Category Archives: Social Engineering

Ex-Red Pill Members Describe Cult-Like Indoctrination

However organic and benign a group might appear to begin with, it seems most, when co-opting a large number of members, end up in roughly the same manner.

The Red Pill, based on the Men’s Rights Movement, appeared to counter toxic feminism, which has been an intensely discussed topic over the last few years (many times, deservedly). At first it seemed to base its line of thought on the fact that men are not what modern feminists claim (dangerous, led by instincts only, angry, prone to raping, abusive, manipulative, sociopathic, set on dominating women etc). And of course, any sensible individual can agree this is not what half of the human species stands out through, and that extremes should never be used for generalisations.

However, things quickly escalated.

This Reddit page details the effects of belonging to such a group on men who initially thought they were joining the “cool and strong crowd”, becoming empowered by its attitude.

To start with, the group attracts men in a vulnerable state of mind, freshly out of a failed relationship or marriage, or frustrated over not managing to secure a female partner. These guys already carry a substantial amount of anger and use the group for venting (much like disappointed women end up on forums about narcissists and psychopaths).

From there on they are led to believe women are naturally infantile, that “no” should not be taken as a “no”, and later on, that women actually get something out of being raped, on a subconscious level.

After enough brainwashing, some guys have ended up divorcing or abandoning their male friends who apparently shared the views of “beta cucks”.

You only need a short dialogue with a proponent of this line of thought to understand the venom; anger oozes out of their words; they are no different that Antifa or other leftist extremists, but merely at the other end of the spectrum. Politically, since they hate the left and afferent “beta” culture, they tend to be right wing or libertarian; many are angry enough to embrace the far right.

The Men’s Rights Movement: A Misguided Octopus

In the vein of other political octopodes, this movement started with the apparently benign quest of countering toxic feminism, yet quickly developed into its “other side of the coin”, joining members not through calm and rationality, or hope for a better world, but anger, frustration, residual disappointment, entitlement, cultural claims of superiority, “regressivism” and in some cases, pathological hatred.

It is thus fair to claim that this movement, just like feminism, plays an active part in a manufactured tribal war of the sexes, as opposed to simply countering the extreme views it claims formented it in the first place.

If we engage in a rather grotesque exercise of imagination, we can compare both these movements with the human centipede envisaged in the creepy film bearing the same name. Once the tribal bond is established, the head of the centipede merely engages in an act of bowel relief, the contents of which pass through everyone attached. Such is the case with toxic ideas. I am attached, therefore I receive and pass on the message, without processing (digesting) it first.

The octopus analogy refers to the many subdivisions of this movement, each emphasising a different issue. On the whole, the MRM pushes forth the following ideas:

  • Western societies favour girls and women over boys and men, in terms of declaring them superior in nature;
  • Education is geared towards the needs and formation of females;
  • Women have legal advantages over men in terms of conceiving and raising children;
  • The job market favours women;
  • Women often make false claims of victimisation by men, especially when sexual misconduct is involved;
  • Feminism seeks to infiltrate Marxist ideas into western states;
  • Women have become undesirable to men through fashion fads and their lack of interest in pleasing men through their image or behaviour;
  • Women are deluded in thinking they can fill positions only men can;
  • Women are generally labile, hysterical and untrustworthy;
  • Women have unwarranted and delusional demands of men;
  • Women use their sexual prowess in order to prey on men;
  • Women seek to demean and demonise men;
  • Marriage is a prison;
  • Masculinity as a concept is under threat.

Needless to say, as in the case of feminism regarding all men with suspicion, there is only a thin line between making these assertions about some women and ending up making them about all women, not to mention male feminists (“betas” or “castrati” as they are sometimes referred to, the latter referencing eunuchs).

What is so disengaging about feminists today is precisely the generalisation and acrimony; the intention to dominate. Sadly, the same is present in the men’s rights movement.

It seems that neither side is actually looking for a better understanding and a harmony-conducive compromise through open discussions, but plain and simple dominance. This is achieved through righteous anger, demonisation, derision and solipsism.

The blind fighting the blind, so to speak.

Perhaps no advocate of this movement is better known than Paul Elam. To see the drive behind this individual one only needs to read a few of his “best quotes”:

Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.

