Agatha Christie is the best-selling author in the world. She wrote murder mysteries for the most part, and they are what her fame is based upon. Her masterpiece is The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. My own personal favourite is The ABC Murders. Other legendary works of hers include Peril at End House, Lord Edgware Dies, Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile, And Then There Were None, Crooked House, and Endless Night. Her non-mystery masterpiece was written under the pseudonym of Mary Westmacott. It was entitled Absent in the Spring, about a woman who, when stranded temporarily in the desert, begins to fundamentally know herself. It is an expert work with regard to human nature. Agatha Christie was a peerless genius.
What made her so special? She had everything a murder mystery devotee could ever want in an author. She had a very readable style, she tried to trick her readers in a way her predecessors and contemporaries never bothered with, she often had a surprise ending, she often (but not always) played fair with her readers, etc. She also disappeared in 1926 due to some personal problems. The fun of Christie is trying to guess who the murderer is, trying to outsmart the author who can never really be outsmarted.
How does Christie fit into amphiism? It doesn’t, really, except that we all need entertainment. And murder mysteries, even fictional ones, can help us understand good and evil. The great ones, such as the ones written by Christie, deal with human nature and help explain it. Amphiism is also partly about nostalgia for an older period, when entertainment was supplied by legends, masters of their craft, rather than overproduced artists who espouse a political agenda, rather than have a vocation.
Immigration is one of the most controversial issues of the day. And this applies worldwide. It is understandable why so many people have such strong feelings about this issue.
Justin Trudeau has come out heavily in favour of open borders and immigration, especially for refugees. He believes in diversity, because it strengths any nation which celebrates it, and practices it. I understand from his public speeches that he feels that the more Canadians experience other cultures, the richer we will be on multiple levels. They bring a spirit of entrepreneurship, family values, and a wide range of ideas from which all Canadians benefit. I cannot speak for Trudeau, obviously, but if he does feel this way, I completely agree with him.
There is a strong argument to be made that if we welcome Muslims and other non-Canadians to Canada, we will benefit from additional security nationally, because we will not anger those who wish to destroy non-believers.
Take Trump’s Muslim ban. Groups like ISIS are going to become increasingly enraged that such discrimination exists against Muslims because of that man’s presidency, especially since it originates from the land of the supposed free. Trudeau, in a very emotionally intelligent way, upon Trump’s statement about the ban, reassured immigrants that they would always have a place in Canada. Perhaps it is unfair to compare Trump to Trudeau, of course. Trudeau’s father, after all, made into law the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and had many years of political experience, no doubt some of which he passed on to his son. Trump, on the other hand, comes from the world of capitalist business, where people do not matter as much as profits.
In Canada, immigration is based on a merit-based points program. Careful vetting occurs so as to ensure Canadians’ national security and the human rights of immigrants seeking a better life.
Trudeau has demonstrated his world view by withdrawing fighters from Yemen, offering humanitarian aid instead, and training. While still not ideal, it is much better than contributing weapons to the region. If violence were ever the answer, then the first time it occurred, there never would have been need for any additional violence.
We need to stop thinking in terms of Canadian rights, but instead focus on human rights and peacefully co-existing with all global stakeholders.
I would like to offer an analogy for my last point. Sometimes when people join a religion, they enthusiastically grab on to the doctrines of that religion with even more vigour than the people born into the religion, and brought up in it by their parents. I think this is what Trudeau was talking about (if indeed the quotation attributed to him is accurate) when he stated that sometimes immigrants who come to Canada are more Canadian than native Canadians. Sometimes an immigrant sees with new, appreciative eyes the practical implementation of laws like the collective Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, whereas native Canadians, through no fault of our own, but naturally, begin to take such rights for granted as we have always had them.
The answer seems to be to have as unlimited immigration as possible. Let’s learn about new cultures. Let others retain their cultures when they come here, so we can all learn from each other. Let’s show the world that Canadians understand what it means to be a post-national state, and instead a legitimate stakeholder in the global arena.
Entertainment in the West used to be about beauty and/or talent. Often, people over the age of 40 suffer a feeling of nostalgia for what used to be in the world of fantasy.
Greta Garbo is one such example. Garbo’s career was active in America between the years 1926 and 1941. She retired at the age of 36, because of the onset of the Second World War, which closed off foreign markets in Hollywood. She had become more popular in Europe than in the US, because of her high level of sophistication. When she first started in movies, she was a temptress. That appealed to both men and women, but by the mid-30s, Greta Garbo was doing costume dramas and she became somewhat less popular (although still extremely prestigious) in such great masterpieces as Camille, her best film. In 1939, she turned her hand to comedy and became popular once again in Ninotchka, but her next film received a lot of bad publicity and was even condemned by the Catholic Church. So she retired after 1941, although she had intended to return to movies.
Classic movies had better plots (character driven, rather than plot driven through a series of overproduced special effects), better actors, better presence. A lot of people can’t get past that they’re in black and white, but I think that adds an element of mystery and glamour to movies. Movies are very realistic now, but they advance an agenda that is not in the best interests of the masses. They put forth an agenda that nations should be at war with each other, that men and women are enemies, and that sin is something people should never be ashamed of.
We can’t all be as beautiful as Garbo. But we can be beautiful inside by being emotionally intelligent, by being kind, by sacrificing for others.
The three Abrahamic religions are Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Let’s compare them. Islam was founded by the Prophet Mohammed in the sixth century in Saudi Arabia. The main difference between Islam and Christianity is that while Muslims believe that Jesus was a superb moral teacher and prophet of God, they do not believe that he is the actual son of God. They believe this is idolatry and that only one God should be worshipped. Christians do believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, although there is controversy within Christianity whether or not Jesus’s Atonement was enough so that people are automatically forgiven all their sins and enter heaven as a result of the Atonement, or if they also have to work hard to deserve heaven based on merit (as much as possible).
Both Islam and Christianity respect Jesus enormously, then, although to different degrees. The fundamental difference between these first two religions and Judaism is that Jews are still waiting for the Messiah; they do not believe that he has appeared yet.
However, there is a further division of which as many people as possible should be aware in this day of constant terror.
There are over 70 sects in Islam, but two main ones which comprise most of the Muslim population. These are the Sunni and Shia sects. Some say that Shias represent the pure and real Islam, and that extreme Sunni Islam, also known as Wahhabi Islam is the real cause of terrorism. Mohammed ibn Abd al Wahhab is viewed by Shias as an Islamic fanatic in the 18th century (he died near the end of it). But the real terror began when Abu Bakr, Omar and Uthman usurped power from the Prophet Mohammed’s rightful successor, Ali ibn Abi Talib, say the Shia. These men wanted power, and were willing to do anything at all to obtain it. There is a record in both Sunni and Shia literature which states clearly that the Prophet passed on his legacy to Ali, a man known for his akhlaq, his integrity of character, and his great emotional intelligence. The Sunnis also greatly respect Ali, so the two sects agree on that point.
From the Sunni perspective, Omar was a great warrior who won many battles, including the one where he conquered Persia (present-day Iran). They view the temporary marriage practiced by Shias as degenerate and an excuse to sin/fornicate. Shias do contracts (verbal, usually) where they can have sex inside a temporary marriage with a deadline.
Personally, I have become disenchanted with Christianity because of an experience I had with the Mormon church (a Christian church). My view of religion is that we sacrifice our own sins for the assurance that God will protect us. I still definitely believe in God, but have come to realize that I know very little about Him. Hopefully, in my journey through life, I will continue to learn and make correct choices. If anyone knows of any information I produced here that is inaccurate, please let me know. These are important issues, and I want to get everything right.
One of the battles between good and evil going on today is that raging between nationalists and globalists. Which is good, and which is evil, or is a combination of both great? Let’s discuss what white nationalists in the United States want, then globalists, and see if we can come up with a solution.
First, let’s dissect the concept of white nationalism. What do white nationalists believe (keeping in mind that it’s a loaded term and people differ as to who is actually a member of this group)? They think that a border wall should be built for many reasons. They feel that an insecure border between Mexico and the United States means an influx of opioids and other drugs. They feel, like in the case of Kate Steinle, that Americans are at risk from Mexicans who rape and murder from illegal immigrants. They believe that a nation stops being a nation if anyone can enter it.
White nationalists believe in strict gender roles, with men lifting weights and otherwise being as masculine as possible, and women being submissive and shy, willing to stay home and raise the children, not competing with men in the workplace or in any sphere. They say they respect women’s calling as mothers and as the gentler sex.
On the specific subject of gender roles, another argument is that not all women (or men) have the same capabilities. People with the Nazi mindset think that women should just be in the kitchen and men out working to support the family, which is fine as far as it goes, but does it go far enough? Not all women can have kids. Should they be denied the right to take advantage of their inherent skills? Not all men are physically strong enough to lift weights in the first place because of some physical disability. If we take white nationalism too far, then there is an in-group of the ideal men and women, and the out-group of those not so fortunate, such as the differently abled. Taken to an extreme, this is indeed Nazism, because Hitler believed that the differently abled should be killed since they were not worthy members of the Aryan race. It’s what I call the Nazi mindset.
I think that God gave each of us different characteristics, and that’s where the strength of diversity comes. As people who follow me on Twitter know, I’m a shemale. I would love to have been born a ‘normal’ woman, but that is not the plan that God had for me. White nationalists believe that ‘normal’, healthy women should wait to have sex until they are married to optimize their health. It’s possible that a compromise could be that if you’re a normal woman, you ideally remain a virgin before marriage, and if you’re a shemale, have as much fun as you want, because the consequences are far less. If men want to have fun, they can do it with women who can’t have children. One of the problems with such high standards on the part of white nationalist men is that if women can’t have sex before marriage, then neither can men. This would be a good compromise. Older married women could be another way for virile white nationalist men to satisfy their urges. It should always be recognized that men have far higher sex drives than women. White nationalists believe in race realism, acknowledging differences between the races, but I think they also need to examine sexual realism, which says that since men value sex far more than the average woman, white nationalist men need to come up with a way to be sexually fulfilled, while not tainting the pool of women from which they plan to select brides. All of our circumstances are different. And this diversity needs to be recognized when we examine different political philosophies.
