The Lunatics are Running the Asylum

Format issue: The underlined text isn’t just underlined, those are hyperlinks to examples of the metaphor being made in that line. So it’s not just metaphorical to think about remembering off the top of your head some related event or phenomena. Not everyone is so well informed and not everyone will have seen or been exposed to the same materials.

I think the reason people didn’t notice is the format I use for the website. Hyperlinked text and underlined text are indistinguishable. When writing or editing: hyperlinks are blue and when published there is no color differential to distinguish. I simply forgot, that’s my mistake so I don’t blame anyone if they didn’t notice all the information I provided.

“Absurdity of the Current Year”

By the light of a new era,
Two persons of indiscriminate nature
Debate a fish riding a bicycle,
while tweeting Heforshe.
A discussion stifled by limited status,
Disregarded by two pedophile worshippers,
sharpening their knives, timing their bombs
and Chanting death to the westerner.
Welcome to our age,
where we embrace the diversity of the gulag
And find ever redundant ways to express our individuality,
Within the collective group think.
Parroting the preordained script of permissible speech,
Claiming the dehumanization of a race isn’t racist,
Stipulating some animals are more equal than others.
Pity be upon us, George Orwell,
for we failed to heed your warning.
Upon the great alter of ideology,
There, does liberty, go to die.

15699615-b833-4859-99f5-8f3e1a26ddba_560_420

So, for each metaphor you see underlined: that underlined text is actually a hyperlink which will take you to a news article or youtube video of an interview or some such material directly related to the metaphor. So it’s not just some abstraction of current events: I also provide you with a real life concrete example.

Unlike so many mock jam poetry sessions by SJWs where they have a litany of quasi supposedly plausible babble talking about events which never occurred. Their excuse is “well, it didn’t happen to me, and I provided no examples for any of this actually happening but… we know this is what happens even if I can’t provide even a single example.” They’re basically making bad poetry about movies and TV show episodes, without any real, genuine, actual examples of their narrative happening in real life. Treating fiction as a truism.

I, on the other hand, deal with factual events and reality: not ideologically created narratives and certainly not ideologically driven narratives spread by popularized propagandic fiction.

One of my favorite youtubers who’s musically inclined: makes good sport of the SJWs who manufacture these non-real-events presented as real event slam poetry mockeries. I’ll provide a few good examples in order to fully exclaim the difference between my above poem: which provides real live examples for each metaphor, as compared to these vapid vacuous propagandists.

Watch them or don’t, entirely your choice, enjoy at your leisure.


Example A.

Example B.

Example C.

Article Response to Magog’s Gender Biology

Preface: I support trans-people and trans rights. I’m only disproving an argument put forth. I don’t care what you choose to live as. In my personal opinion, speaking as someone who’s code blued three times on three separate occasions, think that whatever changes to your life you feel you have to make in order to be happy; you should make in a deliberate but carefully thought out way. Some life changing alterations are permanent and should therefore be made with deliberate thought, foresight and careful consideration with the aid of well educated and experienced professional council.

Life can be very short, again: I’ve technically been dead three times. Life can be very short, far too short not to try to be happy. So whatever changes to your life you feel you need to make in order to enhance the quality of your life: do it. If that means transitioning, go for it. However, again, do so properly with professional council and adhere to the process currently insisted upon by the medical community. Once parts and pieces begin being removed: there is no going back. A lot of trans people commit suicide years after the transition because they realize they’ve made a mistake and they cannot get back what was taken.

I want for other people to have joyful, happy and fulfilling lives. As such, what choices you make: I advise caution and deliberate, intense, prolonged consideration before coming to and making permanent or irreversible decisions. That all being said, I actually don’t have a problem with gays, lesbians, transmen, transwomen, etc. etc. I just can’t be bothered to give enough of a fuck to care one way or the other. If it makes you happy and enhances the quality of your life, go for it.

7T6Fyoxd_400x400

Also, I would totally bang Theryn Meyer. I can’t not love Theryn, she’s a truly wonderful person, inherently humane: but I’d so fucking wreck her. Good god, she’d have to sit on one of those doughnut pillows for weeks. Don’t get me wrong, I think Blaire White’s gorgeous too, but I love Theryn, she’s a fantastic person.

Anyway, on with the show.


“The gender binary is a myth, it’s untrue.”

According to the The Encyclopedia of Genetic Disorders and Birth Defects By James Wynbrandt, Mark D. Ludman (1991), Hermaphroditic or Intersex births, meaning some combination of internal and external genitalia other than gender binary male or gender binary male occur approximately 1 in every 50,000 births. These individuals represent a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction of a fraction of a percentile. Currently we’re at somewhere between 7.4 to 7.6 billion people on the planet Earth but a bigger number generates more for the purpose of being generous, that in mind let’s use 8 billion.

8 billion / 50k = 160,000 people kicking around the planet who either are still Hermaphroditic as a result of not having access to corrective surgery or people who were born hermaphroditic and underwent corrective surgery. Of 8 billion living homosapien sapiens, which is more than we currently have: only 160,000 of them would have been born Intersexed or Hermaphroditic.

Since these people represent, again, a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction of a fraction of a percentile of the population but the 7,999,840,000 other humans roaming about were in fact born into the gender binary: gender binary is the norm by a 50,000 to 1 margin. So yes, gender binary is a verifiable reality, not a myth and it is true. Your ideology, like so many other religions, demands that you ignore reality and apply a suspension of disbelief in order to accept it as being true, on faith.

“There’s no evidence you can provide to prove it.”

Yes, actually, I can, and I just did. It didn’t take much effort.

“And therefore your claims of logic based around the gender binary can’t be proven or true because you haven’t proven the initial aspects of your argument.”

Again, just did: you’re making a circular argument to support your leap of faith suspension of disbelief which disregards verifiable reality.

Also, when dealing with reality, as the hard sciences do, arguments become relatively meaningless. A mathematical formula is not an argument, a molecular structure is not an argument, a chemical process is not an argument. When dealing with biology: you’re dealing with a hard science.

If you predict that P will perform Q in circumstances N: it either does or it does not because your prediction was either correct or it was not. You cannot argue that your prediction P would perform Q in circumstances N should still be considered correct if in fact the prediction did not come to fruition – your prediction was simply wrong. Argument in such a case means absolutely nothing unless you are arguing over WHY the prediction failed, which can lead to further refinement of the prediction and experimentation.

“The idea that gender is related to sex is unprovable because you can’t prove that genitalia determines gender.”

You’re operating on a false premise which is based on the idea that sex and gender are two different things. The word Gender in and of itself was a product of polite society. Saying “gender” instead of sex was a way to stipulate “innie” or “outie” in a time period in which language was segmented to avoid saying certain terms in mixed company as it was considered vulgar or impolite.

Asking for “white” or “dark” meat was a way to stipulate breast or thigh without saying “breast” or “thigh” because such a verbal gaff would be considered a breach in manners. Ideologues of your stripe have since hijacked the word “gender” and misappropriated it’s meaning in order to differentiate gender from sex. The original etymological meaning of the word “gender” was simply a polite way of referring to someone’s sex. Shakespeare, for example, often employed the word “sex” instead, as an intentional faux pas and racy innuendo, especially shocking in it’s day as it was usually his female characters who said it.