There is nothing left to interpretation or fit for whitewashing. Fortunately, such declarations might see Mr Elam permanently excused from jury duty, yet the encouragement given to others, to do the same, is very poisonous.

Below I will expand on two offshoots of this movement, on a gradient of harmful prejudices and intentions.

MGTOW 

Along the way, the men’s rights movement developed a radical branch known as MGTOW, short for Men Going Their Own Way. This particular group, though not disavowing sexual interactions with women, for short-lived practical purposes only, does swear them off in the sense of commitment and forming families, as apparently, all women are ravenous, manipulative parasites who can exploit men more than ever before due to our current culture of female empowerment.

It’s safe to say personal experience along those lines is a prerequisite for men who adopt this radical declaration. Both in being disappointed and looking for a justification for disappointments caused (that does, indeed, happen).

For a taste  of the group’s attitude (rather reminiscent of bile), here is a collection of fine quotes.

Incel

Although the term itself is gender-neutral, Incel, as in “involuntarily celibate”, is mostly circulated in online discussions between young men who find it difficult to find a female partner. It is often associated with the men’s rights movement and at some point spawned a radical offshoot known as Truecel, which in turn, spawned Elliot Rodger.

In other words, this group is a glorified case of blue balls, pardon the frankness.

They tend to focus on the superficiality of women and their preference for overtly alpha males (the MGTOW type perhaps), arguing women have materialistic and self-gratifying selection criteria when it comes to male partners, and some, such as Rodger, argue the female sex is animal-like in pursuing assholes.

They blend in with the rest of the select MRM gathering through their awful views on women; the only difference is their lack of dignity about it. Whilst the MGTOW crowd tries to display some type of spine, even if the result is members’ own loneliness and nothing more, Incel types declare their desire for vaginas (artificial ones will do, some claim). An infamous Truecel member even came forth with the proposition that it’s the government’s responsibility to provide men with sex, as some kind of social program.

For a taste of this group’s attitude (with a tinge of sour grapes), here is a collection of their intellectual produce. 

Identity politics are not limited to the left. To counteract the plethora of labels and categories the left has consecrated in popular jargon, the right is slowly building a system of its own.

Those who are willing to share their lives with women provided women always obey them.Those who hate women to the point of wanting little or nothing to do with them. Those who hate women but demand sex of them.

And on it goes; it seems all these attitudes, temporary as they may be for each individual, are identities and chosen paths in life now.

 

ICE Detains 10 Year Old Disabled Girl Straight From Hospital – And Some People Still Refuse The Nazi Comparison

Just reading about this, minutes ago, there is no way this action can be justified or interpreted in a somewhat lighter way.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/10/30/freerosa-supporters-demand-release-10-year-old-detained-trumps-ice

Americans Demand Release of 10-Year-Old Girl Being Held in US Detention Center

A ten-year-old girl with cerebral palsy, who is undocumented, was treated as a priority for detention and subsequent deportation by the US immigration squad. Right off her hospital bed. They have to get them all in the end, don’t they?

Not only do they target schools; it seems they now target hospitals as well. Who knows how many lives the knowledge of that will cost, when people fear they cannot safely go to a doctor in case of an emergency, because even there they are hunted down.

They talk so much about socialism, these folks in the ardent Trump camp.

Not realising socialism is the handing over of human rights and human decency to bureaucrats, which is exactly what they are doing right now in the US, breaking moral codes of any sort in order to comply with the ruler’s directives and fill up targets and statistics.

In cases such as these, we can safely put a “national” in front of the “socialism”.

When entire categories become undesirable and a target for persecution, down to disabled children freshly out of emergency surgery.

It’s not border protection; it’s simply barbarism, to treat a sick disabled child in such ways. Those rejoicing such cases should become aware that as soon as they are done with the outside “undesirables”, this lot, so well trained to be less than human, will be turned against their own people. It’s unavoidable.

Someone was in charge of this decision, to keep pursuing this girl for detention. And this person will soon say “I was just obeying orders”. It’s what they typically say, isn’t it?