White nationalists also believe there should be no race mixing because that dilutes the white race. If enough white women marry black men, then their babies will be brown and accordingly the white race will eventually die out. This is the crux of white nationalism. They don’t hate black people, for example, they just don’t want whites to be a minority in America, since it was founded by white Founding Fathers. They don’t mind black people having traditional families of their own; they just feel that each demographic set is better off in their own country or region, taking care of their own business. Ironically, they see value in segregation, just like Saudi Arabia does. They point to the immigration acts throughout the 1790s, where these men limited immigrants to being white, and of good character. They want back the traditional America, the one depicted in TV shows like The Waltons, where the men worked in the professional sphere (in that case, agricultural), and the women worked in the domestic. This takes advantage of everyone’s unique abilities and strengths, with everyone working together to achieve a common goal, a strong family. Obviously, if someone does not believe in race mixing, then they have the Nazi mindset. It’s absolutely ridiculous to not want the races to mix. Love is love, whether that love is expressed interracially, homosexually, heterosexually, etc.
On the subject of the Wall, my best friend is Mexican, and would be of invaluable aid to the American economy. He is brilliant, and hard-working. He would be an asset to any country. We have to analyze people based on their individual merits, rather than collectively viewing them as Mexicans or Canadians or Jews, etc. The illegal immigrant who killed Kate Steinle did not kill her because he was an illegal immigrant. He killed her because he is a broken man. And Americans citizens kill innocent young girls as well.
I personally can see the value of both nationalism and globalism, although globalism ultimately seems far more attractive. There are many advantages to globalism. There would be far less war in a world where people were not divided by nationality. Land is one of the major reasons for war. Religion is another. In everyday life, the more we get to know someone, the less we stereotype them and the more we become acquainted with their immense value as human beings. In the same way, if we stop viewing people as citizens of a given country, or as members of a distinct religion, the more we can open our eyes to their uniqueness as individuals. The combination of all world religions into one harmonious group could reap wonderful dividends for all global citizens.
Economically speaking, if we had a guaranteed basic wage of a couple of thousand dollars a month, imagine the risks that people could take that could help improve the global economy. Yes, it’s possible that we would pay higher taxes, but wouldn’t it be worth it? There would be no such thing as ‘foreign imports,’ because we’d be thinking on a global scale. We’d all be one, from many. Transnational companies would be meaningless, as there would be no nations. If we all worked together, perhaps violence would end, at least on a large scale. Critics say that this would essentially be a dictatorship. However, some dictatorships are benevolent. An ideal governor for this world government would be Justin Trudeau, because of his immense emotional intelligence. He is the natural aristocrat envisioned by Thomas Carlyle, someone who was not born of royal blood, but who is royal in terms of character and integrity. Recently, Trudeau was accused of behaving unethically because of his family vacation trip to the Aga Khan’s island. Aga Khan is a close family friend of the Trudeau’s, and has been for half a century. Trudeau didn’t think to check with the Ethics Commissioner before his trip, and there was a small scandal recently about it. It has come out since that the Aga Khan does not get paid by the foundation which bears his name, and so it turns out there was a big brouhaha over nothing. But Trudeau, in a press conference, apologized and said he’d made a mistake. This is what a real leader does, and shows Trudeau’s greatness as a man and as a leader. He would be an ideal choice to lead a global government.
There are three separate concepts that scholars have discussed over the past few centuries that I would like to bring together because I think they are all part of the same aspect of human nature. The first idea I would like to talk about is the oldest. When the Founding Fathers of the United States created America, they rebelled against the idea that a man should be respected just because he was born to certain parents. For example, if a child was born into the Royal Family, they never had to worry about money. They had people bowing or curtseying to them. They never had to do anything themselves that they did not want to do. And they were called heroes just because of the circumstances of their birth. The Royal Family of England still exists today. Queen Elizabeth II is now reigning over the Commonwealth. When she dies, her son, Prince Charles, will inherit the throne. Thomas Carlyle is the scholar who came up with the idea of natural aristocracy.
At the time of the American Revolutionary War (in the 1770s and ’80s), George III was the reigning monarch of England. The Founding Fathers, men like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, believed that men should be respected for the contents of their character, not the circumstances of their birth. They believed that a man should be a natural aristocrat, not just an aristocrat. An aristocrat is someone who is connected by birth to the Royal Family. The Founding Fathers believed that men should be aristocrats based on their level of morality. Men should be heroes only if they behave heroically over the course of the small affairs of their days, in other words. Not because they are related to the Queen of England, as we would say in current or contemporary times.
The second concept that I’d like to discuss is emotional intelligence. This concept was popularized by the scholar Daniel Goleman in the 1980s. Emotional intelligence refers to how good we are at controlling our emotions. If a person is emotionally intelligent, Goleman says, they will be good leaders in the workplace. They will master their emotions. They will be good team players. They will see the big picture, the long term. If someone does something wrong to them, they do not want revenge. They are not interested in punishing the other person. They remain calm. There is Biblical encouragement of being emotionally intelligent. As Jesus Christ instructed us, “A soft answer turneth away wrath,” meaning that if someone wants to argue with us, if we remain calm, and do not match their anger with our own, then we will prevail. We will win. We will be victors. Christ also importunes us to pray for those who do spitefully use us. It’s all part of the same thing.
Tying the two concepts together that I have discussed so far, someone who is emotionally intelligent would be a natural aristocrat. They would have integrity and character. They might be poor, and have little of the world’s financial resources. But they are rich in character. They might not be good looking. But they are emotionally intelligent natural aristocrats.
Now, the 3rd concept that I’d like to discuss is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Like Goleman’s discussion of emotional intelligence, the context of Maslow’s was the business world, and what would motivate employees to do the best job possible. However, it can also be applied to everyday life, in the personal sphere. For example, the lowest level of Maslow’s hierarchy is physiological. It means a person’s desire to have food, sex, water, etc. His next level, safety, refers to feeling secure. His next level is love/belonging, which has to do with the universal need to be part of a group. The next level is esteem, where we have a need to be respected and to feel like our own unique contribution to the world is actually being appreciated. The highest level of motivation in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is self-actualization. This is where a person reaches their maximum potential. They are their best self. If a person’s need for food is not met, then the lack of this basic need means that they will be too distracted to bother about being respected. This is just common sense. For example, if someone is starving, they are not going to be in any mood to discuss the finer points of Plato’s philosophy. If someone tries to explain Plato’s concept of a cup to them, the starving person will just want the cup given to them, full of food.
There is a clear connection between being an emotionally intelligent natural aristocrat, and being self-actualized according to Maslow’s model. An emotionally intelligent natural aristocrat can be self-actualized, according to the top practice of the gifts God has given them. Each time someone makes a decision not to become angry with an enemy, they achieve a higher degree of self-actualization. If they stop behaving like a natural aristocrat who’s emotionally intelligent, then they lose their self-actualization. Any human being can regress, or progress, depending on the content of their actions, and their characters.
This is the basis of my world view, and encompasses different areas, because it can be applied to different areas of life, such as philosophy, politics, sex, religion, etc. In Amphiist, my periodical that I publish, I will apply these concepts collectively to politics, entertainment, etc.
Current mainstream perspective
The current Iranian protests have been driven by young people who are fed up with the clerical elite’s greed over keeping the money obtained from the nuclear deal with President Obama, rather than distributing among the populace. Iran’s Supreme Leader and President Rouhani are both being criticized for their role in funding wars that young Iranians don’t feel are in their national interests. The money going towards fighting unnecessary wars could be used for subsidizing the youth in terms of jobs, education, etc.
The Other Side
What the New York Times didn’t mention in this article is that there is an axis of evil, comprised of certain bad actors worldwidel. The mainstream media loves to tell lies about leaders like Bashar al Assad and how he poisons his own people, a blatant falsehood. Why would he? The media loves to also libel Russian President Vladimir Putin, because he is fighting the globalists. It is not anti-Semitic to say that Israel is one of the bad state actors, because the Amphiist has no problem with the average Jew, or average anyone. The thing that the NYT article got right is that the elite DOES take advantage of the masses, and this needs to stop. But it never will until people wake up and realize the extent of the treason that different countries’ leaders have inflicted upon the masses.
Iranians are beginning to fight back. They are Shia Muslims. Islam has 73 sects, one of which is Shia. These people believe that the Prophet Mohammed named a successor, Ali ibn Abi Talib, and that his descendants became Imams, whom Muslims should follow. They are the biggest victims of ISIS. The Wahhabis believe Shias have apostasized. The Shia accordingly have been persecuted for centuries. The persecution continues today at the hands of the Sunnis and the US, etc.
Mainstream media perspective
The mainstream media will never go into depth about the Jewish Question. In a way, that shows a very clear perspective. It’s possible that the reason behind this is that they don’t want any negativity surrounding the Jews because it might encourage hate speech, or worse, violence. If a group of people have been victims of a Holocaust, it’s understandable that they want to avoid any circumstances which might encourage such a tragedy.
The Other Side
There are some people on Twitter who spend a lot of time naming the Jew. They receive a lot of negativity due to this, because they are called anti-Semites. However, there is one issue that I haven’t seen addressed. If Jesus really did atone for all of humankind’s sins, then this is a gift without which we would all perish. Shia Muslims believe that Jesus was a messenger of God, but not that he is the literal son of God, or God in the flesh on earth. They don’t believe that he died on the cross; they feel that he was replaced by someone else, and protected. But let’s assume for a moment that the Atonement did actually happen. If it’s true that Jesus died so that we could all live in heaven with God for eternity, then it’s the most fundamental event that’s ever occurred. So if the Jews did kill Jesus, then it raises new questions about the gratitude we should feel for Jews, not because we want violence against Jesus, but because of the atonement which resulted.
An analogy is the part Lucifer played in the war in heaven that the Bible tells us about. If the war in heaven had to happen so that people could be tested to see if we would choose Lucifer or God, then isn’t Lucifer a necessary part of the heavenly plan? And if so, then why should he be punished if he helps the plan reach fruition? It’s a knotty problem that no one has been able to solve.