So between sex and gender: you are literally arguing over a differentiation which never existed previous to your ideology. Sex and gender are the same thing: you are attempting to hijack linguistics and rewrite the word to mean something different than it ever has before. You’re essentially insisting that “People of Color” is completely unrelated from saying “colored people.” No, it isn’t, it’s identical, it means non-white.

flat,1000x1000,075,f

“There’s more than two pairings of chromosomes.”

Yes there are, and they crop up once every fifty thousand births.

“Again there’s no actual proof that gender is related to chromosomes.”

Even if we are to accept your previously diagnosed broken premise that gender and sex are two different things: according to the Williams Institute, part of the UCLA Law School, only %0.06 of American adults identify as transgender. Which leaves 99.4% of people born in the United States “identifying” their “gender” as the physical sex they were born as. So yes, quantified, verified proof gender is related to chromosomes, signed, sealed and delivered.

“you have no actual proof beyond your own transphobia.”

Aside from reality.

“and thus you have no actual element of logic to deny the existence of non-binary people.”

Aside from reality. Look in your pants, you were born with sausage and potatoes, not clam. The argument that someone is “non-binary” is not based on physical reality, but on “feelings”. Said person doesn’t “feel” like they’re male or female. Feelings are subjective emotions, not physical realities. Again, and as with any other religion, your position is that you believe in something which has no physical reality because you feel what you believe is true. If you believe yourself to be neither male or female in spite of the physical reality of what genitals you were born with – you’re essentially believing in a talking snake in spite of the fact that you know snakes do not talk.

“Thus a transwoman is a woman because you can’t define anything that would make her not a woman as proof of what’s true.”

Aside from “her” having male genitals instead of female genitals, “her” being incapable of reproducing in a way which females do, “her” having to inject “herself” with artificial hormones in order to retain female attributes and aspects and “her” reverting back to a masculine “he” if “she” ever stops taking those artificial chemicals. You can surgically modify a mole to look like a shrew: it’s still a mole.

“And realize we’re moving towards a world that is a more normal one.”

The fact that Intersexed or hermaphroditic births represent only 1 in 50,000 children born and 99.4% of all adults in the United States identify with the sex they were born as shows that neither hermaphroditic intersex births or transgenders are “normal”. The word “normal” refers to that which is most common. That which is uncommon is by definition of NOT being common, abnormal.

“Ultimately we need to move past the gender binary because like I said there’s no proof for it.”

Aside from reality.

evil_laughter

“and realize that these people who claim to be non-binary aren’t lying.”

Yes, people with schizophrenia aren’t lying when they claim they’re Napoleon or Abraham Lincoln, that is what they believe. Reality proves otherwise: but they firmly, honestly, believe they are in fact Napoleon or Abraham Lincoln.

Just because they believe these things to be true, doesn’t make it true, it just means they believe it’s true. A person can honestly lie if they actually believe what they are saying is true. People used to believe that the sun revolved around the Earth, it was called the geocentric model, after the Copernican revolution it became known that it is the Earth which revolves around the sun, known as the heliocentric model.

Those people believed in what they were saying, but it wasn’t physically true in reality: it’s simply what they believed to be true. This is why the hard sciences use evidence and verification, not subjective emotions, opinions or feelings.

“and consequently we shouldn’t be continually denying their existence.”

No one’s denying that people who think they’re non-binary exist, we know they exist: we’re denying the thing they think they are because reality proves they are not the thing they think they are. We know there exist schizophrenics who think that they’re Napoleon Bonaparte, we’re not denying they exist: we’re denying that they’re actually Napoleon Bonaparte because they’re not.

“On twitter you see these people just going on and on that gender is sex gender is chromosomes.”

Because it is, you’re playing a word game built on a false premise to support your ideology.

“there aren’t any studies which back up what they’re saying”

Oh really? Just did.

“People link articles saying these are chromosomes and there’ll be nothing there.”

Yes, again, the hard sciences deal in evidence, verification, proof and fact: not word games. As stated previously “when dealing with reality, as the hard sciences do, arguments become relatively meaningless. A mathematical formula is not an argument, a molecular structure is not an argument, a chemical process is not an argument. When dealing with biology: you’re dealing with a hard science.

If you predict that P will perform Q in circumstances N: it either does or it does not because your prediction was either correct or it was not. You cannot argue that your prediction P would perform Q in circumstances N should still be considered correct if in fact the prediction did not come to fruition – your prediction was simply wrong. Argument in such a case means absolutely nothing unless you are arguing over WHY the prediction failed, which can lead to further refinement of the prediction and experimentation.”

“Other people who try to argue against the non-binary line of argument don’t seem to have any real systems”

Yes, again, the hard sciences deal in evidence, verification, proof and fact: not word games. As stated previously “when dealing with reality, as the hard sciences do, arguments become relatively meaningless. A mathematical formula is not an argument, a molecular structure is not an argument, a chemical process is not an argument. When dealing with biology: you’re dealing with a hard science.

If you predict that P will perform Q in circumstances N: it either does or it does not because your prediction was either correct or it was not. You cannot argue that your prediction P would perform Q in circumstances N should still be considered correct if in fact the prediction did not come to fruition – your prediction was simply wrong. Argument in such a case means absolutely nothing unless you are arguing over WHY the prediction failed, which can lead to further refinement of the prediction and experimentation.”

really

“‘where’s your proof for non-binaries’ and you’ve missed a point”

No, they’ve exposed the fact that you subscribe to a secular religion which focuses on beliefs, feelings and word games which take place in circular arguments to “prove” the existence of that which does not exist. Going back to the schizophrenic comparison: the dragon in the corner exists because you perceive it even if 99.4% of people don’t perceive your dragon.

“you haven’t proved your initial statement, you need to back up your logic.”

It’s called reality. 99.4% of people “identify” as the sex they were born as and only 1 in 50,000 births have any set of genitals other than male or female. The reality of gender binary is quite well established by physical reality: as is posed to all all religions – it is your responsibility to prove the existence of your God.

“These are real people.”

Yes, they are real people. The schizophrenic who believes himself to be Napoleon Bonaparte is a real person, he just isn’t Napoleon Bonaparte.

“different genders than what has been used to for the majority of human history.”

Yes, if Male and Female has been the norm for most of human history, than anything other than male or female is therefore by definition, not normal. Revert back to the discussion on how “normal” is defined. Also, since these people are not intersexed, they were born with perfectly normal genitals, but insist emotionally and mentally that they believe themselves to be something other than what they were born. A state of mind for which there is no physical evidence: this is referred to as a mental condition. A schizophrenic believing himself to be Napoleon Bonaparte, does not make him Napoleon Bonaparte.

“It’s time to accept there are non-binaries.”

We accept that such people exist, we know there exist schizophrenics who think that they’re Napoleon Bonaparte, we’re not denying they exist: we’re denying that they’re actually Napoleon Bonaparte because they’re not.