On the ACLU website there is yet another chilling story: in 2009, ICE in Boston began a program of outreach, for Indonesians who had fled because of religious persecution. Here’s what happens today with the data ICE gathered:

In 2009, the Boston Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office initiated a program called “Operation Indonesian Surrender,” which it characterized as “a humanitarian effort” meant to “bring folks out of the shadows” and send the message to Indonesian Christian community members that “we will work with you.” Eight years later, ICE is trying to deport all the participants.

It seems the great beam of freedom and hope the US was seen as for many years, through syrupy Hollywood productions, has no moral qualms when it comes to luring people to surrender their information in all honesty, in an outreach program, to then target them for deportation. And fair enough, said data collection may have been done in earnest at the time – yet someone somewhere had no qualms about releasing all those names to the current sharks hunting innocent people up and down every block. Those who gathered this data handed it in, regardless of the moral implications.

They were just obeying orders.

The same with the DACA program, which had the now adult children of illegal immigrants, brought into the US as minors (unable to decide for themselves), register in order to be able to work legally and set foot on a path to citizenship. Because they gave their data to the system, they now face deportation if a decision towards that is reached. These vultures know exactly where to find them now, because they trusted the government with their information.

Who knows how else this alert of someone being undocumented reaches them? Who knows who reports and what? Neighbours, teachers, doctors perhaps? Just like in the days of the third Reich.

Except they have moved beyond receiving reports and now conduct document searches in the street and raids at workplaces. Raids in schools. Searches outside emergency rooms.

The tyranny Alex Jones warned about years ago and is now fully supporting, like a drooling dog at the feet of a drooling monster.

How sick, for lack of a better word.

 

Of Norman Bates And Christian Apologetics

As a non-believer, with no recourse for returning to faith ever again, there is still value in watching debates over the claims of Christianity, if for no other reason than having all I’d taken for granted debunked bit by bit, showing the susceptibility of the human mind to absorb lies, if they are inculcated early enough in life.

I realise why the issue of blind faith is so important in Abrahamic religions – as religious institutions are aware that merely accepting doubt is a guaranteed path to non-theism. If you tear down one brick, admitting that at least one claim of said religion is absurd, the rest will soon crumble, like a house of cards.

It is enough to realise Noah never filled his ark with elephants, penguins, kangaroos and tarantulas, which somehow would’ve made their way from all corners of the Earth and all terrestrial ecosystems to one boat in the Middle East, to understand that some things in the Bible are undoubtedly fictional. And from there, this shadow of doubt is cast upon each claim it makes. Which is why apologists do their best to uphold even such laughable absurdities as Noah’s ark.

Those who still ardently believe do so because that is their core intention and no logical argument seems to be able to shake it. Nonetheless, there are many who took the path of intense Bible study and came out of it as atheists.

Watching Christians debate reminds me of a futile, sweat-inducing strife, the inability to let go of a long disproved concept, hanging on to it by any putrid, disheveling thread. In this strife, so-called holy texts are taken apart letter by letter, in the frantic search for historical facts, logic or meaning. And although the results are always flimsy, there is always some detail to imbue with sheer emotion, to be presented as a wonderful discovery.

It reminds me in a way of the inability to let go of a dead person, taking it to a pathological level.

You can embalm a cadaver, sit in on a chair, groom it, speak to it and even mimic the voice of the dead person to speak in his or her name. You can look for signs of communication, interpreting every trifle with great enthusiasm. You can deprive yourself of sleep to induce a trance and hallucinate, thinking you’ve had a real conversation.Yet undoubtedly, this is the product of your own mind, and you will never achieve this real time communication, as much as you may stage or mimic it.

If this person’s energy or soul exists out there, in a different layer of reality, it’s impossible for you to know with certainty. And whilst this is subject to imagination and speculation, one thing is clear: what you have in front of you and speak to is a cadaver which cannot hear you or answer back. That direct communication is over; it only carries on in your head.

It’s the same with this relationship with an absent, silent God you have no proof of (as by default you cannot have any). You can interpret coincidences as signs; you can thank him for helping you find your keys as someone, the same instant, needlessly dies of cancer across the road from you, but you imagine God is there for your every need, however small. You can engage in role play by praying and pretending to know what God’s message is, when observing what happens next, interpreted as concrete results or lack thereof – either way, “God’s will”.

Needless to say, this is a terrible waste of time and energy.

