that children with a very strict upbringing, who feel imposed upon and bossed around, are the most likely to rebel when maturing, which makes this hypothesis a very weak one. When someone accumulates frustration for years due to how they’ve been treated, they become anything but a docile rag doll others can do what they please with.

Secondly, the image shows a man in a military uniform, discussing an unwanted sexual interaction (in vague terms) with a male superior, as a result of “not knowing how to say no” to an authority figure. I’m sorry but it makes no sense. You’re talking about a male soldier here – someone who is physically and psychologically tough. But he’s too weak to tell someone not to fuck him up the arse and lets it happen out of politeness? I don’t think so. The author couldn’t have picked a worse hypothetical example.

I needn’t mention that if the guy happens to be straight, someone would have to physically incapacitate him to carry out an act of that nature.

So no, there is no connection. People who were brought up strictly don’t just become Renfield types, especially to the point of allowing their bodies to be violated. Whilst this does happen to impressionable boys (in the catholic church for instance), it wouldn’t happen to a grown man or woman. The “Hollywood casting couch” does not fit in here either, as the women who let it happen, or don’t report it afterwards, do so for a reason.

3. Feminists don’t understand that men are physically stronger than women.

“Even if Bobby did hit you first, fighting isn’t the answer – find an adult to help you.” Versus : “I told her to stop but she wouldn’t”. “Well why didn’t you try to fight her off?”

Children are told that even physical attacks aren’t a good enough reason to resort to violence – as adults we aren’t practiced at defending ourselves but are told we are complicit in our own abuse if we can’t fight off an attacker.

Conflating the two situations is ridiculous. The first shows a girl advised not to continue a physical fight with a boy, whilst the second involves a woman sexually attacked by another woman, grilled by a policeman on not managing to fight back.

As a parent, one is more interested in making sure a child doesn’t end up in the hospital, than the principle of a thing, and 9.9 times out of 10, a girl doesn’t stand a chance of winning that fight. If she hits back, chances are she will be hit again (and again), until she is incapacitated. Getting away asap is the safest solution, really. Unless she’s had proper training and she’s confident she can manage, it’s just not a good idea.The father in question is telling her the truth, though masked by the feminist in a queasy “violence is not the answer”. And by the way, no sane parent would advise their child to “just take it”. It’s a matter of self-preservation in real time.

The second case, of sexual assault, involves two adult women, not comparable by any stretch. Of course a difference in physical strength is still possible; however the victim admits not having tried to fend off the attacker, as a matter of choice.  The author claims it was a result of her being brainwashed by parents into putting up with such behaviour.

Every situation and response is different; being hit once (when presumably able to leave) is not comparable to being sexually assaulted, which is sustained aggression and can only be stopped by force, if words  don’t work. Legally, self-defence justifies force, to the point of killing an attacker; we do not live in a “shut up and take it” culture.

The other two “slippery slopes” involve letting oneself be inappropriately touched because of the lack of sexual education and lastly, putting up with unwanted sexual acts because of… having to visit your mother on Mother’s Day. In other words, out of duty. These two are more plausible; it depends on the culture someone develops and lives in.

Consent is a skill that must be taught and learned consistently, so it makes no sense to raise children to ignore their own consent and flip it on like a switch as soon as they become adults.

Consent is a matter of real time intuition, not a learned behaviour or skill, unless actual abuse is involved (children being used to real exploitative acts and potentially going on to do so later in life). It varies from one interaction to another; people are not robots. Consent is simply a response to another human being; there’s no rule book to apply here.

Secondly, this comic seeks to deal with assault, which is a physical act. You can’t elaborate on assault without considering the physical characteristics of those involved (sex, age, strength, condition at the time etc). Here, all such differences are disregarded, as if they didn’t matter, when they are in fact essential.

Of course, these are just two examples of the same line of thought, which is creating, at least at a discourse level, a gap between men and women.

 

Puritanical Groups: Frankenstein’s Monster

A story emerged recently, not nearly as interesting from an ideological point of view as from a psychological one.

In a way it’s classic: someone founds a group or participates in its founding, based on a set of principles. Overtime, the disciples grow more radical than the founder, turn on this person venomously and take the reins, going as far as making false accusations or starting a smear campaign.

This happened recently to Cenk Uygur, the founder of The Young Turks but also co-founder of Justice Democrats, a group seeking to contribute to the success of its candidates of choice. Besides contributing to the very start of Justice Democrats, he gave them substantial popularity through his alternative media channel (perhaps the most successful on the left).

Their gripe with him? Well, it turns out no less than 18 years ago (19 in fact, now), he wrote some pretty unsavoury things on a blog, regarding his frustration with women, general opinions on them etc.

Almost two decades ago. If anything should still matter for incrimination after two decades, in the life of any individual, it would have to be extremely serious. Something in the vein of war crimes, murder, rape or child molestation. Certainly not blog posts written on a whim, showing opinions which evolved overtime into their polar opposites.

It’s a total witch hunt. Whatever you can call Cenk Uygur, you cannot call him sexist, racist or anything else they claimed. He’s one of the leading voices on the left (far left in fact), at least in the alternative media; anyone who has followed TYT even sporadically is aware of the absurdity of these labels. They called him “part of the patriarchy” and claimed “he perpetuated rape culture”; something along those lines.

They called those off-the-cuff rants “horrifying”. Which leads me to believe said characters must’ve reached their (presumed) maturity during the SJW culture and haven’t read much worse. As others have mentioned, my first thought was whether they were, in fact, still wearing nappies when these blog posts were written. And whether their lack of understanding of someone’s opinions evolving is due to their lack off opportunity, age-wise, to go through such changes themselves.