“It’s time to put the gender binary to bed.”

You mean the thing that 99.4% of people are? If 99.4% of people can’t see the dragon you claim is crouching in the corner crocheting a pussy hat: they’re all wrong for not seeing said dragon. Right, gotcha. Or perhaps…. if you were claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old and 99.4% of people, along with physical sciences which prove this to be untrue – would you be calling these people “sinners” or “heretics” ? Again, your ideology, like so many other religions, demands that you ignore reality and apply a suspension of disbelief in order to accept it as being true, on faith.

reality

How to Avoid False Accusations

How to handle False Accusations.

1, Avoid interactions with women in any circumstances which have too few witnesses or possibly unfriendly witnesses.

2, In any situation or circumstance in which you have no witnesses, too few witnesses or possibly unfriendly witnesses: extricate yourself from said situation while saying as little as possible and verbally being as polite as possible to excuse your departure.

3, In any situation or circumstance in which you have no witnesses, too few witnesses or possibly unfriendly witnesses and unable to extricate yourself from the situation, visibly remain at as great a distance from the woman or women in question as you can without appearing to be rude and secretly employ the use of a listening device of some kind to record the discourse for use as evidence to your innocence.

4, In any situation or circumstance in which you have no witnesses, too few witnesses or possibly unfriendly witnesses and unable to extricate yourself from the situation, visibly remain at as great a distance from the woman or women in question as you can without appearing to be rude and and if unable to secretly employ the use of a listening device of some kind, pretend to answer a text on your phone while turning on your voice record feature and keeping the phone in handy out of view while stipulating you’re waiting on some kind of important information.

5, In any situation or circumstance in which you have no witnesses, too few witnesses or possibly unfriendly witnesses and unable to extricate yourself from the situation, visibly remain at as great a distance from the woman or women in question as you can without appearing to be rude and unable to secretly employ the use of a listening device of some kind and without a phone or a voice recording feature on your phone: speak glowingly in agreement with anything the female counter part or parts say in order to create a false persona of similarity and shift her or their disposition towards you as being friendly in the hopes that neither she or they will later attack you with a false allegation.

danger_will_robinson_light_tshirt

The single best way to “handle” false allegation: is to avoid having them leveled at you in the first place. The second best method for “handling” a false accusation, is to actively engage in self preservation activities, during interactions, which will minimize the chances of facing false allegation or provide evidence against the allegations if an accusation is in fact made.

As we have seen, any false allegation leveled at you, no matter how false, is likely to ruin your life and your future prospects of employment. Even if you are found innocent, even if it is beyond the shadow of a doubt found to be the case that a false allegation was made with the intent of doing you harm, a simple google search may bring up articles or publications which were written before the eventual truth came out. Your career is likely over and even well into the future, any prospects for work even outside your chosen industry will render you unhirable simply as a result of once having been accused.

Remember always that in the court of public opinions: you are guilty even when proven innocent.

Your best, and only, defense against the havoc and destruction a false accusation can do to your life: is to make every attempt to mitigate the chance of having one made against you.

Feminist Psychologizing

The following article first published March 1971. It not only specifically predicts how wide spread the phenomena discussed was to become: but aptly explains people like John McIntosh, students of highly falsified pseudo sciences which have been infested with ideological bigotry.

The article itself deals with the concept of “psychologizing”, in general and as a whole, to include it’s wide reaching implications. I recommend reading the article in it’s entirety because again, this was first published in 1971 and you can see how the world today was shaped by the phenomena. I will however, when and where it applies to feminists such as #FullMcIntosh, embolden the text in order to highlight those aspects of this article with apply quite specifically to the subject of the above video.

“Today, many people use psychology as a new form of mysticism: as a substitute for reason, cognition and objectivity, as an escape from the responsibility of moral judgment, both in the role of the judge and the judged.

Mysticism requires the notion of the unknowable, which is revealed to some and withheld from others; this divides men into those who feel guilt and those who cash in on it. The two groups are interchangeable, according to circumstances. When being judged, a mystic cries: “I couldn’t help it!” When judging others, he declares: “You can’t know, but I can.” Modern psychology offers him both opportunities.

Once, the power superseding and defeating man’s mind was taken to be predetermined fate, supernatural will, original sin, etc.; now it is one’s own subconscious. But it is still the same old game: the notion that the wishes, the feelings, the beliefs—and, today, the malfunction—of a human consciousness can absolve a man from the responsibility of cognition.

Just as reasoning, to an irrational person, becomes rationalizing, and moral judgment becomes moralizing, so psychological theories become psychologizing. The common denominator is the corruption of a cognitive process to serve an ulterior motive. 

Psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence. 

As a science, psychology is barely making its first steps. It is still in the anteroom of science, in the stage of observing and gathering material from which a future science will come. This stage may be compared to the pre-Socratic period in philosophy; psychology has not yet found a Plato, let alone an Aristotle, to organize its material, systematize its problems, and define its fundamental principles.

A conscientious psychotherapist, of almost any school, knows that the task of diagnosing a particular individual’s problems is extremely complex and difficult. The same symptom may indicate different things in different men, according to the total context and interaction of their various premises. A long period of special inquiry is required to arrive even at a valid hypothesis.

This does not stop the amateur psychologizers. Armed with a smattering not of knowledge, but of undigested slogans, they rush, unsolicited, to diagnose the problems of their friends and acquaintances. Pretentiousness and presumptuousness are the psychologizer’s invariable characteristics: he not merely invades the privacy of his victims’ minds, he claims to understand their minds better than they do, to know more than they do about their own motives. With reckless irresponsibility, which an old-fashioned mystic oracle would hesitate to match, he ascribes to his victims any motivation that suits his purpose, ignoring their denials. Since he is dealing with the great “unknowable”—which used to be life after death or extrasensory perception, but is now man’s subconscious—all rules of evidence, logic, and proof are suspended, and anything goes (which is what attracts him to his racket).

The harm he does to his victims is incalculable. People who have psychological problems are confused and suggestible; unable to understand their own inner state, they often feel that any explanation is better than none (which is a very grave error). Thus the psychologizer succeeds in implanting new doubts in their minds, augmenting their sense of guilt and fear, and aggravating their problems.

The unearned status of an “authority,” the chance to air arbitrary pronouncements and frighten people or manipulate them, are some of the psychologizer’s lesser motives. His basic motive is worse. Observe that he seldom discovers any virtuous or positive elements hidden in his victims’ subconscious; what he claims to discover are vices, weaknesses, flaws. What he seeks is a chance to condemn—to pronounce a negative moral judgment, not on the grounds of objective evidence, but on the grounds of some intangible, unprovable processes in a man’s subconscious untranslated into action. This means: a chance to subvert morality.

The basic motive of most psychologizers is hostility. Caused by a profound self-doubt, self-condemnation, and fear, hostility is a type of projection that directs toward other people the hatred which the hostile person feels toward himself. Blaming the evil of others for his own shortcomings, he feels a chronic need to justify himself by demonstrating their evil, by seeking it, by hunting for it—and by inventing it. The discovery of actual evil in a specific individual is a painful experience for a moral person. But observe the almost triumphant glee with which a psychologizer discovers some ineffable evil in some bewildered victim.