And century after century, it carries on – the attempt to put flesh on the imaginary bones of an imaginary God; to manifest him somehow.

Many former believers admit to having difficulty letting go of the imaginary friend called Jesus (not very strangely, no one seems to be missing Jehovah that much, when starting to lose their faith). Jesus embodies their hope, their love and feeling of purification through self-sacrifice; their resilience. These are all beautiful concepts and it is heinous of religion to get people to place them outside of themselves, to make them feel that when they let go of this Jesus character they also lose what made life worth living for them.

Ample documentation exists to prove Christianity is yet another man-made system of beliefs, achieved by borrowing elements of older religions. But even in the face of that, Christians refuse to let go of the delusion – because they feel they’d be losing a part of themselves.

That is the surreptitious, perverse nature of it all, which keeps this machine going.

Refusing Doubt – The Mental Barricade Of Religion

Having had many conversations with religious people over the last few weeks, Christians to be precise, I have come to some conclusions regarding their attitude towards the idea of an equal society, where all beliefs or lack thereof are respected in the same manner.

Religions based on proselytism seek the political domination of the area they exist in.

When living in the midst of a religious majority, in countries where laws are generally inspired by secular principles , non-believers are tolerated as long as they are not too vocal or, Heaven forbid, they try to influence or change the status quo by eliminating dogma from laws or politics, seeking to ensure religion is not imposed in any neutral environment, shared by all.

If and when non-believers raise concerns in that sense and try to diminish the imagined superiority of said majority to dictate how things are run (as it happens in the case of LGBT rights or contesting the role of religion in education), the backlash is immediate and comes with a seasoning of moral outrage.

They have no doubt regarding their right to impose their dogma on others. They refer to tradition, as if it were unheard of for traditions to change. And suddenly, they refer to themselves as a monolith, throughout history, although nothing could be farther from the truth.

Respecting others’ beliefs is a false claim, when what they really seek is to “save your soul”.

Intricate mental gymnastics are employed when trying to justify to themselves that agnostics or atheists, when formerly religious at least, are automatically wrong to have abandoned their beliefs. I will paraphrase some of the replies given to me:

Your soul is, really, crying out for God, otherwise you wouldn’t have this preoccupation of sharing your opinion on this subject. Those who contest God the most are those who need him the most.

You must’ve had some emotional problems, of feeling unloved, so you turned against God and all you claim as evidence is just confirmation bias for your decision.

It’s all about your ego, as if you had a brand new toy you want to show off.

All this, as if searching for truth were not a purpose in and of itself, as well as the refusal to believe in a lie (or a potential lie, when at the doubting stage).

This brotherly love, in this particular context, turns queasy, since one realises they are sometimes treated with kindness in the communal hope that they might one day be brought back to Jesus.

Respect for a person’s mental faculties does not enter this context, let alone and admission of the possibility that the person might be correct, at least partially. This so-called goodness is a masturbatory exercise, anticipating to be proven right in the near or far future.

Which makes sense, really; you don’t apply a modicum of consideration to someone else’s processes when you are convinced your point of view will be vindicated sometime by an all-knowing, all-powerful God. Which is why religion is so toxic when it comes to human interaction.

They accuse others of Neo-Marxism while arguing for the propagation of potential falsehoods “for the good of the collective”.

The world would crumble without religion. We would revert to a beastly nature and society would dissolve. Everyone arguing against the respect for dogmas is playing a part in a Neo-Marxist conspiracy to deprive mankind of its divine connection.

It appears as though this modern red scare, becoming clearer by the day, could not have succeeded in adding to the ideological tension, internationally, without the aid of religion. Whereas the left does exaggerate (and it often does), a new type of hysteria has arisen over the last few years, proved to be partially pushed by online Russian propaganda. Namely the right and far-right’s conviction that there is an international conspiracy, rooted in atheism or satanism or both, to eradicate the “true religion”, namely Christianity, through reforms demanded by the left.

Whilst more eccentric theories such as the belief in reptilians or a flat Earth are not so widespread, for obvious reasons, the theory of a sustained persecution of Christians in secular countries is something in the vein of Ebola. It stretches from lamenting the so-called war on Christmas (which they still see as genuinely connected to Jesus, despite undeniable evidence to the contrary), to congregations warned of the dangers of vaccines, seen as a tool of depopulating the planet (again, in spite of all evidence of the diseases now eradicated through vaccination).

