Friday, January 8, 2016

Welcome sweet & kind refugees from Islamic countries.

Cologne Out Of Control: One Week Since Migrant Attacks, Another Teenage Girl Hospitalized By Gang

Welcome sweet & kind refugees from Islamic countries.

There's a price to be paid for Puritanical dress & dating & sex codes. This is the price: Young men so f-ed up they're willing to rape & molest en masse.

Islam comes to Europe.


Tawfik Hamid talking about how Puritanical Islam fucks up the brains of young Muslim men:

A high percentage of Muslims believe in medieval barbarism and iron-fisted theocracy

"Total number of those Muslims who want sharia law and also want death penalty for leaving Islam = 269450621
in percentage = 32.69% worldwide."


Find "death penalty for leaving Islam" at:

more info:

Nearly 270 million worldwide. And these people love their prophet more than not only their life, but more than your life also.

Dalia Mogahed is an abusive Puritan and cult member

In my view Dalia Mogahed is an abusive Puritan and cult member. Advocates for the hijab / niqab / burqa are basically Puritans. Liberals just hate Christian-originated Puritanism, but they love Puritanism which emanates from any flavor of Islam (eg: the widespread worldwide Saudi-funded & CAIR supported version), or when it comes via any idea that counters or casts doubt on any aspect of the dominant leftie paradigm.

Video interview of Dalia Mogahed on the Daily Show:

short url:


Response to the following point made by
Dalia Mogahed:

---quote begins

What a Hijab does is it basically privatizes a woman's sexuality.

So what are we saying when we say that by taking away or privatizing a woman's sexuality, we're oppressing her? What is that saying about the source of a woman's power [in the media]?

---end of quote

My response:
13.8 billion years of evolution by natural selection has not "selected for" a privatization of female human sexuality.

Maryam Namazie's response to the hijab, a most excellent response!:

World hijab day - as celebrated by Maryam Namazie, the way the day should be celebrated (ie: without a hijab):

In my view
Dalia Mogahed is simply a member of an abusive human spirit destroying cult.

Women within Islam are not free to go without the hijab, even in Western countries:

Why is Puritanism ok when it's expressed by a Muslim woman who's in a hijab, but not ok when it's expressed by a conservative Christian?

Puritianism is abusive in it's own right, whether that Puritanism is expressed by someone like Dalia Mogahed, or whether it's expressed by past Mormon prophet Spencer Kimball or by John Harvey Kellogg.

Maajid Nawaz, a near lone truly-liberal Muslim voice, on the hijab:

Quote: "...Even when adopted through individual choice, it is the religious-conservative assumption, this modesty theology, that women who do not wear headscarves are somehow sinful, less modest and not pious, that we liberals must critique. For at the root, it is this same attitude that is invoked in honor killings, and heinous acid attacks..."
Women in Iran who sneak & go without the scarf:

The hijab is abusive, abusive for exactly the same reasons why Puritanism in general is abusive: It/they attempts to warp human sexuality into something it is not by default and by (evolutionary) design: hidden.

Because their are Islam-run countries which force women to hijab, and because mosques worldwide force women to wear it, it's abusive. It's also abusive because it separates men & women into an inherently abusive and unnatural state & relationship status.

Women should be showing their hair & necks, in public, to men & to other women. Period. And if you see value in "privatizing" the normal natural healthy human sexuality expressed via women's hair, necks, and faces, you are an abuser. And if you're a cult member who believes there's value in such covering, you are an abuser.

More on Dalia from Sam Harris:

As a Muslim woman, I see the veil as a rejection of progressive values Yasmin Alibhai-Brown

The science of swearing, by Steven Pinker:
...relates in my view to how some humans also don't enjoy "sexual system" activation in their brains, not-at-all!

Tawfik Hamid talking about how Puritanical Islam fucks up the brains of young Muslim men:

Why do desert tribes hate sexual system activation? Clothes on humans may well be natural. Otherwise abusive body mutilations humans engage in within various "aboriginal" "native" tribes (eg: male & female genital cutting aka circumcision) may also be "natural." Religions are natural. But not everything that's natural is good nor do all natural things make humans happy generally nor cause them to thrive.

In any case puritanism is abusive regardless of it's source, whether that source is Islam, Islamophiles, lefties who love Islam & the hijab, your local Saudi-funded mosque which forces women to be segregated and to hijab, or Mormonism, or Catholicism, or etc.

Somewhere between letting it all hang out and hanging people for doing so is where humans are happiest and thrive the most. But the hijab is more on the hanging-people side of things than any other.

Related post:
whitewashing history -- sex obsessed ancestors -- nudist hypocrisy

Charlie Hebdo rest in peace (RIP): Not all gods are equal, some are peaceful and some are terrorists

Copy of the January 2016 "Charlie Hebdo"
The god of all religions a terrorist? I don't think so. Not all religions have the same god.