The psychologizer’s subversion of morality has another, corollary aspect: by assuming the role of a kind of moral Grand Inquisitor responsible for the psychological purity of others, he deludes himself into the belief that he is demonstrating his devotion to morality and can thus escape the necessity of applying moral principles to his own actions.

This is his link to another, more obvious, and, today, more fashionable type of psychologizer who represents the other side of the same coin: the humanitarian cynic. The cynic turns psychology into a new, “scientific” version of determinism and—by means of unintelligible jargon derived from fantastically arbitrary theories—declares that man is ruled by the blind forces of his subconscious, which he can neither know nor control, that he can’t help it, that nobody can help what he does, that nobody should be judged or condemned, that morality is a superstition and anything goes.

This type has many subvariants, ranging from the crude cynic, who claims that innately all men are swine, to the compassionate cynic, who claims that anything must be forgiven and that the substitute for morality is love.

Observe that both types of psychologizers, the Inquisitor and the cynic, switch roles according to circumstances. When the Inquisitor is called to account for some action of his own, he cries: “I couldn’t help it!” When the humanitarian cynic confronts an unforgiving, moral man, he vents as virulent a stream of denunciations, hostility, and hatred as any Inquisitor—forgetting that the moral man, presumably, can’t help it.

The common denominator remains constant: escape from cognition and, therefore, from morality.

Psychologizing is not confined to amateurs acting in private. Some professional psychologists have set the example in public. As an instance of the Inquisitor type of psychologizing, there was the group of psychiatrists who libeled Senator Barry Goldwater [in 1964], permitting themselves the outrageous impertinence of diagnosing a man they had never met. (Parenthetically, Senator Goldwater exhibited a magnificent moral courage in challenging them and subjecting himself to their filthy malice in the ordeal of a trial, which he won. The Supreme Court, properly, upheld the verdict.) [Goldwater v. Ginzburg et al. 396 U.S. 1049]

As an example of the cynic type of psychologizing, there are the psychologists who rush to the defense of any murderer (such as Sirhan Sirhan), claiming that he could not help it, that the blame rests on society or environment or his parents or poverty or war, etc.

These notions are picked up by amateurs, by psychologizing commentators who offer them as excuses for the atrocities committed by “political” activists, bombers, college-campus thugs, etc. The notion that poverty is the psychological root of all evil is a typical piece of psychologizing, whose proponents ignore the fact that the worst atrocities are committed by the children of the well-to-do.

As examples of eclectic mixtures, there are the psychologizing biographies of historical figures that interpret the motives of men who died centuries ago—by means of a crude, vulgarized version of the latest psychological theories, which are false to begin with. And there are the countless psychologizing movies that explain a murderer’s actions by showing that his domineering mother did not kiss him good night at the age of six—or account for a girl’s frigidity by revealing that she once broke a doll representing her father.

Then there is the renowned playwright who was asked in a television interview why his plays always had unhappy endings, and who answered: “I don’t know. Ask my psychiatrist.”

While the racket of the philosophizing mystics rested on the claim that man is unable to know the external world, the racket of the psychologizing mystics rests on the claim that man is unable to know his own motivation. The ultimate goal is the same: the undercutting of man’s mind.

Psychologizers do not confine themselves to any one school of psychology. They snatch parts of any and all psychological theories as they see fit. They sneak along on the fringes of any movement. They exist even among alleged students of Objectivism.

The psychologizers’ victims are not always innocent or unwilling. The “liberation” from the responsibility of knowing one’s own motives is tempting to many people. Many are eager to switch the burden of judging their own moral stature to the shoulders of anyone willing to carry it. Men who do not accept the judgment of others as a substitute for their own in regard to the external world, turn into abject secondhanders in regard to their inner state. They would not go to a quack for a medical diagnosis of their physical health, but they entrust their mental health to any psychologizer who comes along. The innocent part of their reasons is their failure of introspection and the painful chaos of their psychological conflicts; the non-innocent part is fear of moral responsibility.

Both the psychologizers and their victims ignore the nature of consciousness and of morality.

An individual’s consciousness, as such, is inaccessible to others ; it can be perceived only by means of its outward manifestations. It is only when mental processes reach some form of expression in action that they become perceivable (by inference) and can be judged. At this point, there is a line of demarcation, a division of labor, between two different sciences.

The task of evaluating the processes of man’s subconscious is the province of psychology. Psychology does not regard its subject morally, but medically—i.e., from the aspect of health or malfunction (with cognitive competence as the proper standard of health).

The task of judging man’s ideas and actions is the province of philosophy.

Philosophy is concerned with man as a conscious being; it is for conscious beings that it prescribes certain principles of action, i.e., a moral code.

A man who has psychological problems is a conscious being; his cognitive faculty is hampered, burdened, slowed down, but not destroyed. A neurotic is not a psychotic. Only a psychotic is presumed to suffer from a total break with reality and to have no control over his actions or the operations of his consciousness (and even this is not always true). A neurotic retains the ability to perceive reality, and to control his consciousness and his actions (this control is merely more difficult for him than for a healthy person). So long as he is not psychotic, this is the control that a man cannot lose and must not abdicate.

Morality is the province of philosophical judgment, not of psychological diagnosis. Moral judgment must be objective, i.e., based on perceivable, demonstrable facts. A man’s moral character must be judged on the basis of his actions, his statements, and his conscious convictions—not on the basis of inferences (usually spurious) about his subconscious.

A man is not to be condemned or excused on the grounds of the state of his subconscious. His psychological problems are his private concern which is not to be paraded in public and not to be made a burden on innocent victims or a hunting ground for poaching psychologizers. Morality demands that one treat and judge men as responsible adults.

This means that one grants a man the respect of assuming that he is conscious of what he says and does, and one judges his statements and actions philosophically, i.e., as what they are—not psychologically, i.e., as leads or clues to some secret, hidden, unconscious meaning. One neither speaks nor listens to people in code.

If a man’s consciousness is hampered by malfunction, it is the task of a psychologist to help him correct it—just as it is the task of a doctor to help correct the malfunction of a man’s body. It is not the task of an astronaut-trainer or a choreographer to adjust the techniques of space flying or of ballet dancing to the requirements of the physically handicapped. It is not the task of philosophy to adjust the principles of proper action (i.e., of morality) to the requirements of the psychologically handicapped—nor to allow psychologizers to transform such handicaps into a moral issue, one way or the other.

It is not man’s subconscious, but his conscious mind that is subject to his direct control—and to moral judgment. It is a specific individual’s conscious mind that one judges (on the basis of objective evidence) in order to judge his moral character.

Every kind of psychologizing involves the false dichotomy whose extremes are represented by the Inquisitor and the cynic. The alternative is not: rash, indiscriminate moralizing or cowardly, evasive moral neutrality—i.e., condemnation without knowledge or the refusal to know in order not to condemn. These are two interchangeable variants of the same motive: escape from the responsibility of cognition and of moral judgment.