There is no end in sight to this. Just as the radical left is driven by a false sense of knowing it all and having absolute moral superiority, the religious right is driven by the presumed need to defend the status quo “in the name of God”.

There is a truck-load of cognitive dissonance regarding what is known and unknown about God.

On the one hand, when discussing this world’s atrocities and the apparent divine uninvolvement in them, Christians for instance claim God’s reasons are unknown, and therefore cannot be judged by us mortal, limited humans. That is the basic response to every question involving why does God allow so and so to happen.

On the other hand, and sometimes in the very next breath, a Christian will claim to speak for God, by claiming this is what God wants or does not want, this is what God feels and this is what God will do.

No comment needed here.

The unwillingness to doubt implies a lack of basic intellectual honesty in debating non-theists.

Perhaps the most frightening aspect of religion is its power to provide unwavering convictions to its propagators, to the point of rendering them unwilling, and through that temporarily incapable of opening themselves up for an honest debate.

Since their stance is combative from the very beginning, coming from a point of presumed moral superiority, there is no getting through to them with hardcore data or logical arguments. These just do not penetrate that shield of apriori “nothing you say will ever make me doubt”.

Which renders the whole conversation rather pointless.

Waco Should Have Sealed The Gun Debate A Long Time Ago

It’s always shocking to see that hours after a tragedy, such as Sandy Hook or the recent Las Vegas shooting, conspiracy theories pop up, focused on political goals rather than respecting the victims long enough for their final number to be established, at least.

What is known about the Las Vegas  shooting at the moment is that one crazy man, opened fire on a crowd at a country music concert. A week before that, he had transferred a large sum abroad for his partner, which shows that this was likely premeditated well in advance.

And many things can be said regarding the deep divide the US is facing right now, spurred on by politicians, who seem to want to radicalise people by the hour. After all, politicians don’t usually suffer when regular people kill each other in the name of their ideologies.

However, this event is being exploited from a different angle as well.

This was a false flag, done so the deep state can take our guns, shouted Alex Jones and the like.

Human life, to some, is worth just as much as a few points scored towards pushing political propaganda.

It’s true that when a person with murderous intent is set on committing a heinous act, there are ways to go about it. They can, as has happened so many times recently, drive a lorry into a crowd.

Yet regardless of a person’s motive and the inability to completely prevent such an act, steps can be taken to limit access to powerful lethal weapons, such as firearms, which would at least prevent a lunatic from comfortably shooting from a balcony with no less than ten of them.

Paradoxically, as the US engages in a major effort to protect its borders from terrorists and religious fanatics, inside of those same borders, people with mental issues can buy guns and use them to commit mass murder. Such was the case of Elliot Rodger, who had already seen several psychiatrists for his issues, and was in the system as having psychological problems, yet had no problem purchasing firearms on the same day he used them to shoot randomly at innocent people.

Political propaganda often works with abstractions – much like religion does.

By worshiping the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, for instance – though it has no practical applicability nowadays. It had one then, when everyone, the government included, had access to the same type of weapons. But that was centuries ago.

It makes no sense to say that in this day and age, guns can protect people against the violence of a tyrannical government, which has an arsenal at its disposal, with the ability to blow up someone’s home by pushing a button, with no warning whatsoever.

More than two decades ago, in 1993, when technology hadn’t even advanced to this level, the futility of piling up guns as a means of resistance was proved by the siege at the Branch Davidian compound outside Waco, Texas, where dozens of people were trapped and massacred by government forces. The guns they had amassed were unable to protect them against a tank and chemical weapons which eventually set the whole place on fire. Moreover, their act of buying and amassing guns was what turned them into a target in the first place. However one feels about what they were doing there, as a bona fide religious cult, one can agree they did not deserve to die like that, and that the government can and does act with no scruples, killing people of all ages, including babies, in horrible ways. After detailing what went on in a documentary, to prove the tyranny the US government is capable of, Alex Jones keeps arguing to this day that guns are an effective way of resisting it.