The original & only Charlie Hebdo rest in peace. The new Hebdo is not the same magazine as the old one. RIP Charlie Hebdo. Not all gods are equal nor are all religions. "Religion" as a concept is just as dangerous a thing when it flowers on the left as when it continues to exist on the right, and probably the leftist version is even more dangerous & denialist & dishonest.

[Charlie Hebdo’s anniversary edition proves Islamic terrorists won]

Charlie Hebdo claims that the "god of all religions is a terrorist" as per a recent cover talked about in the video below. That's not true though.

The god the Jains is not a terrorist. The god of most Amish is not. Even the hippie god of leftie Christians/Unitarians is not (except in as much as that god says one must law down and let fascists thrive "in their own lands").

The god of Mormonism is a horny white & delightsome man who has sex with thousands of women every hour of every day [do the math: to make 10,000,000,000 spirit babies in say 1,000,000 years, that's 1 baby making activity even every hour].

The god of Scientology is an angry alien.

The god of Catholicism & Anglicanism is a mystical undefinable asexual parthenogenic blob, and in the case of Catholocism who really really hates making Jesuses via normal vaginal sex while at the same time really really liking perverted old fart virgin pedophile priests.

The god of Islam is vain & brutal & narcissistic & jealous & mean & evil. Check the links at:

Not all gods are equal nor are all religions.


Related posts & additional notes:

On the god of Mormonism:

Advise for TBMs on porn: Why society accepts pornography but not littering?

We were all just sperm in god's balls:'s%20balls

Questions for Mormon missionaries (includes references to how the Mormon god had literal sex with Mary the mother of Jesus)

On the god of Catholicism (defined by a bunch of fucking mumbo jumbo):
and unlike Mormonism Catholicism firmly maintains the birth of Jesus was virginal:
God's wiener did not go anywhere near Mary's hoohaw, and in Catholicism God probably doesn't even have a wiener & to suggest as much would be sacrilege to Catholics.

On the god of Islam: the core text of Islam clearly states his intentions:
...on that page check out the following categories:

Cruelty and Violence
Good Stuff
Science and History
Family Values

Whereas the god of Jainism is much different:

Five main vows of Jains, which is a much different list from that of your average Mohamed lover:

Jains must be non-violence, but sometimes violence is called for:

God of Scientology:

Monday, January 4, 2016

The religion of the "non-religious" left: anti-free-speech, anti-science, anti-Enlightenment

Islam v. Free Speech: Twitter Surrenders

[Bernie Sanders:] Global warming a worse threat than terrorism, "...climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism..."

The main arguments supporting Sanders' assertion seem to revolve around resource availability:

However what's missing from Sanders' equation is the impact of the Islamic meme set itself upon the stability and viability of societies.
(that the Western political leadership is largely in denial about the real root causes of terrorism)

Obama's statement about what, according to him, the future "must" not belong to:
(never talking smack about Mohamed)

Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz collaborating discussions:

Maajid is an unfortunately-singular truly-liberal voice within "Islam."
Cartoon posted by Maajid:
more on Maajid:
Sam Harris debates Cenk Uygur (an example of the new regressive left vs those few lefties who're willing to be honest regarding Islam)

Re climate change, Mark Steyn is engaged in a legal battle with Michael Mann.

Judith Curry & Mark Steyn at the Senate: 

Anyway I've come to conclude that, as per Daniel Dennett's "dangerous" idea regarding religion being a natural phenomenon, religion is so damn natural that two or more atheists gathered in the name of their favorite social or political agenda cannot help but form a de facto one.

Charismatic charlatans come in all shapes and sizes. When our favorite "prophet" is on our side of the political spectrum we're more ready to dismiss their flaws. For example when Clinton was in office I personally wrote to the White House expressing my support during their trials & tribulations. However I now see that I was hoodwinked, just like I was hoodwinked about Joseph Smith.

Why are the rape crimes of Bill Clinton given a pass while the probably-natural activities of Catholic Priests & other pedophiles are not? Just because something is 'natural' doesn't mean it should be valued. Sociopathy and psychopathy are natural too, natural abusive outlier activities that is.

Recoverers from religion have a hard time seeing value in fully natural & fully evolved human morality which says "no" to certain activities. Why did fully natural religions/cultures evolve moral codes of conduct? For fully natural reasons.

So how "conservative" should we be? It's a balancing act. An evolution if you will. And we aren't the first people to deal with the tension between letting it all hang out, and hanging people for doing so. Somewhere in between those two extremes lies human happiness & human thriving.
Islam & Mormonism are too conservative.

60s/70s SanFran-Glory-Hole-style liberalism is probably too permissive.

Humans aren't Bonobos. Shame regarding certain otherwise destructive activities exists for some reasonable evolutionary reasons. Moral codes of conduct evolved as counterweights to proclivities which can be destructive.