In dealing with people, one necessarily draws conclusions about their characters, which involves their psychology, since every character judgment refers to a man’s consciousness. But it is a man’s subconscious and his psychopathology that have to be left alone, particularly in moral evaluations.

A layman needs some knowledge of medicine in order to know how to take care of his own body—and when to call a doctor. The same principle applies to psychology: a layman needs some knowledge of psychology in order to understand the nature of a human consciousness; but theoretical knowledge does not qualify him for the extremely specialized job of diagnosing the psycho-pathological problems of specific individuals. Even self-diagnosis is often dangerous: there is such a phenomenon as psychological hypochondriacs, who ascribe to themselves every problem they hear or read about.

Allowing for exceptions in special cases, it is not advisable to discuss one’s psychological problems with one’s friends. Such discussions can lead to disastrously erroneous conclusions (since two amateurs are no better than one, and sometimes worse) —and they introduce a kind of medical element that undercuts the basis of friendship. Friendship presupposes two firm, independent, reliable, and responsible personalities. (This does not mean that one has to lie, put on an act and hide from one’s friends the fact that one has problems; it means simply that one does not turn a friend into a therapist.)

The above applies to psychological discussions between two honest persons. The opportunities such discussions offer to the dishonest are obvious: they are an invitation for every type of psychologizer to pounce upon. The Inquisitor will use them to frighten and manipulate a victim. The cynic will use them to attract attention to himself, to evoke pity, to wheedle special privileges. The old lady who talks about her operation is a well-known bore; she is nothing compared to the youngish lady who talks on and on and on about her psychological problems, with a lameness of imagination that prevents them from being good fiction.

Psychological problems as such are not a disgrace; it is what a person does about them that frequently is.

Since a man’s psychological problems hamper his cognitive judgment (particularly the problems created by a faulty psycho-epistemology), it is his responsibility to delimit his problems as much as possible, to think with scrupulous precision and clarity before taking an action, and never to act blindly on the spur of an emotion (it is emotions that distort cognition in all types of psychological problems). In regard to other men, it is his responsibility to preserve the principle of objectivity, i.e., to be consistent and intelligible in his behavior, and not to throw his neurosis at others, expecting them to untangle it, which none of them can or should do.

This brings us to the lowest type of psychologizing, exemplified by Lillian Rearden.

Though her behavior was a calculated racket, the same policy is practiced by many people, in many different forms, to varying extents, moved by various mixtures of cunning, inertia, and irresponsibility. The common denominator is the conscious flouting of objectivity—in the form of the self-admitted inability and / or unwillingness to explain one’s own actions. The pattern goes as follows: “Why did you do this?” “I don’t know.” “What were you after?” “I don’t know.” “Since I can’t understand you, what do you expect me to do?” “I don’t know.”

This policy rests on the notion that the content of one’s consciousness need not be processed.

It is only a newborn infant that could regard itself as the helplessly passive spectator of the chaotic sensations which are the content of its consciousness (but a newborn infant would not, because its consciousness is intensely busy processing its sensations). From the day of his birth, man’s development and growth to maturity consists in his mastery of the skill of processing his sensory-perceptual material, of organizing it into concepts, of integrating concepts, of identifying his feelings, of discovering their relation to the facts of reality. This processing has to be performed by a man’s own mind. No one can perform it for him. If he fails to perform it, he is mentally defective. It is only on the assumption that he has performed it that one treats him as a conscious being.

The evil of today’s psychologizing culture—fostered particularly by Progressive education—is the notion that no such processing is necessary.

The result is the stupor and lethargy of those who are neither infants nor adults, but miserable sleepwalkers unwilling to wake up. Anything can enter the spongy mess inside their skulls, nothing can come out of it. The signals it emits are chance regurgitation’s of any chance splatter.

They have abdicated the responsibility for their own mental processes, yet they continue to act, to speak, to deal with people—and to expect some sort of response. This means that they throw upon others the burden of the task on which they defaulted, and expect others to understand the unintelligible.

The number of people they victimize, the extent of the torture they impose on merciful, conscientious men who struggle to understand them, the despair of those whom they drive to the notion that life is incomprehensible and irrational, cannot be computed.

It should not be necessary to say it, but today it is: anyone who wants to be understood, has to make damn sure that he has made himself intelligible.

This is the moral principle that Hank Rearden glimpsed and should have acted upon at once.

It is only with a person’s conscious mind that one can deal, and it is only with his conscious mind that one can be concerned. The unprocessed chaos inside his brain, his unidentified feelings, his unnamed urges, his unformulated wishes, his unadmitted fears, his unknown motives, and the entire cesspool he has made of his stagnant subconscious are of no interest, significance, or concern to anyone outside a therapist’s office.

The visible image of an “unprocessed” mentality is offered by non-objective art. Its practitioners announce that they have failed to digest their perceptual data, that they have failed to reach the conceptual or fully conscious level of development, and that they offer you the raw material of their subconscious, whose mystery is for you to interpret.

There is no great mystery about it.

The mind is a processing organ; so is the stomach. If a stomach fails in its function, it throws up; its unprocessed material is vomit.

So is the unprocessed material emitted by a mind.”

Brain-cancer2

Some Animals Are More Equal

Let’s begin with this….

feminist+law_breakers1

There we are, as reported by the Sun, a feminist vegan cafe has decided to charge men 18% more in order to combat the dreaded and woefully mythological “wage gap”. They even seat women before men by giving them “preferred seating.”

feminist+law_breakers2

You know, like whites once had priority seating before Rosa Parks decided she didn’t want to give up her seat and ride in the back of the bus. Feminism is about equality: thus – men sit in the back and the front is reserved for women.

If you’re directly charging male patrons more based on sex: I believe that’s discrimination and is in fact illegal. I don’t think it’s legally permissible to charge your patrons more based on discriminatory factors like race or sex.

I double checked just to make sure, and I was right.

According to human rights dot gov dot au, the official Australian government online location which lists the various human rights acts in Australia.

This feminist vegan cafe is in direct violation of the “Sex Discrimination Act 1984” which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex for nearly all aspects of society including “provision of goods, services and facilities, accommodation”.

Not only does this cafe discriminate it’s billing practices on the basis of sex, which is provision of goods and services but it also discriminates in preferred seating for women: which is accommodations.

However, far be it from me to just trust a fact sheet, no no no: I’m far more anal retentive than that. So I tracked down exactly which federal violations of the law this feminist vegan cafe was in violation of. You know, in case someone decides to send my article to the Australian authorities… They’ll know exactly which legal codes to charge the owner and managerial staff of this cafe with.

Hysterical-Laughing-Gif-13

I do so enjoy aiding the local constabulary mind you, I may not be a citizen of Australia but I consider myself a citizen of the world: I’m always willing to lend a helping hand.