Fast forward to 2015, in Waco, there was a mass shooting between two biker gangs, outside a restaurant. Nine dead, 18 wounded and 117 arrested. The place was littered with guns, as many of the participants had come armed. Guns on the pavement, guns on the floor, guns in the toilets. It was an incident waiting to happen. The police took note of the danger of this gathering yet allowed them get on with their business initially. Because of  this gun culture. Now where else in the western world would this be allowed to escalate, with no intervention? Two large gangs, armed to the teeth, gathering to settle a dispute, as the police stood nearby.

On October 1st alone, besides the mass shooting in Las Vegas, 37 other people were killed by guns across the US, each one in a separate incident.

While so many are polarised by taking one political side or another, this keeps happening. Every single day. It doesn’t take a genius or a US citizen to see there is something wrong with refusing to accept that fact.

And that remains a fact, not propaganda, regardless of what political party holds the reins of power.

This post was corrected by removing the part about the Las Vegas shooter’s  presumed links to Antifa – it turns out this too came from Alex Jones.

Confessions Of A Former Homophobe

Religious tolerance is on everyone’s lips nowadays, yet increasingly difficult to sustain, depending on the circumstances. Tolerance is far more easily attained when equality is present – when a religious group cannot push back the rights of others, justifying it as a crusade and needing no other reason than that.

For me personally, as an agnostic (regarding the possibility of a universal order, yet not regarding the artificiality of existing dogmas), this is not directed at one in particular, but rather at the concept of having a state religion, whether officially consecrated in laws or not.

This comes in the context of my country of origin, Romania, being in the process of “defending the traditional family” by modifying the Constitution to have it state that marriage is “between a man and a woman”, by this making sure that any attempt of legalising gay marriage will not be successful in the near future. As things are now, 70 to 80% of voters agree to this measure, partly driven by the feeling that there is an international conspiracy to subvert Christian nations. This is disseminated through part of the media and on a large scale, in churches.

And I can say, not without a fair amount of shame, that a few years ago I used to think like them, when this delusion added to the Christian base of my education. In order to see religion realistically, one must step outside of it and look at it from a distance, just like one has to when wanting to see the whole mountain and cannot do so while sitting under a tree at the foot of it.

In order to see the poison, the distortion and brainwashing one is subjected to when growing up in a religious country.

In this political context, of the need for a culture shift in order for everyone to have equal rights, a false need for preservation is foisted in people by propaganda, which makes them think a so-called soulless western world seeks to upturn their values and impose a Neo-Marxist tyranny upon them. Nothing could be more false.

They are arguing for a fossilised ideal, which was never a reality and can never be – the so-called sacredness of the traditional family, which is, as we speak, laden with a large number of divorces, child abandonment, infidelity and insecurity, on every level.

Moreover, their views on gay people are even more divorced from reality. Their main argument resides in the Bible, in a country which is not a theocracy, yet has managed to maintain a level of religiosity and ignorance enviable by Middle-Eastern theocracies.

For a member of Parliament to cite the Bible as a reason for discriminating against part of the population they are representing seems unreal in 2017, yet that is the reality.

And this reality is quite grim. Because gay people cannot wait for a few generations to enlighten themselves. They need these rights now. In this day and age, they are living as couples in secrecy, because of the risk of facing a backlash if found out. In the current year, in Europe, this is totally out of place. And yet, when this is debated by politicians, Biblical views are cited as relevant.

It’s quite baffling, really, the influence these archaic, unfounded views continue to have.

That other people’s sky goblins have to be shown reverence, or at least a modicum of respect, by those who do not believe in them.

That anyone should think an infringement on their presumed right to discriminate is an infringement on their “freedom of religion”.

Religious brainwashing is not limited to the countries where violence against infidels is encouraged. Christians lead their own “holy wars”. And some of them explicitly target people who are born with a different sexual orientation, and who have done so throughout history.

 

Heaven – The Selfish Mirage

As a child, I often wondered how would marriage after widow-ship fare with Heaven, if a person was supposed to remain with their spouse in the afterlife. Namely which equally legitimate spouse would be one’s eternal companion.