Mainstream media perspective
RooshV, or Daryush Valizadeh, is an extremely dangerous man. RooshV is a men’s right activist who writes books about how men can best pick up women. RooshV wrote a satirical article about how rape should be legalized on private property. The media is pretending that this article was meant to be taken literally and that RooshV is a pro-rape advocate. According to the media, RooshV possesses the Nazi mindset, which creates in-groups and outgroups. However, there is a lot more to RooshV than the media talks about. And how they talk about him engenders danger that needs to be discussed.
The Other Side
RooshV points out the attacks waged against him when he tried to lectures to his like-minded followers in Canada, were Islamophobic in nature. Roosh’s teachings are not as extreme as what is found in the Quran, but there is certainly overlap. When extreme feminists try to destroy Roosh, they threaten the rights of ALL Muslims. Roosh’s father is a Shia Muslim, and that informs the context in which Roosh teaches. If it is our responsibility to act as global citizens, rather than nationalistic ones, then it behooves these radicals to honour the culture in which he was raised. There is another danger to treating Roosh the way these extreme feminists and the political/media infrastructure treat him. They make him a martyr. If they left him alone, his audience would be comprised of mere dozens. So if a person is against his teachings, the best thing to do is to ignore him, as long as what he teaches is legal. The bigger danger is to the appreciation of Islamic culture Canada pretends to feel. Let’s stop being hypocritical, Canadians. Do we really accept multiculturalism?
Mainstream media perspective
The mainstream media tells us that Russia, Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, and other countries are corrupt and that the men who lead or have led these nations are dictators who basically deserve to be killed. They routinely claim that Assad uses chemical weapons against his own people, that Putin kills anyone who disagrees with him, and that men like Ghadaffi deserve to die as they are supposedly tyrants. They simultaneously downplay the nefarious acts of the leaders of countries which put their own interests first ahead of those of the globe. There is much more objective evidence which testifies to the machinations of the latter, than the former.
The Other Side
My take on this is that Assad and Putin are nobly fighting against the violent globalists who want to control the masses through central banks and constant wars which depopulate. The elite, to be very specific, implement their depopulation program in many different ways. They encourage abortion, they encourage war, they encourage radicalized gender ideas which have the practical result in fewer men and women creating children together, etc. The fewer humans there are, the more control the elite themselves will exercise.
Putin and Assad both probably do things domestically of which I wouldn’t approve. Killing journalists because they fight against propaganda is evil. Silencing dissidents in general is evil. But have you noticed that when Assad is in public, no one looks afraid? Instead, the crowds adore him and are all smiles. This is not a picture we would see if he really was a terrorist. Voltaire said to find out who is in control, find out whom you can’t criticize. This does not apply to people like Putin and Assad.
Mainstream media perspective
The mainstream media celebrates people like Winston Churchill, and breathlessly announces everything the British royal family is doing on a practically daily basis. For them, Churchill was a great hero who stopped the Nazis. If it weren’t for him, they proudly argue, everyone would be speaking German and much violence would have accrued. The royal family is necessary for the revenue brought by tourism, so the narrative goes. They represent tradition going all the way back to Henry VIII and even centuries before that. They have contributed some of the world’s greatest literature through authors such as Shakespeare, Agatha Christie and Jane Austen (okay, this part is inarguable).
The Other Side
Britain’s wanton disregard of human life following how they partitioned various countries for their own geopolitical interests, without regard for ethnic tensions, exhibits a cruelty almost unimaginable to sane people. Between the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which cavalierly divided Palestine/Israel, and the division of Pakistan and India in 1947, we can thank God that Britain no longer exercises the power it once did.
In his book, Radical, Maajid Nawaz compellingly tells how his grandparents were separated temporarily as a result of the ghost trains designed to implement the partitioning of India and Pakistan. And he mentions how millions of people were killed as a result of the ethnic tensions which occurred
My own thought here is that although all violence is contemptible, no matter how many white British people suffer, it will never equal the existential crisis faced by Britain’s gross and vile dismissal of human rights when they executed their foreign policy in the 20th century. I hope we can always find Shakespeare, Christie and Austen in English bookstores, but other than that, I earnestly yearn for white British culture to be further reduced in power. Bring in millions of refugees, and change to a stronger Islamic culture. Combine the best of Britain with the best of Islam, in other words.
Mainstream media perspective
The mainstream media is today championing Oprah Winfrey as a viable Presidential candidate for 2020. Oprah is a true American heroine, because she escaped from poverty on the force of her own drive. She has been incredibly generous with her wealth. She would be the first African American woman to be President, and she would shatter the glass ceiling once and for all. She is an inspiration for all women, and shows that it is not just the Kardashian type of female who can achieve enormous financial success. Oprah is beloved. It would be nice to have a US President who encouraged minorities to sit at the front of the bus, rather than a President who throws people of colour under it.
The Other Side
The mainstream media often gets it right, if not always. Just because the framework for the Amphiist newspaper is filling in the blanks of the mainstream media sometimes misses out on, it does not suggest a disrespect for the media itself. The Amphiist does not subscribe to the view that the mainstream media represents fake news.
Oprah is an amphiist, someone who is emotionally intelligent, naturally aristocratic because of the strength of her character and integrity, and someone who is aspirational in helping others achieve their best selves. I really value tremendously her contribution to introducing a whole new generation of youth to books. She is obviously a book lover, and wouldn’t that be a refreshing change from the anti-amphiist Americans have in power now?
No one is perfect, and there are some problematic aspects to any Presidential campaign Oprah might launch. Like Trump, she does not bring political experience to the highest political office in the world. And political experience counts for something. It means you know how to network, how to make deals, how to negotiate in the first place, a realistic notion of the limitations of what a President can do, and the concessions that the President of a country with checks and balances has to acknowledge and implement.
Mainstream media perspective
The mainstream media dismisses the altright as NeoNazis. The media states that the altright believes that white people are inherently superior to people of colour; this is perhaps the biggest charge against them. According to the media, the altright is too dangerous to allow on social media, they are anti-Semitic, and that they are hicks who drive pick-up trucks, work out in the gym a lot, and aren’t very sophisticated. They are not well-informed politically, and many of them acknowledge they never had much interest in politics before voting for Trump. So not only do they have a politically inexperienced leader, they also fit that description themselves.
The Other Side
I am afraid that the media, while understandably repulsed by some of the more extreme tenets of the altright, are making the group look good by causing them to look like martyrs. The aesthetic of the altright, for those who are not politically sophisticated, can seem appealing. They work out, they look great, they seem to feel that morality is very important, but this is only what you see on the surface. A movement which has very attractive, muscular men at the helm, giving interviews, and sharing constant podcasts, unfortunately might appeal to lonely women who are ripe for being recruited.
However, as we examine the altright beyond the superficialities, some dangerous stuff is going on. Last night, Nick Fuentes, host of America First, interviewed Paul Nehlen, the man who is running for state legislature in Wisconsin against Paul Ryan. Fuentes and Nehlen, both regularly assert they are wonderful Christians. However, Nehlen admitted that the only reason he cares about the DACA issue is he’s afraid that Dreamers will be potential liberal voters. He doesn’t care about the ideology behind it; he’s a purely political animal. Not very Christian. Also, Nehlen routinely says mean things about others. He’s not a Christian…and he’s not an amphiist.
Mainstream media perspective
The media is championing a guaranteed basic wage. Business Insider has an article by Chris Weller, which describes Mark Zuckerberg as doubling down on the issue. He asserts that a universal guaranteed income can lift people out of poverty and take care of their immediate needs. Also, many experts such as Elon Musk believe that artificial intelligence in the form of robots will displace millions of workers. The basic guaranteed dividend would help curtail the catastrophic consequences of such a future. Ben Chapman, writing for the Independent in Britain, quotes Richard Branson as saying that the idea would encourage entrepreneurship.
The Other Side
An example of this entrepreneurship could be the creation of new social media platforms which solve the problem of censorship that is plaguing groups like the alt right on Twitter. If people know they have enough money for food, rent and clothing, can encourage them to take a year or so to implement a new idea that will act for the betterment of society. On the other hand, some people will take advantage of being able to do no work at all and still receiving a minimum wage, regardless of their inactivity. This could substantially have an impact on productivity. It could also weaken the moral fibre of recipients of what some refer to as a handout. There is a joy in working hard and receiving commensurate wages. However, for the differently abled, such a basic wage that is guaranteed could be life-changing. Homelessness would lessen. Or would it? There are many who become homeless through no fault of their own, while there are others who voluntarily pursue such a fate, because they are extremely uncomfortable with the notion of responsibility. From an alt right perspective, a guaranteed basic income worldwide would cut down on the number of people who would want to immigrate to the United States. This could reduce some of the tension that is currently taking place between nationalists and globalists.
Mainstream media perspective
Emmanuel Macron became President of France in that nation’s most recent election in 2017. Conspiracy theorists love to include him in the group or cabal of globalists who wish to dominate the world. They point to his desire for open borders, welcoming of refugees, tax positions, etc., and say that he and leaders like Merkel and Trudeau of Germany and Canada respectively, are mere puppets of the world’s elite who tell them what to think on any given topic. A favourite topic of conspiracy theorists with regard to Macron is how in his past, he was an investment banker, which of course fits neatly into the narrative about his being a tool of the Rothschilds.
The Other Side
One of the issues that conspiracy theorists focus a lot on is immigration and how, at the behest of philanthropists like George Soros, globalists welcome refugees in order to replace white populations. The globalists, so the conspiracy theorists assert, want the world to be a vague beige and simultaneously to destroy white culture.
However, such conspiracy theorists ignore some of the facts. In Macron’s New Year’s Eve speech of 2017, he indicated that France could not welcome everyone, and that France could not be a nation without rules. Migrants, particularly economic migrants, need to be carefully vetted. Justin Trudeau notoriously welcomes refugees, although he too suggests careful vetting. But there is a primary difference between the two leaders. Trudeau is far more accepting of economic migrants than Macron is. Clearly, they do not march in lockstep on the orders of globalists.