With regards to discriminating on the amount of money charged: this is a clear violation of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 Article 22 1.B & C

22 Goods, services and facilities

1. It is unlawful for a person who, whether for payment or not, provides goods or services, or makes facilities available, to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, or breastfeeding:

(a) by refusing to provide the other person with those goods or services or to make those facilities available to the other person;
(b) in the terms or conditions on which the first‑mentioned person provides the other person with those goods or services or makes those facilities available to the other person; or
(c) in the manner in which the first‑mentioned person provides the other person with those goods or services or makes those facilities available to the other person.

feminist+law_breakers3

With regards to discriminating on the preferred seating of women: this is a clear violation of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 Article 23 1.C

23 Accommodation

(1) It is unlawful for a person, whether as principal or agent, to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, or breastfeeding:

(a) by refusing the other person’s application for accommodation;
(b) in the terms or conditions on which accommodation is offered to the other person; or
(c) by deferring the other person’s application for accommodation or according to the other person a lower order of precedence in any list of applicants for that accommodation.

feminist+law_breakers4

In their quest to combat muh wage gap, a ridiculously broken narrative based on no credible evidence other than statistical dishonesty. Here’s famous feminist Christina Hoff Sommers, who defines herself as an “Equity Feminist” and who some of my readers may know as “Based Mom.” Going over the details of the wage gap as studied by both public and private entities on vastly larger scales than the common feminist narratives.

Never mind all evidence to the contrary: the feminist wage gap myth is real because feminist narratives claim it’s real. So in the quest to vanquish the non-existent myth: Feminists are quite willing to violate very real federal laws. Even if those laws, were in fact lobbied for and advocated for by Feminists.

The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 implements Australia’s obligations under the United Nation’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) which came into force in September 1981 and which Australia ratified in July 1983.

How can they rationalize this abject violation of the law? Laws which again, were lobbied for by, advocated for by and proposed by Feminists: to end discrimination? Especially since Feminism all about muh equality?

As I have stated, a multitude of times, to believe the propaganda of feminism: without examining the actions of feminism; denotes an easily manipulated mind.

“Feminism is about equality” – Then why the single largest feminist organization in existence, the National Organization for Women, publicly state on their own website that they oppose shared parenting laws which would give men equal legal rights to that of women? (NOW’s NY branch website was taken down).

“Feminism is about equality” – Then why do feminists advocate that women not be put in prison when they commit a crime? Such as was reported on by JezebelThe Daily Mail and the BBC?

“Feminism is about equality” – Then why did Feminists in the US make it a less legally punishable crime for a woman to rape a man than for a man to rape a woman? Also in Israel and India.

“Feminism is about equality” – Then why do Feminists advocate against False Rape accusers being tried for having falsely accused someone who was innocent of any crime? As reported by The Guardian and TIME magazine? If the accusation went all the way to trial the Accusers are guilty of filing false reports, perjury and slander.

“Feminism is about equality” – Then why do feminists protest so many men’s rights conferences, even though about male suicide when men are dying of suicide at four times the rate of women?

hqdefault

“Feminism is about equality” – Then why do Feminists support the Violence Against Women Act when men are the majority of assault victims, men are the majority of murder victims and in the arena of domestic violence: even Jezebel couldn’t find fault with a study which showed that women perpetrate domestic violence more than twice as often as men? Not only did they not find fault with it: they laughed at the fact that most of their fellow feminist staff members had in fact committed domestic violence in spite of not having been on the receiving end.

“Feminism is about equality” – Then why did feminists create and lobby for the Duluth Model which has been proven in several studies to be nothing more than a gender based discrimination which is used to arrest male victims of domestic violence at 3 and 5 times the rate at which women get arrested in duel arrests for domestic violence?

“Feminism is about equality” – Then why did Feminists lobby for “Yes means Yes” / “Enthusiastic Consent” to be made the standard ruling on college campuses which denies the accused any rights of an actual trial and has been shown to be so blatantly one sided that even when the co-author of the law was asked how one could prove one’s self innocent after being accused: she responded by saying “Your guess is as good as mine.”

“Feminism is about equality” – Then why does women’s forms of cancer receive 4 times as much government funding as men’s cancers even though men die of cancer more often?

“Feminism is about equality” – Then why did Feminists make Female Genital Mutilation illegal, at the federal level but not male genital mutilation illegal even though (1) an avg of 112 male children die every year in the US from routine infant circumcision and (2) it’s in violation of the 14th amendmentwhich states “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

DA7wIxYUIAAvBDe

With all of the equality, where’s the equality? Not seeing much equality, but I am seeing double standards in every law that feminists support. Including double standards so outright and egregious that they’re purely in violation of the 14th amendment to the constitution like the Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1995 and the Violence Against Women act.

I also find it more than a little hysterical that it would be Feminists who lobby for laws which violate the constitutional amendment which was written in order to protect blacks from the various “black codes” which former slave territories used to oppress them. Yeah, “equality”, men just need to be protected by the 14th amendment to prevent them from being exploited and denied equal rights against the Feminist “male codes.”

Again, to be taken in by the rhetoric of feminism “muh equality” while paying absolutely no attention to the reality of feminism: is either an act of doublethink or extreme naivety.

“If your ideology is in conflict with Reality – it is not Reality which is wrong.”

Here’s the kicker: for everything I laid out above, there’s ample rationalizations to justify them. this is why I created the logical fallacy “Ad Minus Aequius”.

adminusaequius

If you actually read and follow the dictionary definition of a Feminist: I am a feminist. However, paying attention to reality – I o not call myself a feminist because the vast majority of those who CALL themselves feminists: don’t qualify under the dictionary definition of a feminist. If you haven’t read my article “Political Abandonment“: I’ll report the juicier bits here.

“I’ll give you a practical example; me, being a classical liberal, a strict constitutionalist – am a centrist. Here’s the banner which adorns my twitter, minds and youtube pages.

OLtest4

A full throttle no holds bared statement that all people regardless of any identity of any kind should be treated equally under the law with no special treatment of any kind be it negative or positive.

No second class citizens, no special privileges, no special protections. Everyone treated equally before the law and their individual rights / civil liberties protected BY the law: against the malevolence of others or even against the state itself.

It doesn’t GET any more classical liberal than this. This is the essence of the greatest political and moral philosophers of western civilization boiled down into a single opus that the rights of the individual are sacrosanct and everyone within society should be protected or punished equally by the same code of law.”

I publish verifiably factual information which dispels popular mythos and propagandic narratives as a direct confrontation to those who wish to use rhetoric to deny the rights of others.

What I advocate for, is exactly what you see in the quote for my article “Political Abandonment“, equal rights.

What I advocate against: is all those who advocate for special privileges, special protections, special exemptions, preferential treatment and two tier legal systems which promote some groups to being first class citizens and other groups to being second class citizens.

Those people, persons, groups and organizations who DO advocate for special privileges, special protections, special exemptions, preferential treatment and two tier legal systems which promote some groups to being first class citizens and other groups to being second class citizens: are anti-freedom and anti-equality.

No matter how they define themselves or what they define themselves as, even if they claim to be Feminists and the dictionary definition of feminism is all about equality: the dictionary definition of “an advocate of the supremacy of a particular group, especially one determined by race or sex” is a “supremacist.

supremacist23

If you’re advocating for or lobbying for superior rights to be given to a group or groups OVER THAT of another group or groups: you are categorically, unabashedly and undeniably, by definition, a supremacist.