That, of course, was only one small question regarding this mysterious promised land of peaceful green pastures, where everyone, from infants to the elderly, would dwell until the end of time (or outside of it). Well, everyone minus most people on the planet, since the path to “salvation” is supposed to be so “narrow”, so narrow the troubled souls of the living would have to compete in arduousness in order to squeeze into the fortunate convoy.

Arguably, Hell is a much more grotesque and disturbing concept, yet in its own way, Heaven is as well. Atheism aside, if one is spiritual, the whole idea seems very unfair.

First of all, we should assume that arbitrarily, since God decides who lives or dies, he only allows some people a substantial duration of their existence (growing, maturing, becoming wiser), whilst for others that is cut short without the possibility of fully experiencing life on Earth.

Then, the status of children who die without having been christened comes into question: do they go to Heaven as well, and if not, how is this prospect not morally repugnant enough to make people doubt this religion? Some denominations, such as Orthodoxy, claim no one can enter Heaven without the ceremony in this specific rite. Recently, I’ve come across a fanatic online who didn’t deem such people worthy of a conversation on religion, regardless of their views, which is beyond medieval.

There’s something about clinging on to people who have died that seems a bit selfish, from a spiritual perspective – in terms of imagining they’re simply waiting for one’s presence, stacked on a vaporous shelf somewhere, looking down at the living they left behind.

As someone who believes in reincarnation, I find it more reasonable to think that when souls are freed from their mortal bodies they move on to different experiences and continue to grow through them. Reincarnation has long been studied and at times the search revealed cases where coincidence could only be claimed through the sheer belief that this phenomenon is impossible. The work of Dr Ian Stevenson alone is proof that this subject is anything but fiction or wishful thinking.

 

 

Enough Pandering To Actual White Supremacists

In every clash of ideologies there is a large palette of nuances of grey, usually overlooked by both sides when posturing on their key issues. Hence the idea of analysing all possible aspects in a neutral manner.

However, there is at least one exception – when the clash involves any ideology based on racial supremacy, which seeks to reduce humanity to no more than packs of mammals fighting over territory, a phase humanity is said to have transcended a long time ago (but apparently hasn’t completely).

There is no redeeming aspect or nuance in being a race supremacist. It is the absolute lowest denominator in any society. The drive towards tribalism can be understood in certain contexts, but not this one.

After the events in Charlottesville, US, when, at a white nationalist rally where violence erupted between marchers and protesters, a woman was actually killed by a disturbed right wing extremist who purposefully ran into people with his car, the reactions were, paradoxically, mixed.

As praised as the first amendment in the US constitution is, giving the right to free speech to anyone on any matter, one must rationally admit that a march based on racial supremacy is, in and of itself, incitement to violence.

Analyse and dissect it all you want – that it what is boils down to. And when such elements freely congregate and propagandise, nothing good comes of it. Because it simply can’t. It is the most base, irrational, anger-fueled drive a person can have, and should not be alimented by any means. It borders on (and sometimes even is) murderous rage, blended with the sickest type of utilitarianism.

There is no silver lining. As much as “free speech advocates” (whose devotion is questionable when joining ranks with the right) like to throw stones at the radical left, which overall has damaged its image through acts of violence of its own, this is not debatable. No one is blowing this out of proportion. These are actual racists. Not someone making an inadvertently offensive comment or a potentially offensive joke, to be picked on for no reason. Actual torch-wielding racists, looking for concrete results and political backing.

And still, commentators claiming to be moderate wrack their brains to defend Trump’s half-hearted condemnation “of both sides”. Because they support Trump. Normally, outside of these circumstances of belonging to a clique and having to defend it at all cost, I think those same people would be very quick to disavow any such gathering.

In the Trump-supporting-yet-supposedly-not-alt-right alternative media, especially online, things carry on as usual, with issues such as the demands of irrational feminists and “regressive leftists” being treated as a priority, when it is clear that at least in the US the radical right has become a major problem, emboldened by the establishment’s tacit approval.

The idea that Trump’s election would cause such consequences was treated as ridiculous last year, with believable rhetoric – and yet it’s all happening. It seems the “ridiculous” “hysterical” left actually had a point.