I have noticed both men did say that their nations would be post-national and that Canada and French have no inherent culture. The fact that both would use such similar wording hints there is a concerted effort and agenda regarding immigration. However, the answer could be they are staking common-sense positions. Even if they want one-world government, is a one-world government that bad?
DACA stands for Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals. It means that those under the age of 16 when they arrived in the US are eligible for certain benefits. Under Trump’s administration, there are no more DACA applications allowed. This is catastrophic for those affected, and puts them in a kind of limbo that is horribly unfair. Someone in the US under DACA is eligible for the benefits for 2 years, at which time they can get their status renewed. The advantage for Americans regarding DACA is that these Dreamers under DACA can hold down secure jobs, pay taxes, and contribute therefore to the US economy, doing jobs no one else wants. Trump’s ‘shithole’ remark shows his fundamental racism.
The Other Side
The immigration deal currently under consideration by Trump and the other relevant politicians is Trump wants the wall built in return for a stop to the diversity visa lottery, chain migration, etc.
There is disagreement among conservatives about whether Trump is playing 4D chess or if he is ‘cucking’ to the Democrats. Time will tell, but I’d like to discuss Nick J Fuentes’s position on Trump’s negotiations. Fuentes recently quoted excerpts from Trump’s Art of the Deal, where Fuentes pointed out that Trump says the negotiator should always take advantage of any leverage he has. According to Fuentes, Trump knows that Democrats will not sign any deal which includes building of the wall that separates Mexico from the US, and so the Democrats will have to take ownership of DACA expiring. This will put them in a very bad position in the upcoming midterm elections as their constituents will be angry at Democrats allowing DACA to expire, given the immense amount of suffering ending DACA would inflict on those involved. Fuentes says that it’s worth it to keep DACA because that’s only 800,000 immigrants covered, whereas chain migration and the other elements will mean millions of immigrants.
Richard Spencer, on the other hand, thinks Trump is too weak and that Trump should listen more to Stephen Miller, who says that each year, there amounts to a very large city of chain migrants. And America has the right to be pragmatic in terms of who is welcome in their country.
Mainstream media perspective
The mainstream media would have you believe that extremism is a very good thing. However, Amphiist is anti-extremism. For example, let’s look at the altright, the political group in the US. They are white nationalist racists who believe that white people are superior to others. They believe that a member of one race should not marry a person from another race (yes, these people still exist!). Of course, for the most part, the altright are awful people, or else they wouldn’t feel comfortable being part of a group that holds such reprehensible positions.
The Other Side
However, they are not wrong 100% of the time. Think of the Waltons and how that show displayed a white family living a simple agricultural life. Not all white people are horrible, just white racists. We should not make martyrs out of the altright. We should not help them with their victim narrative so that people feel sorry for them and donate money to them. Funding is where they get their power to protest, etc. We need to starve them of the oxygen of publicity. We need to make sure that the youth, who are sincerely trying to find the answers for how to solve society’s contemporary ills. We need to make sure that the altright does not appear glamorous or that they are deserving of a second look. The mainstream media sometimes goes too far in criticizing such groups. It’s understandable, because the media is trying to protect the youth, for example, from making a mistake in whom they support.
We should condemn the altright for its racist beliefs, but we should never lie about them to make them look worse than they already are. We should matter-of-factly describe their horrible pasts (such as Tommy Robinson’s). He is a career criminal, a thug, etc. But we should not tell lies about him, because once the lies are discovered, then he will be a figure of sympathy. We wish to avoid that at all costs.
Mainstream media perspective
We’ve all heard of the various alleged cases of sexual harassment that have been going on in Hollywood over the past several months. The latest casualty is Aziz Ansari. The mainstream media’s position is that women should always speak up about sexual harassment, regardless of the merits of individual cases. #MeToo and #TimesUP hashtags are all over Twitter, representing the idea that enough is enough, and men should not be allowed to get away with sexually harassing women. This fits in with the anti-male narrative that the media currently encourages, without asking some hard questions about the women who make these claims.
The Other Side
A woman who has been violently assaulted should report it to the police at once, and she deserves our sympathy.
That being said, looking particularly at the case of Aziz Ansari, where his accuser kept making flirtatious eye contact with Aziz throughout the evening. They went to his apartment. They both got naked, she gave him oral sex, and he returned the favour. At one point, he’s alleged to have said, “You must not hate me too much!”, because she was allowing him to be sexual with her.
Whatever happened to feminism? Women are such weak sisters now that they later turn a consensual sexual encounter into an assault, with no remorse that a man might lose his livelihood. This is why I have no sympathy for such women. If a woman isn’t self-aware enough to stop an encounter with someone while it’s occurring, she should stay home or only leave it with a chaperone, because obviously she’s far too idiotic to navigate the contemporary world herself.
The woman accusing Aziz wanted to be with a celebrity. But that apparently didn’t offer her enough attention. There are words for women like his accuser. Beautiful women, because they have men constantly complimenting them just to get them into bed, become entitled. They believe what the men are saying because they’re too dumb to realize the reality of what’s going on.
Nicholas J Fuentes’s Perspective
The recent controversy between Nicholas J Fuentes and James Allsup, cofounders of American First Media, is very interesting from an amphiist perspective. Fuentes was recently fired from American First Media by James Allsup and his business partner ‘Millennial Matt.’ In a Periscope video entitled The Future of America First, Fuentes said the first he heard about his firing was Twitter’s America First Media page. After Fuentes titled his interview with Paul Nehlen, Allsup later changed it. Fuentes doesn’t think this action was justified, since Allsup doesn’t contribute a lot of videos himself and falls down on a host of other issues, such as not organizing the college tour they were supposed to embark upon. Allsup has done 15 podcasts in comparison with Fuentes’s 100. However, Allsup still received a third of the money. Matt never returned Fuentes’s messages on this. The next issue was Fuentes’s desire to use company funds to purchase an inexpensive computer so his interviews, especially, represent higher audio and video quality. Allsup missed 4 shows for Overdrive. Allsup showed up late to various Nationalist Review shows. Although Allsup didn’t realize his own responsibilities, he is going to start cohosting Fash the Nation for The Right Stuff. Fuentes felt used.
James Allsup’s Perspective
Allsup released a YouTube video on the subject, entitled The Truth About America First Media, where he offered many screenshots and images backing up his claims. Allsup’s viewpoint is that he had every right to protect the integrity of the company he co-founded by changing the title to the video of the Nehlen interview. It is possible YouTube would shut down the AF channel if words in the titles violated Community Guidelines (Fuentes’s original title referred to the Jews as a tribe). Allsup offered Fuentes the chance to change the title back. On the subject of workload, Allsup fixed Fuentes’s audio mistakes, built the website, coordinated guest appearances, edited Nationalist Review, handled merchandising activities, troubleshot, etc. Whenever Allsup missed a show, he gave notice. Allsup was prepared to use company funds to help Fuentes get a computer, and he was going to help build it. Fuentes banned Allsup and MM from accessing the YouTube channel without alerting them. Both Allsup and MM tried to negotiate with Fuentes before publicly stating Fuentes was fired. Allsup compliments Fuentes as being extremely talented, and wishes him nothing but the best. In stark contrast, Fuentes refers now to Allsup as ‘Downie,’ a term offensive to those with Down Syndrome…
Mainstream media perspective
There are more than two ways to depopulate this earth, but this article will look at two: controlling childbirth rates, and abortion. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) recently published an article about depopulation. According to the general media narrative, people should not have too many children, because it’s not sustainable. In the general mainstream media, another method of depopulation discussed is abortion. The mainstream media states that abortion should be permissible upon demand, that women have the right to decide what they will do with their own bodies, and that even up until the day of birth, the woman should have the right to abort if she feels that is what’s best.
The Other Side
How many kids should parents have? It seems like they should have as many as they want, but they should also be responsible. If they can’t afford them, then they shouldn’t have them. If fewer white parents have a lot of children, this could mean a lot of diversity. If more non-white parents have kids, this could also improve the level of diversity, and give non-whites a chance to compete more successfully. So the answer might be a compromise, for white parents to confine the number of their kids to one or two, and for non-white parents to continue to have a greater number of children.
Many whites would find this racist and offensive, but hear me out. The white race in the form of imperialism and colonialism has executed (literally) many egregious sins against people of colour, including actual genocide. It’s time to give non-whites more power to address this imbalance of power. Think of limiting white childbirth as a non-financial reparation to make up in a small way for the white people’s mistakes of the past. If whites are offended by this, then rather than engage in violence, they should just have more kids. With regard to abortion, pro-life people must understand is that laws which will protect women’s rights will not mean encouragement of constant abortion. But it protects women who have to make that choice.
Mainstream media perspective
The mainstream media does some things right, and many things wrong. One of the most dangerous things they do is to conflate terrorism with Islam without specifying that Islam is comprised of 73 different sects. They are not all alike. Two of the main ones are Sunni and Shia; these represent the vast majority of Muslims worldwide, like over 90%. The Muslims who are terrorists, the ones that you read about in the papers, are extreme Sunnis, known as Salafis or Wahhabis. Shias are an entirely different sect, and in fact make up the biggest group of victims of ISIS. ISIS is the group most associated with Wahhabi terrorism.
The Other Side
It’s not in the mainstream media’s interest to delineate the difference between the various Islamic sects. They tend to want to divide everyone so they talk about violence and war, which sells more copies. No one wants to hear about the good news; they want to hear about the bad and negative. Newspaper owners run a business, after all. They only care about the bottom line for the most part.
The Shia narrative makes a lot more sense than the Sunni for several reasons. I will go into one of the most important here, but will save other issues for later copies of Amphiist, as I have limited space here. Both believe in the Quran as being the word of God. But only the Shia believe that the Prophet Mohammed designated a successor for after his death. This makes sense. If there is no clear successor, then there is confusion. God is not about confusion. If God cares enough about His people to introduce a new religion, why would He leave up to chance what happened after the Prophet’s death? The Shia believe that the Prophet said that Ali ibn Abi Talib was his chosen successor, and this was revealed at Ghadir. The Sunni posit that the Prophet introduced Ali only as his friend at that time, but that doesn’t seem to make sense. Why go to all that trouble just to say what everyone already knew?