It’s a simple concept really and it goes utterly unnoticed.

2-24

Depth of Leftist Indoctrination: Islamophobia

It all started with that video. To which I replied with a quote from my own article on the subject. Taken from “Islamophobia < Reality“.

“So to answer that question: is it irrational to be fearful of Islam? Not, at, all. Not to any degree. Looking at the reality with an unflinching view and examining the results of European nations which took in large communities of Muslims verses Poland which took in zero. To enact a Poland policy of “no entry” is not only not IRRATIONAL, it’s the single most rational position to take.

Now we come to the final conclusion: not only is the current definition, demonstrably an example of Propaganda: but it’s also a false premise. There is nothing irrational about being fearful of Islam or large groups of Muslims.

Islamophobia is a complete and utter fallacy.”

When a leftist showed up and things got…. well: there’s a reason we refer to it as “Liberal Lunacy.”

[LEFTIST]

I totally disagree with you. Terms like xenophobia, anti-semitic and islamophobia are all very valid terms. I’v personally been really surprised how black and white the discussion is when people talk about Islam. The total disregard to the fact that world wide christians kill the most people and inflict the most suffering. The total denial of the fact that Europeans have been the most destructive force on the globe for at least 500 years or more. Totally fucked up 5 continents and countless societies and high cultures, robbing wealth from virtually everybody, and now everyone’s suddenly scared that these historical facts are coming back to bite us from our asses. The hypocrisy is just un fucking believable. Besides the current trend of blaming muslims from shit that’s actually the fault of the western elitism and imperialism. Has historically astonishing resemblance to the rise of anti-semitism of the early 1900′.

notworththeeffort

This was beyond my ability to so much as tolerate unpacking. So I simply zero’d in on the one aspect I knew would make the house of cards crumble. Since he was so quick to defend muslims: all I had to do was prove what kind of horrors they’d been up to and boom – he’d be out of the running. Leftists are very easy to upset and are also easily shaken as soon as their world view is challenged.

The indoctrination they undergo makes them very fragile to confrontation or opposing points of view: particularly if backed up with verifiable information proving them wrong. As soon as you pick one thread out of place from their carefully woven constructed reality it’s like pulling on the corr ect portion of the thread in cat’s cradle. The whole thing falls apart in their lap.

[ME]

“The total disregard to the fact that world wide christians kill the most people and inflict the most suffering.”

Ask an Indian about that sometime: till then, read a book.

736064000197926912

That little leftist, ever evading of reality decided to fire back.

[LEFTIST]

“No I’ll ask a historian whom can back his claims with real statistics instead of a crappy meme.”

Ha ha, oh little leftist, little leftist.
my_trap_card

I simply responded….

[ME]

“Okey doke.”

Then I proceeded to unload several news articles and a documentary on the topic. Each link sent separately in it’s own @ attack filling his notifications on minds. Which I will provide here.

sikhnet.com “Islamic India – The biggest holocaust in World History

Hinduism Today “India’s Holocaust

jagrukbharat.com “ISLAMIC INDIA: The World’s BIGGEST HOLOCAUST Wiped Out From History Textbooks

myind.net “A Holocaust that everyone Forgot

To all of this, all of this. Books, citations, historical accounts he replies the following…

[LEFTIST]

“People usually forget that every main religion forbids killing other humans”

Then the gloves came off. I will not permit such fluffy fluffy pleasant lies.

[ME]

“People usually forget that every main religion forbids killing other humans” –

You are a liar: Islam specifically tells it’s followers to kill or convert all non-muslims.

009.003
YUSUFALI: And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.

009.004
YUSUFALI: (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

009.005
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Typical to what I’ve come to expect of leftists… he attempted to evade. Of course….

[LEFTIST]

Be a bit more specific are those verses from the Koran or the book that followed that has    absolutely nothing to do with the real religion?

Like he was getting off that easy. Ha!
Hysterical-Laughing-Gif-13

[ME]

They’re from the Quran ya half witted lunatic.

https://quran.com/9/3-13
(ordinarily I’d hide the link or blend it into a statement: but I wanted you to see how the link was provided in the actual message sent across minds)

9.3 “And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away – then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.”

9.4 “Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].”

9.5 “And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”

Muslims are permitted to make peace with non-muslims: only for a short while – then are COMMANDED to utterly annihilate them by every possible method and strategy – unless the non-muslims agree to convert.

Right from the horses mouth – like I said in my first message to you: read a book.

[ME]

https://quran.com/2/190-200
(ordinarily I’d hide the link or blend it into a statement: but I wanted you to see how the link was provided in the actual message sent across minds)

2:190 “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.”

2:191 “And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.”

2:192 “And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”

2:193 “Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.”

Muslims are commanded to kill all non-muslims: unless they agree to convert to Islam.

How many more examples of this do you want – directly from the pages of the Quran? Set a number. Is 2 examples good enough? 3? 5? How many different sections of the Quran do you want me to send you of the same concept being proclaims that “Muslims are commanded to kill all non-muslims: unless they agree to convert to Islam.”

How many leftist? name it.

LOOk bud, I know you’ve sold on and told over and over again “Islam is a religion of peace” ad nauseum – I know, I understand. However: you only – need – read the Quran, for yourself: and allow the eyes in your head to actually SEE the words for yourself: for you to know – you’ve been told lies.

Oh noes; the big bad right winger’s being mean to me, wah!
evil_laughter

[LEFTIST]

Hey there’s no real reason for you to start spewing personal insults even if we disagree on this specific issue. I’m just saying I’m not going to accept anything as a truth without examining the issue from various points of view. Such as the political, religious, socioeconomic aspects, customary behavior of the traditional people of a specific region before the main religions and so on. Calling me a half wit won’t help either of us.

[ME]

https://quran.com/9/111
(ordinarily I’d hide the link or blend it into a statement: but I wanted you to see how the link was provided in the actual message sent across minds)

9:111 “Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.”

That is the passage which justifies suicide bombings and grants them paradise.

the Quran SPECIFICALLY tells Muslims: if they kill and are killed in the name of Allah: they will be rewarded with paradise. There it is, black and white, stark as day.

[LEFTIST]

I’m not really sure that translation is correct.

Yet another evasion. You’ll see this multiple times: he is just steadfast committed to holding to his narratives in flagrant denial of reality.

[ME]

that’s the Sahih International translation.

https://quran.com/9/111?translations=85,20,101,17,84,18
Quran.com offers many translations of each text. Here’s the other translations of that same passage.

MUHSIN KHAN
Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Quran. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success.

MUFTI TAQI USMANI
Surely, Allah has bought their lives and their wealth from the believers, in exchange of (a promise) that Paradise shall be theirs. They fight in the way of Allah, and kill and are killed, on which there is a true promise (as made) in the Torah and the Injīl and the Qur’ān. And who can be more faithful to his covenant than Allah? So, rejoice in the deal you have made, and that is the great achievement.