 

 

 

The Trump Cult, Radicalising Instead Of Dissipating

Halfway through 2017, one could say the hopes of many who wanted to see the ‘system’ upturned through Trump’s election have been laid to rest in droves, akin to victims of the bubonic plague in the 1300s, so rampant it didn’t allow time for proper burial or mourning.

Arguably, Trump himself seems rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things (a figurehead behind the name of whom the same agenda can unfold, since no swamp was drained and no foreign interventions were stopped or diminished).

It seems that by engaging in numerous raids in foreign countries, his administration is not trying to stop terrorism but breed new waves of people seeking revenge for this untold wave of death and destruction, reported by western media outlets through numbers and statistics, as opposed to real human beings, their homes, their streets and towns. By doing so, these callous terrorist attacks in the west are almost guaranteed to keep happening, and it is not well-protected decision makers in fancy offices who suffer, but innocent people murdered or maimed in these attacks while going about their daily lives.

It is apparent that to the system overall, human beings, regardless of their location, are irrelevant. The engineering of wars and culture clashes in order to grab resources for monetary gains seems to be all that matters.

Meanwhile, people are distracted by media frenzies around what Trump does and the ever-changing structure of his staff. On a bureaucratic note, the ridiculousness of the events unfolding around the White House was depicted recently in the New York Magazine, in the most appropriate terms:

We were entering, it seemed to me, the Caligula phase of the collapse of the American republic. Pretty soon Trump would be announcing that the new FBI director would be a horse.

Remarkably, it is still too early to confine Kek to a side show oddity (perhaps a ragged piece of taxidermy). For some people, all that has happened since January is still not enough for them to see that this  – too – was a farce and that the ‘deep state’ was still very much in control.

For some reason, some keep feeding into this illusion of a revolutionary president with no background in politics, as if if politics itself, as a concept, and not cronyism, were the real problem.

When the image of a widely acclaimed personality or group crumbles and most followers become disenchanted, there is always that bunch of fanatics resembling the tail of a dead animal wriggling in the grass, independently of the carcass, as if it had a life of its own.

It seems the uncanny remarks made by Alex Jones on inauguration night, regarding the new president and a very friendly Holy Ghost, were not out of place in Trump’s America.

As RightWingWatch so often expand upon, voices in the US Christian community, regardless of denomination, expose their ‘flocks’ to rationalisations such as “God is behind Trump’s tweets”,”Donald Trump was sent by God to subdue nations that are threatening God’s purposes” or “God will punish those who oppose Trump.”

As proven by cults time and time again, fanatics will sink with the ship in delirium and consider it a privilege. The higher the water level, the more ecstatic they become, thinking the abnormality of the situation must be mystical. But alas, the UFO never shows up in the end. Neither does Armageddon, or anything of that otherworldly or colossal nature.

It’s far easier to claim the influence of a deity than admit the success of a sleazy marketing campaign on one’s own mind, so bold in its claims it has literally managed to sell polished manure for the price of pure gold.

By no means is the comparison to a fully fledged cult an outlandish one. There have been articles in GQ, The American Interest, The Independent, The Huffington Post, to count but a few, on this subject.

It was worth the wait to see how far people could march on in this charade and what particular demographics would persevere the longest.

The religious right, it appears, is gaining ground at the moment and thus has a vested interest in standing behind Trump, seemingly oblivious to the devastation caused abroad by his policies (the system’s unchanged policies, more accurately) as if to say war weren’t profoundly un-Christian. Private religious schools are gaining more funds, religion-inspired curricula are considered and overall, this long pushed under faction of society is manifesting itself in its full glory, managing to alienate those formerly supporting it as the underdog.

Another die-hard ideological group seems to consist, confirming the left’s warnings (seen as hysterical at the time) of those who support imperialist agendas, with their bigoted and racially supremacist undertones, failing yet again to see how committing mass murder with impunity abroad attracts consequences on ordinary people in the west, through terrorist attacks. Each attack hypes them up more and more, driving them to call for even more death and destruction, the irony being lost on them completely. Those who envisage an imminent, bloody clash between civilisations fail to see how it’s being engineered and how their minds are played on a daily basis.

As unfortunate as some ways of manifesting dissent were for the left, it seems clearer every day that there was no hysteria involved around Trump’s election, but objective observation. It would bring out – and is continuing to do so –  the worst tendencies people experience.