Mainstream media perspective
Mike Cernovich is not popular with the mainstream media They wrongfully dismiss him as an egomaniac. They often contradict themselves in their criticisms of him, as do a lot of his haters. They state emphatically that he lives off his ex-wife’s alimony, and simultaneously assert that he shills his books like Gorilla Mindset, a manual for men (and women) to teach them how to have the proper attitude toward life so they can excel in it. They accuse him of not being a real journalist, and accuse him of developing a conspiracy theory about a pedophilia ring in Washington, D.C., the online controversy known as Pizzagate.
The Other Side
Cernovich is an alpha male, which probably lies at the crux of his unpopularity with the traditional media, which prefers men to be cuckolds. Cernovich, if he were cast in such a scenario, would be the one that the cuckold serves. This leads me to one of my main criticism against him. Pre-marital and pre-fatherhood Cernovich was far more alpha. He wrote things in his Danger and Play blog that he now refers to as satire, but if women are honest, women want the kind of man he displayed himself to be years ago. Think Fifty Shades of Grey. Speaking of books, Cernovich is such a supporter of reading that he buys online and print copies of his favourites, in order to support the author. We need more of this!
Perhaps the biggest mark in his favour is that he does do real journalism, as evidenced by his scoop on how Susan Rice improperly asked to discover the identities of Trump supporters and violate their rights. He also revealed that Trump was going to send troops into Syria, and even knew details of the McMaster plan there.
Online trolls regularly threaten his gorgeous wife and lovely child, neither of whom deserve such hatred. Let’s cut Cernovich a break and admit when he does good. And I say this as someone he’s blocked on Twitter! An amphiist does not just write positively about people who like them.
Mainstream media perspective
The traditional media doesn’t talk much about classic films anymore. When I was little, they used to show old movies on late-night television. They now prefer to focus on extreme depictions of sex and violence without any censorship. Censorship certainly has its place, which I will show in this edition of Amphiist. I recently watched Ingrid Bergman’s first American film. It tells the story of a famous (married) violinist who falls in love with his young pianist. They go off together on a trip. He hesitates about signing divorce papers. His friend convinces the girl (Bergman) to leave the man she loves. The man goes back home to his wife.
The Other Side
There are two times I can think of where censorship has played a positive, instrumental effect. The first is with reference to old movies. In 1934, the Hays Code came into effect. In the 1920s and ‘30s, things were getting out of hand, according to Will Hays. I remember watching Letty Lynton, a Joan Crawford movie from 1932. Her character literally got away with murder. It is movies like this which led to implementation of the Hayes Code, in my opinion. Censorship in older movies led to increased creativity. Think Hitchcock (the famous director, Alfred) and how Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant had to interrupt their kisses to appease the censors…and in so doing, made their scene significantly more romantic with heightened tension.
So censorship is not always bad. A more contemporary example is the deplatforming of the altright, those with a Nazi mindset, who create ingroups and outgroups. The ingroup for these people are thin, beautiful and handsome white people, with the outgroup essentially being everyone else. On Twitter, when they espouse violence or hatred against the outgroup, they are often being banned rightfully, because Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey says that social media platform owners have a responsibility to censor potential danger.
Mainstream media perspective
The mainstream media actively advocates for feminism. They say that women are more than just mothers and sex objects. Women have the right to empower themselves so that they reach their full potential and exist in their best selves. Feminists in the third wave have decided that men are basically trash, and that they hold women back. They say that women should not have children, at least the extremists, and that women should devote themselves to professional careers, rather than get married. Feminists also believe that women should have just as much sex as men do. They basically believe that women should live as much like men as possible.
The Other Side
One of the most important points I’d like to make is that the media criticizes men for being who they are, and yet they want women to become more like men! Illogical. Men have many wonderful characteristics that are glossed over far too often. Women have wonderful qualities too. Women are less competitive than men, more emotional, and far more attuned to the social realities of the world. But men also have their good points.
When women stayed home with their children, they were not oppressed. Imagine telling a Victorian woman in 19th-century England she didn’t have complete sway over the domestic sphere. She would have laughed in your face. There are different levels of power, and just because a woman doesn’t work in the public sphere doesn’t mean she is somehow powerless. Women are special. We have the right to stay home and let the men take care of the competitive aspect of life. Women are far better at nurturing and assuring emotional stability. Men want appreciation for who they are, just as women desire appreciation for who we are. We need a new mindset in Western society where we value women who stay at home and retain their femininity. And we also need to respect the women who are exceptions, and have something to offer in the public sphere, such as artists.
Mainstream media perspective
Vladimir Putin is a convenient target on Twitter (an example of the mainstream social media), and recently Jack Dorsey has gone so far as to warn people when they have liked or retweeted a Russian-sympathetic account. They aren’t banned, but they are warned that they might be a victim of fake news.
Putin is vilified due to his assistance to Bashar al Assad in the Syrian war. Putin is also called a brutal dictator by the MSM. The media also hates him because he defends Christianity. They mention regularly his suppression of journalists who disagree with him, and they go so far as to accuse him of murdering dissidents.
The Other Side
Putin has so many laudable qualities that it’s a shame that the MSM disseminates so many lies about him. He takes on the violent globalists who, in Russia, take the form of powerful oligarchs. Donald Trump is commonly referred to as playing four-dimensional chess, but Putin really does this. He lets the enemy thinks he is on their side, regains control of the situation, and then does what he wants.
Putin rescued Russia’s economy soon after he got into power at the end of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st. In his second term, Russia saw 7% growth, a very impressive figure in today’s climate. Putin is a champion of the middle class, the most important sector of society. Russian citizens pay fair taxes and don’t go to prison if they are unable to pay.
Putin’s brand of Christianity believes that people should be able to worship how they choose, and that people should live their lives with morals. He is also a champion of the nuclear family. He espouses religious tolerance, but insists on morality being taught in school.
No one is perfect, including Putin. I myself am a peaceful globalist, someone who believes in very open borders and very open sexuality. But I can’t fault a great man who has done so much for his country.
Mainstream media perspective
Ian Kerner, writing for CNN, recently published an article about how cuckoldry has some positive aspects. This term means that it can be healthy for a marriage if a woman cheats on her husband, usually right in front of him, so he can also enjoy the encounter. Kerner writes that instead of showing weakness, which cucks are often accused of, they are actually strong. Although he doesn’t directly say it, I imagine he is saying that only a very self-confident male could handle this situation. Kerner refers to Justin Lehmiller’s Tell Me What You Want. Kerner’s article itself can be found at https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/25/health/cuckolding-sex-kerner/index.html
The Other Side
I would like to expand on this idea of how self-confident a man must be in order to engage in this. The Nazis on Twitter feel that calling a man a cuck is one of the biggest insults ever. These are white men, of course, who don’t even respect people of colour in the first place. They are afraid of the raw sexual power of men who are brown/black. Perhaps, after all the centuries of imperialism and racism, it’s appropriate now to engage in sexual reparations by encouraging white men being forced to watch as men of colour establish THEIR supremacy.
In Mary Dalton’s poem “Transylvanian,” she attempts to explain the appeal of a strong Dracula who doesn’t take no for an answer. Women are very often attracted to whom society thinks of as The Other..
If a white man really loved his wife, he would help her realize the cucking fantasy. Of course, there’s something to be said for a sincerely religious person who believes marriage means no outside sex, but I’m talking from a secular perspective.
White men against cuckoldry are most likely afraid not only of the other man’s power, but his wife’s. Time is up for men who are afraid of women’s sexuality.
Mainstream media perspective
Ian Kerner, writing for CNN, recently published an article about how cuckoldry has some positive aspects. This term means that it can be healthy for a marriage if a woman cheats on her husband, usually right in front of him, so he can also enjoy the encounter. Kerner writes that instead of showing weakness, which cucks are often accused of, they are actually strong. Although he doesn’t directly say it, I imagine he is saying that only a very self-confident male could handle this situation. Kerner refers to Justin Lehmiller’s Tell Me What You Want. Kerner’s article itself can be found at https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/25/health/cuckolding-sex-kerner/index.html
The Other Side
I received interesting feedback about Amphiist 34 (Part 1 of the discussion of Ian Kerner’s article on cucking). Someone mentioned that it reflected the male perspective, but not the female. I thought this was interesting, because it shows an amphiistic perspective, that is seeing both sides.
The female perspective on the issue of cucking, according to this person, is that women of colour get jealous when a man of colour picks an attractive white woman over them. What I said in the last article was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I am not really advocating that people in a marriage should cheat on their spouses with someone else, specifically with a white man allowing his wife to sleep with a man of colour in order to let the brown or black man show his sexual superiority. But I would like to point out that it is no more radical than what the altright discusses on a regular basis, that it’s ok to be white, and that the white race is superior to all others. And I stick by my assertion that it takes a very self-confident man to allow his woman to do this. It’s not for the weak! My mother is white, and the most sensational person I’ve ever met. So I’m definitely not hating on whites. But I’m increasingly looking for ways to address the issue of the evil that white male leaders have perpetuated for centuries.
Mainstream media perspective
On the subject of sex ed for children in school, the mainstream media tends to try to show both sides of the issue, so you could say the traditional media tries to be amphiist. They may learn slightly toward the value of sex ed for kids in school, but they don’t place too fine a point on it. They are careful to show the opinions of parents who protest this type of curriculum. They point out that many parents think such sex ed should be postponed until high school and that children should not be exposed to adult ideas at too young an age. The media also says the obvious, that people should always comply with the law. They say that kids should remain as innocent as possible for as long as possible.
The Other Side
Many people are under the mistaken impression that all members of the LGBTQ2 community have just as many rights as straight/cis people now. This is manifestly not the case. Prejudice still exists on a regrettably significant basis.
One of the main reasons for this is that schools already do indoctrinate children, but not with sex ed, as much as religious ‘values.’ Religion is not to be equated with bigotry, because there are many simple (in the good way) religious people who live the Golden Rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And that’s why religious people have a stake in ending bigotry so that religion and bigotry cease being seen as equal.