So they’ve known this guy for a year (at least), interacted with him frequently, and somehow “failed to notice” he was “racist and sexist”, until these old posts popped up. It doesn’t seem to strike them as odd. A switch was activated in their heads and, boom – their views on him turned on their head.

Ideology aside, there is no difference between these zealots and religious ones. This prudish, couch-fainting reaction to anything slightly unpleasant from someone’s past, however inconsequential. Either they are the embodiment of a perfect record, not old enough to have ever offended anyone significantly, or they are just as susceptible to the same type of attack (likely to come from their midst at some point).

All that said – the far left created this cannibalistic “monster”.

I’ve come across gloating on TYT about people losing their jobs over tweets (not necessarily from Cenk Uygur; I can’t recall), and this is very common in the progressive camp. This isn’t the same as he was volunteering there; however in terms of one’s reputation being tainted, it’s comparable.

What the Justice Democrats did was to apply what they understood as one their immutable principles (thoughtless condemnation and banishing of other people).

 

 

The Wankery Of Guaranteed Divine Protection

It’s quite funny when one mostly has atheist or agnostic pages in their FB news feed, yet somehow gets Christian propaganda every few days. Some groups actually target non-believers.

One recent example was an inspirational tale of how a young woman was nearly mugged on a back alley one night, the only thing keeping her safe being the two angels walking beside her.

It goes like this: when walking home on a dark street to take a shortcut, a young Christian woman saw a man in a doorway and immediately prayed for safety. He left her alone, but went on to mug someone else passing by, whose guardian angels must’ve been sleeping on the job. Oddly enough, the lucky girl heard about it the next day and went to the police to see if she could help identify the thug. As soon as she pointed him out, the thug confessed and told the story of her having had “two tall men by her side”.

Of course no location or names were present in the story; that might lead a person or two to try to verify it. Though such an outlandish story would need chances of verification in order to not be dismissed straight away.Apparently, the mugger was able to see angels (an extraordinary ability not many hardcore Christians have).

And of course it’s rather odd that being pointed out by the one he’d actually mugged was not enough for him to confess. She was the first to go to the police and give details, accurately enough for him to be found and taken into custody. But the climax (his confession) only occurred when the second one turned up. Not to mention the second one (angel girl) had no proof this had been the same person who had mugged the actual victim.

So basically, a guy who mugs women and doesn’t give a shit about the victim identifying him suddenly confesses when recognised by someone who has no proof of any wrongdoing on his part (who just passed him by in the street the same night). Makes sense, right?

But let’s indulge the story for a second. Even so, it would be no proof of the mugger actually seeing a couple of angels. Perhaps he was stealing to feed his drug habit; who knows what he was on and what else he might’ve seen besides the “two tall men” who weren’t actually there.

As a disclaimer, I’m not saying I don’t believe in apparitions; they are common throughout the world, yet equally enigmatic. I don’t, however, believe spirits can be brought into manifestation at the drop of a hat, by simply wishing for it. And I don’t believe in guardian angels who presumably allow all kinds of atrocities against innocent people daily, yet are credited for intervening sometimes.

The moral of the story might be either one of these:

  • Putting oneself in risky situations is fine provided you ask for protection from your guardian angels;
  • The victim of the mugging didn’t have God on her side;
  • We should thank God when others are harmed instead of us;
  • God loves people so much he lets anything happen to those who aren’t smart enough to pray to him in real time;
  • Angels are protection mechanisms needing activation (unless you ask them for help in real time they remain dormant or stand by and watch).

I wonder then why people are turned into martyrs for Jesus across the planet. Presumably they pray for safety as well, but the “two tall men” never show up.

Later Edit

The second inspirational story arrived recently; I’ve no idea if a Christian group posted it, the only clue being in the author’s fleeting “and that’s proof of how the Lord works”, something along these lines.

It was a moving story of two elderly people meeting in the same retiring home, after having spent sixty years apart, in perpetual loneliness (neither had married and they’d both been in love since their youth).

It goes like this: a bloke finds a wallet and in it an old letter, written sixty years prior, of a young lady parting with her boyfriend as her mother objected. He manages to track her down to a care home and finds the owner of the wallet living there as well, the two being unaware of each other’s presence (living on different floors in the same building). Then he helps them meet and so on, a happy ending.

Logistically, to me it seems strange that two people who’d been in love with each other for more than six decades, living in the same place, hadn’t crossed paths before to recognise each other. It just seems unlikely. You’d recognise the face of the one person you’ve ever loved, even many decades after. The guy was keen on wandering about apparently, as he’d lost his wallet on the pavement well outside of that care home. It seems strange to me he’d never wandered around in the building to find the lady in question. Plus, her letter was in his wallet, which he frequently lost, often found by staff – who were aware of both their names. Surely someone would’ve seen it and told the guy she was living there. It makes no sense.

But let’s give the story the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s true.

It still wouldn’t be the proof that God is kind and merciful. If he had been, he would’ve made these people cross paths earlier in life, when they could still get married and build a life together. The young lady wasn’t going to be 16 and under her mother’s thumb forever. It would be a story of elation yet depressing sadness in equal amounts. Sixty years of misery, so God could plan his great moment of reunification when they both only had a few years left to live.

If this actually happened, it was chance or whatever you want to call it, but not God’s merciful intervention.