DR. GHALI
Surely Allah has purchased from the believers their selves and their riches for (the reward) that the Garden will be theirs; they fight in the way of Allah; so they kill, and are killed. It is a promise, truly (binding) on Him in the Tawrah, and the Injil, and the Qur’an; and who fulfils his covenant (better) than Allah! So feel glad of the tidings of the selling you have made (Literally: allegiance you have sworn) with Him; and that is the (bargain) (that is) the magnificent triumph.

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.

ABDUL HALEEM
God has purchased the persons and possessions of the believers in return for the Garden- they fight in God’s way: they kill and are killed- this is a true promise given by Him in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran. Who could be more faithful to his promise than God? So be happy with the bargain you have made: that is the supreme triumph.

DR. MUSTAFA KHATTAB, THE CLEAR QURAN
Allah has indeed purchased from the believers their lives and wealth in exchange for Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah and kill or are killed. This is a true promise binding on Him in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran. And whose promise is truer than Allah’s? So rejoice in the exchange you have made with Him. That is ˹truly˺ the ultimate triumph.

[LEFTIST]

Well anyways you don’t have to get mad at me for thinking for my self. I’m just saying that it really doesn’t seem to me like your taking everything to account.

70e

I just keep trying to reach this guy – I really do. I keep confronting with verifiable proof: he keeps evading. It’s amazing. Leftist indoctrination has reached astonishing degrees of mind control.  Finally I just put it in as simple terms as is possible….

[ME]

Again I say “I know you’ve sold on and told over and over again “Islam is a religion of peace” ad nauseum – I know, I understand. However: you only – need – read the Quran, for yourself: and allow the eyes in your head to actually SEE the words for yourself: for you to know – you’ve been told lies.”

First you tried to evade reality with “are those verses from the Koran or the book that followed that has absolutely nothing to do with the real religion?

Then you tried to evade reality by questioning the Translation.

Now, having been presented with absolute irrefutable proof that the Quran undeniably, unquestioningly, irrefutably directly TELLS muslims to kill non-muslims unless they convert: and that if Muslims kill for the name of Allah and die in the name of Allah – they are rewarded with paradise:

Now you’re further, still, continuing to evade reality in asserting “I’m just saying that it really doesn’t seem to me like your taking everything to account.

If I tell you that 2 + 2 = 4: will I not be taking everything into account?

2. My assertion is “The Quran tells Muslims to kill non muslims unless they convert, and that if muslims kill and die in the name of alah they are rewarded with paradise”

+

2. I then show you in the Quran where it directly says exactly that….

2 + 2 = 4

Capitulate to reality or admit that you are a propagandist ideologue doubling down on the lies you have been told, which you are WILLFULLY choosing to continue to hold in spite of the verifiable abject reality you have been shown.

Trying to get through to these people is just a practice in absurdity. He did not respond to that last message by the way. I’m sure he will, eventually, when he figures out his next method for evading reality. Probably some form of relativism or some kind of false equivocation.

Islam is a religion of peace because it has always been a religion of peace because leftists are told that Islam is a religion of peace therefore Islam is a religion of peace and all contrary evidence to this premise must be false because Islam is a religion of peace. It’s like watching 1984 happen, live.

doublethink

UK Police: Slipping All Over That Slope

1) Ayden “And let me ask you a question, my friends… Were any of you able to really pick up at any point, during that completionist game play, as to where the “right wing extremism” had anything to do with it? Until, until I absolutely murdered a black person, because that’s what happened at the end is it not? At the end of that I went to one rally and I thought it was funzies and then I went to a second rally and at the second rally I beat a black man to death. That is what they are saying here, that’s it” –

No, the dead body was that of a white person. Due to the nature of propaganda: equating “hate crimes” to whites harming non whites; you automatically equivocated that you beat a black person to death in the video game EVEN THOUGH this was your second play through – but no – the dead body was a young white man. Screen cap at time index 7:42.

ayden_7_42

2) The whole simulation is a Slippery slope logical fallacy.

“You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.”

3) Equate valid concerns and civic activities as gateway to extremism in order to devalue those valid concerns for which there is verifiable evidence and demonize said civic activities. This is propagandic slander.

4) The 3 people beating the dissenter, looked non-white and the dead body was a white person.

5) During the monologue at the end: the dead body who’s hand is in frame: is also a white person. As seen here at time index 8:45.

sliperyslope5

6) Are they really trying to market this as anti-right/white extremism when it’s a white person who was murdered by non-whites?

7) It is of paramount importance they create a fictional event in which a hate crime against a non-white theoretically occurs, because the number of non-whites killed in hate crimes inside the UK is utterly dwarfed by comparison to the terrorist attacks carried out against whites by non-whites, particularly muslims, within the UK. yet these are “terrorist” attacks and are not counted as “hate crimes.”

694940094001_5444784858001_5444770738001-vs

8) Provide statistics on “hate crimes” but not “death tolls” in order to hide the fact that far more whites are killed by non-whites than the reverse.

9) The Hate crime, England and Wales, 2015 to 2016 DOES NOT parse the hate crimes list to show how many of said hate crimes are committed by non-whites against native whites.

10) Hate Crime statistics reported: are those which are REPORTED, not those which are tried and convicted. Anyone non-white can phone in, lie to the police and report a hate crime, no matter how fictitious: and it will be added to the registry of data presented in this simulator.

Screen Cap of Script
sliperyslope2

Taken from “the Hate crime, England and Wales, 2015 to 2016″ – page 8
“Table 1). These racially or religiously aggravated offences are by definition hate crimes. However, the hate crime collection on which the majority of the bulletin is based has a wider coverage of race and religious hate crime. This is because the police can identify other offences as hate crimes, not just those for which there is a separate specific racially or religiously aggravated offence for the police to record against. Therefore, the number of race or religious hate crimes in this bulletin will be greater than the total number of police recorded racially or religiously aggravated offences.

11) “Hate Crimes” in the UK also include mean words on the internet, such as facebook or twitter – speech which is declared to be hate speech is recorded as a “hate crime”.

Screen Cap of Script
sliperyslope3

Taken from “the Hate crime, England and Wales, 2015 to 2016” – page 8
This release contains figures on the number of racist incidents reported to police forces in England and Wales (excluding British Transport Police). A ‘racist incident’ is any incident, including any crime, which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race.”

12) What the Hate crime, England and Wales, 2015 to 2016 uses as a guideline for what is and is not a “hate crime” has no legal frame work of any kind: it is entirely based on subjective opinion of the person reporting it.

Screen Cap of Script
sliperyslope4

Taken from “the Hate crime, England and Wales, 2015 to 2016” – page 8
“This release contains figures on the number of racist incidents reported to police forces in England and Wales (excluding British Transport Police). A ‘racist incident’ is any incident, including any crime, which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race.

Ladies, gentlemen, boys, girls and those who identify as mayonnaise or attack helicopters: this is precisely the kind of wtfery which Social justice Ideologues use in order to produce their propaganda. This is what you can expect. Nebulous terms which permit vague interpretations in order to artificially create false statistics.

This is what they do with rape, this is what they do with domestic violence, this is what they do with “Toxic Masculinity”. Here you see first hand right from the document which they cite as their source: this is what they use to create their propaganda regarding “hate crimes”.

sjws_document