Children should be taught sex ed to protect the LGBTQ2. They should be about straight sex, gay sex, anal, oral, etc so they enjoy diversity of gender/orientation. Imagine the nurturing atmosphere for a gay male 8 year old if he knows that he is accepted and that his lifestyle is one of many acceptable ones. And, of course, an 8 year old who has no interest in sex is just fine, too, and shouldn’t be seen as abnormal. The whole point is, nothing should be seen as abnormal and no one should be discriminated against.
Mainstream media perspective
George Soros is a philanthropist who created the Open Society Foundation in order to spread democracy across the globe. The conspiracy theorists in the alternative media believe that he is one of the most evil people in the world, and pretty much accuse him of anything that goes wrong. It must be tiring for him to keep up with all of the different cheques he writes, considering all of the different causes he allegedly financially espouses! Recently, at Davos, Switzerland, he gave a speech at the World Economic Forum, where President Trump also spoke. Soros is depicted in the mainstream media as a philanthropist, far removed from the more selfish lifestyle lived by Donald Trump.
The Other Side
In his talk in Davos, Soros outlined the dangers of ignoring North Korea’s nuclear capabilities. He also warned about the dangers of climate change. In other words, he is a responsible global citizen, unlike Donald Trump. Soros rightfully warns about Trump’s escalation of the North Korean crisis, and stupendous ignorance of the realities associated with climate change. Soros also discussed the dangers posed by Facebook and Google’s monopolies. Specifically, such companies violate freedom of mind and contribute to an ever-decreasing attention span. The market for Facebook is quickly reaching a saturation point, and so it is looking toward countries like authoritarian China for new customers, which will encourage more censorship and less global freedom. The EU as regulator is the answer to protect the common man. Concern with the common man..now does that sound like Soros is some kind of deranged, evil madman bent on world domination?
When writing about controversial figures like George Soros, it is better to move past the stereotypical view of him as a globalist intent on establishing a New World Order, funding both sides of wars so he derives pecuniary benefit, while ignoring the plight of those he supposedly exploits. This is the whole point of Amphiist. We need to move beyond knee-jerk reactions and see that there is a lot of sophisticated layers to a man like Soros. He is not what the alternative media make him out to be, a caricature of a man.
State of the Union
Donald Trump gave the annual State of the Union address last night. He predictably congratulated himself for his performance in several areas. Unemployment for African Americans is at its lowest point in a long time, according to Trump. He forgot to mention that in the ethnostate he and his followers desire don’t even want black people in America. Trump mentioned how no one but Americans are capable of great things. He forgot to mention the not so great things the US is guilty of, like waging imperialist war on the kids of Yemen, starving them into submission so that America can be great again, the richest country in the world. America First! And everyone else last, apparently. So billions of people are to be miserable because white Christian Americans must come first, always. They are panicking because they see the power they have enjoyed for centuries slipping away from them. They are like the spoiled rich kid who can’t handle any hard times, because they have never been equipped with the life experience necessary to handle obstacles.
So what needs to change? Everyone intuitively understands the value of balance. Black and brown lives, for example, never mattered to whites the way they should. Generally speaking. Until whites have an idea of what people of colour have endured, white lives have to take a back seat until balance is achieved. Individual white people can be wonderful, obviously, but if we allow on a global scale white lives to matter exclusively, then the winging of the pendulum toward justice can never be achieved. So in jobs there should be token whites only. Google has the right idea there. Men of colour should dominate white men in the professional sphere, as well as the personal sphere. Men of colour should also dominate white women (not violently, obviously). This will let whites know how black men felt when their women in slavery were handed over to white men like so much chattel. And since black and brown women were violated by white men right in front of black slaves, it seems fair that white men witness in person men of colour displaying their sexual superiority. The value of diversity needs to be preached all over the world, as much as possible and as loudly as possible. Diversity of gender orientation is necessary for ALL humans to feel and be accepted. But there is one place where there should be no diversity. Diversity of nations is evil. There should be one global nation so that war and its concomitant violence cease.
The mainstream media, when it discusses diversity, focuses on how much it contributes to a nation’s competitiveness worldwide and how it is to citizens’ benefit to have different races and especially cultures in the workplace, all sharing ideas and offering new perspectives that aid the bottom line. America has a moral obligation, the media says, to welcome diversity because the country is founded on it. Although the poem inscribed at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty mentions welcoming the huddled masses was a kind of afterthought to the founding of America, that does not lessen its importance. The media espouses the benefits of chain migration, the visa lottery to increase the chances of diversity in America.
The Other Side
As correct as the mainstream media’s take is on diversity, there is another side to it, or perhaps just an extension of what they have said. There is an emotional value to diversity, and I don’t ever see this idea mentioned.
There are many emotional benefits to diversity. And they cut across all areas of life. One value is in the political realm. Emotional diversity in politics takes the form of caring about people who are not your in-group. If someone is born American, enveloped in that culture, it can be of enormous benefit to them on an individual level to be exposed to another culture, preferably as different as possible. That way, they can ask questions about their own politics to see where they have gone wrong…and right.
Another advantage to diversity, emotionally speaking, is in the area of relationships and sex. If there really were two genders only, with no ambiguities or nuances, what a boring world it would be. Of course, there are two main genders. But the nuance which comes from a young drag queen or someone who looks like a man but feels like a woman is astonishing. Because these depart from the norm, they help us understand the norm and its beauty. And in so doing, we also celebrate the beauty of the 9-year-old boy who likes to dress up.
Mainstream media perspective
The mainstream media doesn’t tend to differentiate between white leaders, white racists, and the average white person. They lump them all in together, which is very unfair. They act like all white people are the same, when in fact no group is full of the same kind of people. The only difference they acknowledge is based on politics. They will criticize those on the right, while defending those on the left. Other than that, whites represent a monolithic mass. Nowadays, whites also exist for the traditional media as a whipping boy. Whites have to give their place to people of colour. In business, this means diversity in the sense that as few white men as possible should be employed in organizations.
The Other Side
There is, however, as a striking difference between certain white people. There is one group that doesn’t receive enough negative attention. That is white racists. It is time to stand up to these people. What the media says doesn’t go far enough. There are certain things that need to happen before justice has been served to people of colour in the United States. White men should have the vote taken away from them. Not because inherently white men don’t have the right to vote, but having this right temporarily withdrawn from them will acquaint them very strongly and directly with what people of colour went through for many, many decades in America. Supposedly the land of the free. In the 1950s, black voters registered in groups and had to answer questions in order to be able to vote. If one person in the group did not answer the questions, all of them, correctly, it didn’t matter how hard one of them worked, they were all denied the vote. We need to swing the pendulum in the direction of people of colour, so that justice is achieved. Again, it’s not because of any underlying inferiority in white people; it is simply like a seesaw. The seesaw has been lowered so far in the direction of the white person that it has to go as equally low in the opposite direction if we want true parity in America.
Mainstream media perspective
The traditional media in America tends to be very puritanical on the matter of sexuality. Adolescent males cannot have sex with their teachers. A man in the workplace can’t show his attraction for a woman. Men who are neglected by their wives, who tricked them into marriage for financial security, dare not cheat, even if it’s been months since they had sex. Women coming on to men is strictly forbidden, and women are sick and evil if they have rape fantasies like those depicted in the bestselling book Fifty Shades of Grey. The fact that such a book was so popular suggests there is an undercurrent happening in America that is kept secret.
The Other Side
There are many aspects of sex that are considered impolite to discuss in American or Western society. Although homosexuality is becoming more accepted, and gay marriage is now a reality, because of Trump’s ascent to the Presidency, and the Presidency’s descent to Trump, bullying against the LGBTQ2 community is becoming more pervasive.
One thing that bigots assert is that if homosexuality was valid and legitimate, then it would exist among the animal species (and they pretend it doesn’t). There is most certainly homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Let’s look at seahorses. 100% of seahorses are male. To allow reproduction to happen, during mating, one of the seahorses becomes female so there can be children. A joke I told on Twitter by way of analogy is that if there was a brown or black seahorse, and a white seahorse, then undoubtedly, it’s the white one that would become the woman for this purpose, in reflection of the idea that white men are becoming progressively weaker.
The jokes I tell about white racists are not meant to be conflated with my opinions of white people. Most white people are just as good as any other race. It’s the white racists I have a problem with.
YouTube Bloodsports
On YouTube, there is something new called bloodsports. Twitter personality and YouTuber Andy Warski is at the forefront of this movement, along with his co-host, Jean-Francois Gariépy. The idea of bloodsports is to get people to go on one of Warski and Gariépy’s video streams on YouTube (or, increasingly Baked Alaska’s), and yell insults at each other because it is entertaining. It is like the YouTube version of a wrestling match. The idea is that people should be able to express themselves fully so that we get to the heart of the important and controversial matters we face today in the realm of politics and culture.
The Other Side
It would be a disservice to refer to what Warski and Gariépy are doing as the YouTube version of Jerry Springer. The content of the show is not superficial. Although some argue with the tactics, important philosophical subjects are delved into on a regular basis. In an earlier blog, years ago, I wrote Where are the Voltaires? They are here on YouTube, and they talk a lot more casually than the 18th-century philosopher, but the ideas being expressed are important.
The critics of bloodsports say that it just divides movements even further than they are, and that no one’s mind is ever going to be changed due to bloodsports and people yelling at each other on YouTube.
The opposite of bloodsports is amphiism. Amphiism is fairly looking at both sides of issues, which you could also say is true of bloodsports on YouTube. But amphiism looks in a hopefully emotionally intelligent way at both sides in a way that focuses on similarities between people, rather than differences. It looks at someone like Warski and says, Ok, he sometimes says racist things, which is unacceptable, but he also says things that are worth defending. White people should not have to apologize for who they are. It’s ok to be white. Isn’t this approach better than yelling “Nazi!” at him over and over again?
Mainstream Media
School shootings, like the tragedy which occurred today in Parkland, Florida understandably receive a lot of mainstream media attention, as well as alternative media attention. One thing stands out whenever an incident like this occurs. If the suspect (who always seems to be detained almost immediately) is described as having a mental illness, then we know he will be soon identified as a white man. Brown or black men are always terrorists, by point of comparison. I say he rather than a more gender-neutral pronoun as these shooters are almost always male. I can’t think of an exception, although there easily might be one.
The Other Side
Obviously, anyone who performs such an evil act is mentally ill. But the media likes to defend white men whenever possible. I know this isn’t the popular idea, but it’s true, and such tragedies show why. The mainstream media likes to pit one group against each other. And it likes to push for gun control. Alternative media will no doubt, over the next 24 hours, breathlessly charge the Illuminati/New World Order with hoaxing us with this school shooting. Of course, this makes the victims’ families suffer twice, once at the original news of their loved ones’ deaths, and again when the fringe denies that their loved ones were actually killed. Many on the fringe state that Sandy Hook never happened. The entire town was created by hoaxers. The kids never existed. The school never existed. However, it’s important to remember that the fringe conspiracy theorists DO believe that people shapeshift into lizards. That exists. For sure.
The two main sides whenever something like this happens is gun control espoused by the traditional media, and “you will never take our guns” by the alternative. There must be a middle path, one somewhere between nationwide confiscation and allowing anyone with mental health issues with a gun. It needs to be harder for mentally ill to get guns, and easier for sane people to get them.
Mainstream Media
The mainstream media dismisses conspiracy theories as impossible. They don’t differentiate between the wild ramblings of Alex Jones saying that Sandy Hook as a region doesn’t exist, and factual incidents like Operation Mockingbird. Of course, the media has a vested interest in pretending that conspiracies don’t exist because the people behind the conspiracies that do exist benefit the global elite for whom the media themselves work. The school shooting yesterday in Parkland, Florida Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School could be a false flag. Or it could not be. Seventeen people are confirmed dead because of this tragedy. The traditional arguments are being waged in the media over gun control.
The Other Side
An interesting take on the tragedy has been offered by Isaac Weishaupt. It is on the site illuminatiwatcher.com. In the article, Weishaupt describes ritual magick and discusses a song David Bowie recorded many years ago which eerily talked about a man shooting up a school.
The term ‘predictive programming’ is brought up. Hollywood uses this to implant in people’s minds a certain scenario and then it happens for real. Although the article didn’t mention it, I immediately thought of the Simpsons when I read this. There have been many times when on that show, fictional events become reality, or approximate the future. Ritual magick is a fundamental element in what the Illuminati does. They have seemingly perfected the art of consciously thinking of something, and then it actually occurring. This is all part of the Laws of Attraction.
I have a friend who has walked on the beach in Sandy Hook. I know that town exists. But I do believe in some conspiracy theories. I believe that something fishy went down in the Las Vegas shooting, for example. We still don’t know much about what happened there. How much the Illuminati was involved in what happened at Parkland yesterday remains to be seen, but it is certainly a possibility, either indirectly or directly.
Special Issue:
Alex Jones and the Parkland school shooting
Alex Jones on InfoWars on his show said that there was a teenaged in the hallway of Marjorie Douglas High School, who said she thought that Nikolas Cruz would be the shooter (speaking directly to him). Jones says that Cruz replied that no, it wasn’t him. He looked dumbfounded. Jones say it is not for sure whether or not Cruz was actually involved. None of this has been circulated on the news for some reason.
Also, according to a reliable Houston reporter, there is credible evidence that there were two shooters (a common theme when these mass shootings occur). It is unclear whether Cruz was armed when his schoolmate was speaking to him in the hallway. I saw her interview and she was smiling, which some might say lessens her credibility. On the other hand, it might just have been nervousness.
It is also possible that the woman interviewed was lying and wanted attention, but I am not charging that. I am just recognizing the possibility. Also, it is possible that someone else coached her to say what she said.
Apparently, there was a drill a couple of months ago at the same school, and it has been alleged that the CIA was involved, or a Secret Service squad team. Personally, I think that it is very dangerous to criticize governmental institutions in this way. People with mental health issues can get crazy ideas about stopping the FBI or CIA because they hear wild theories about their involvement in these tragedies.
Just as there may have been multiple shooters in Las Vegas, the same thing might have happened in Parkland, Florida.
Jones tends to say something, then puts the idea in people’s heads, and then covers himself by saying he isn’t saying what he has just basically said. Here, he said that he is not saying there were necessarily multiple shooters, or a drill involving the Secret Service, etc.
Mainstream Media
The United States is probably the most famous country in the world. The amount of print the mainstream media of the West, including international, give the US is understandable. The traditional media depicts the United States as being the centre of the universe. On American newscasts themselves, the number of Americas who perish in a tragedy are listed first. Other victims are mentioned as an afterthought. There is a political movement now called America First. There is a stereotype of the Ugly American, where Americans visit other countries and look down the collective American nose at the conditions which exist everywhere else. The traditional media act as though the US is constantly helping other countries in a humanitarian way, spreading democracy and goodwill.
The Other Side
From the Amphiist perspective, the United States has some very good qualities and some very unfortunate ones. The Founding Fathers created a wonderful country, experimenting as had never been done before. They borrowed from the Enlightenment. They borrowed from the ancient Greeks and Romans. They wanted equality for all. A very noble idea. Well, they wanted equality for white men who owned property and had good character. They did not want women to vote, and they did not want people of colour to have much power at all.
Can a country be great under such circumstances? Is it possible that society in that country wasn’t ready for more equality than the Founding Fathers were able to deliver? Maybe the first step was equality for such men, with later equality to come in the future. Slavery still exists today. Americans did stop it, to their credit, although Lincoln’s civil war was more about his desire for centralization of the government more than ending slavery. The American system of checks and balances is fantastic in theory, but when it comes to Americans promoting regime change in foreign countries because they want oil, this to me cancels out any good feelings one might have for the country’s admirable beginnings. The US has departed too far from its origins.
Mainstream Media
The Founding Fathers of America are often given lip service by the mainstream media. They are generally depicted as some of the most famous men the world has ever seen, and worthy of that fame. Present-day politicians pretend to invoke the policies of the creators of America in order to gain and curry favour with the people they wish would vote for them. However, there is a lot more to the Founding Fathers than meet the eye.
The Other Side
Other people argue that America was definitely founded as a Christian nation. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson all subscribed to the writings of Thomas Paine, who did not even appreciate Christianity, let alone believe in it. Paine and the other revolutionaries rejected any semblance of superstition, which includes, for Christians, the sacred birth of Jesus Christ, whom they believe to be the Son of God. The Founding Fathers, at least the ones mentioned here, believed, like the Muslims do, that Jesus was an exemplary moral philosopher and that his teachings should be followed for the betterment of society. They did not believe that he was the Son of God or had any divinity in him. They believed it was blasphemous to suppose that God had a child with a virgin, one who was engaged to a man.
Thomas Paine wrote a book entitled The Age of Reason, which detailed his problems with the Bible. He did not believe that the people supposed to author the different texts in that set of scriptures, actually did so. He said there is no way they could recount their own deaths, for example.
The Founding Fathers believed in God, a higher power, but they rejected anything that did not appeal to reason, because they were students of the Enlightenment.
Mainstream Media
The mainstream media tends to like to divide people among groups who identify as a certain niche. This makes it easier to write about them, and makes things less confusing. So we will hear people like Mike Cernovich called alt right, Richard Spencer a Nazi, Roosh V a rape apologist, etc. Newspapers are written at a level that an 8th-grader can understand. Nuance does not sell papers. It is easier to stereotype someone as belonging to a group which conjures up immediate emotions. That gets readers to engage, and makes them more likely to like, comment, etc. on the article that they are reading, which leads to more revenue for the newspaper in question.
The Other Side
This is unwise. Take the three examples noted on the other side of this edition of Amphiist. Mike Cernovich has enjoyed some scoops as a journalist. He has also been part of debunked conspiracy theories like Pizzagate. He is well read and cultured. But he also disseminates fake news mixed in with real stuff. You will not read this kind of nuance in the mainstream media, just the Amphiist.
Spencer is undoubtedly a racist, at least in terms of some of the words he speaks. But he doesn’t have the Nazi mindset. He does not mock people for being differently abled, overweight, etc. He is friends with black people. Of course, the things he does wrong are so horrific that they outweigh the little good, but I’m just saying that I wish the mainstream media engaged in a more balanced approach on these issues.
Now let’s look at RooshV. He wrote an article that was satirical about making rape legal on private property. He meant to say (badly) that women need to be more careful and that some of it is actually their responsibility. However, the fact that the media purposely misunderstood him because of their embrace of feminism doesn’t negate the fact that Roosh actually said at one point that he didn’t want to appear on a YouTube stream with a fat woman. This truly is the Nazi mindset.
Mainstream Media
The mainstream media is sometimes criticized by the Amphiist. But on the subject of gun control, they have it absolutely right. Guns should be confiscated from every white male racist. David Hogg, a high-school student who survived the Parkland massacre, where 50 students died as the result of a white racist, mentally disturbed shooter, is a superb advocate for the argument for gun control. YouTube is cracking down on critics of Hogg. The problem with people like Alex Jones (who has received either one or two strikes on YouTube) who criticize activists like Hogg is that he is a performance artist who does what he does for money. But mentally unhealthy white racists aren’t going to appreciate this nuance.
The Other Side
I would go even further than the mainstream media has, or at least as far as I have seen. If an American criticizes David Hogg, then they are not a patriot. I think if we look carefully, if people do criticize this young hero, bravely speaking his mind against an enormous groundswell of hate and mockery, we will see that behind them is money. They have an agenda, and it is most certainly not the betterment of American society.
The same people who critique Hogg for being a teenager and therefore apparently unable to hold an intelligent opinion, lionize Nicholas J Fuentes for being 19. Of course, on Twitter, there seem to be far more white racists who support Fuentes than there are patriots. Hogg is saying many things which are accurate. He believes that mentally ill people should not have a weapon. I’d appreciate it more if he tied mental illness to white racism, but that’s a great start. He correctly calls out the NRA out. I’d love it if he referred to them as a terrorist group, but again, great start. He points out that Alex Jones got in trouble for saying Sandy Hook was made up. Hogg is also calling out for boycotts of companies who support the NRA. This guy has guts!
David Hogg is a patriot, and anyone who fights against him, especially if it’s just for money, is a traitor. Simple!
Mainstream Media
The mainstream media tends to go too far when it criticizes white people. Recent articles in very popular outlets have had such subjects as why white people are always wrong, why white people are toxic, etc. They say that because of the white supremacy which has existed in the past (and, of course, exists contemporarily), that white people should give reparations, constantly apologize, etc. White men have a lot to answer for, and they should basically feel white guilt for all that has occurred in the past, especially in the US. White women are encouraged to cheat on their white husbands in order to dilute the white race, which will lessen its evil, white men are encouraged to allow their women to sleep with other men, etc.
The Other Side
This Amphiist newsletter edition has a very important point to make. In fact, it is one of the overriding reasons for the existence of this newsletter in the first place.
The point of this special 50Th issue of the Amphiist is that when the media goes too extreme in criticizing a group of people, they make martyrs of them and add to their appeal, especially to youth. Some people understandably might not like the defense the Amphiist gives of controversial figures, such as those associated with the altright, but my point is this: Be friendly with these people. Allow their evil to be heard. That way their glamour will be arrested, and they will be handcuffed to silence.
There is not punishment too harsh for white racists, who represent the dregs of society. When it comes to white racists, let’s be creative in imagining their punishments. To the people who say African-Americans have lower IQs, who say Chicago is a mess because of black on black crime, without acknowledging exploitation of white racists, let’s bring black slavery for them and turn white racists into brown/black men’s bootlickers. Let them see what it really feels like to be oppressed. The only time a white racist’s mouth should be open is when a brown/black guy needs his boots licked is what the media might say.
Mainstream Media
There is a lot of brouhaha on Twitter today because of the strikes that have been levied against a variety of far-right individuals on YouTube. The mainstream media suggests that lately it has made a conscious effort to clamp down on such accounts due to their offensive NRA propaganda, their championing of anti-Semitic causes, and insistence that white people are superior to everyone else. Hillary Clinton has stated that censorship to a limited extent, especially in these cases, is necessary so as to avoid another catastrophe where someone like Trump is elected, making the world a significantly more unstable place.
The Other Side
There is a First Amendment right in the United States to freedom of speech. However, responsible people in power will judge the effects of said speech. If mentally ill people will take the information presented to them and perform acts of unthinkable violence, then the speech should not be permitted. After all, you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, as it is a threat to everyone else in the theatre. And an important note: Including the person who yells ‘fire.’
People should be banned from YouTube if they call David Hogg a crisis actor, because there will be crazy people, egged on by alleged con artists like Alex Jones, who will incite violence against people like Hogg.
They have a new thing on YouTube called Trusted Flaggers, where such a person can report a video and without any questions asked, a strike is levied. This is definitely a step in the right direction. But we always need to remember the fundamental question associated with this topic: These far right people are creating an ever-building fear of those in power in government, media, etc. The consequences of such disaffection should be obvious: civil war, with potentially millions of lives lost. A few nuts on YouTube losing their right to stream doesn’t seem so bad.
Mainstream Media
The media often deals negatively with subjects because bad news sells more copies, apparently. This is what the Amphiist is trying to change. The Amphiist defends a lot of people who would otherwise not be defended. It is hard to defend some people, but that is probably when it is most necessary. The media thrives on conflict. It covers wars positively, abortion, anything that depopulates and divides. The Amphiist takes the middle ground as often as possible, although there are some lines we won’t cross. Take abortion, for example. Abortion on demand is evil. Making abortion illegal is evil. Abortion is like murder. There are times when it’s appropriate to act in self defence. If a mother’s life is at stake, abortion is a viable option.
The Other Side
We hear a lot about the evil of Saudi Arabia, Israel and America. We also need to hear about the good, amphiist perspective.
If a Saudi woman is getting her education in the West, and needs to travel to school, she does not go alone. In order to protect her, a male relative will accompany her to keep her safe, even at his own inconvenience. Chivalry is not dead. And the Saudi royal family has implemented for years, starting with King Abdullah and continuing on a more limited basis now, scholarships so that Saudis can visit the West and get a fine education, taking their management skills back to Saudi to develop it. The best thing about Saudis is their loyalty to family. Their lives revolve around putting their families.The best thing about Israel is it simply cannot be beaten. Jews have been kicked out of 109 countries, but they still fight, and never give up. Incidentally, the reason for so much Jewish influence in media is because they were often kicked out of non-Jewish positions of power.
The best thing about America is its democracy. It’s really a constitutional republic, but its system of checks and balances, and one person, one vote, should be copied everywhere.
Mainstream Media
Joan Crawford and Bette Davis are two of the most famous movie stars of all time. They sacrificed their personal lives because they were so committed to their craft. These women have a lot in common. Both were married four times, worked incredibly hard to maintain extremely long careers (Crawford was active for 46 years in films, and Davis for an even more astounding 58). There is much to appreciate in both women, because they are legendary for a reason. Their performances were based on a powerful work ethic, extraordinary talent, and charisma that has rarely been equaled. Their fascination is still apparent because as late as last year, a miniseries, “Feud,” explored their battle which began in 1962.
The Other Side
I would like to explore their respective levels of emotional intelligence. Each of the actress’s daughters wrote extremely negative tell-alls. Crawford was depicted as a child abuser, while Davis was seen as someone who interfered too much in her daughter’s life. Christina Crawford’s account of her alleged abuse as a child at Joan’s hands has probably helped a lot of people come to terms with their own abuse.
Davis was not pleased that her daughter had a happy marriage. Davis would have preferred for her daughter to have a string of affairs, and always return to her mother as the one person she could count on. BD Hyman, Davis’s daughter, certainly had justifiable grievances. No one should interfere in another’s marriage. On the other hand, assuming her daughter has every right to feel betrayed by such incidents, she should have had the moral courage to refuse any financial assistance from Davis.
Crawford seems to have been far more emotionally intelligent. In several biographies of other stars, there is a recurring theme. Joan showed up at the person’s doorstep when they were in trouble, and offered her help. Both Bette and Joan were extremely generous, sometimes to a fault.
Mainstream Media
The mainstream media has discussed the partition of India and Pakistan in terms of how, in 1947, all of politics were seen in light of the Cold War then being fought between the Soviet Union and America. Britain, having lost a lot of power because of both world wars, but especially the second one, was desperate to find a way to maintain control over the area known as India. They felt they were acting in self defence by partitioning India and creating the new state of Pakistan. They did not feel safe in terms of what the Soviet Union might do in order to disrupt Britain’s safety. Britain accordingly wanted, according to the mainstream media, to safeguard its interests there, and make sure it could have military bases there.
The Other Side
The partition of India and Pakistan in 1947 was an implementation of the British deep state practice of divide and rule. Before that time, Hindus and Muslims had no sectarian strife. Not all who are called heroes are actually heroes: Examples include Gandhi and Nehru, mere puppets of the British deep state. And the father of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah just wanted power.
Nehru and Jinnah fought over who would be President. They cared only for the power, not the genocide which Britain implemented against both Indians and Pakistanis. The partition of India and Pakistan resulted in 5 million deaths. Of course, Winston Churchill’s role in the partition cannot be overlooked, and neither can Queen Elizabeth II’s sending her puppets to India (Gandhi was brought from South Africa). This goes as far back as 1932.
But let’s end on a positive note. There are some true Pakistani heroes. Prime Minister of the Punjab, Sikandar Hayat Khan was a true statesman and warned his colleagues at the time that genocide would result from the partition.
He was ignored. The history of this great man needs to be told, and also the masses needed to be warned against traitors like Nehru, Jinnah and Gandhi.
Mainstream Media
The mainstream media is not talking a lot about the past weekend’s detention and banning from the United Kingdom of Lauren Southern, Brittany Pettibone and Martin Sellner. Their view is probably that these hate preachers do not deserve media attention. That is totally understandable; however, as these supposed journalists are extremely disingenuous in their bafflement as to why they are so detained. Southern has admitted to distributing hate literature against Muslims in Luton, England. Sellner is associated with a hate group which also has figured out how to create a lot of fake followers on Twitter. Pettibone and Sellner were both en route to interviewing far right extremist Tommy Robinson later this week.
The Other Side
These faux journalists’ association with terrorist Tommy Robinson shows that the British immigration officials are taking the threat of terrorism seriously. Recently, there was a video where Robinson punched a homeless black man. Anjem Choudary is currently in a British prison for less than this act of violence. I’m no defender of Choudary but in comparison to Robinson, Choudary isn’t so bad. Advocating for sharia law isn’t as bad as using a homeless black man as a punching bag. And I ask if Choudary belongs in jail, doesn’t Robinson? And those who would associate with him, like Southern, Sellern and Pettibone? Robinson is a huge threat because he conflates extremists like Choudary with every Muslim. Choudary is defending himself against centuries of Western colonialism and imperialism. All extremism is bad, but extremism in self defence is certainly more justifiable. The British government see what Robinson is up to. People say the British media covers up the Pakistani grooming gangs. Most white people are wonderful, but white racists often yearn to be sexually submissive to brown and black men. Pakistan consists of high-testosterone men of whom white racists are afraid.
Mainstream Media
Donald Trump allegedly published a tweet today, on April 11, 2018, where he gave a warning to Assad, referring to him as a gas killing animal who kills his people. Trump complained that Russia is helping Syria, but he warned reportedly that if Russia helps Syria, then America will attack Russia. According to the mainstream media, Assad, as Trump says, is a monster who kills millions of Syrians with chemical weapons. Russia’s Putin and Syria’s Assad are bad actors, intent on destruction. Assad and Putin are dictators who are merciless in the treatment of their own people. For a more nuanced take on these issues, turn the page over.
The Other Side
We need to provide a counterpoint to the mainstream media on these issues. The Western media is united on one point: Assad and Putin are evil, and hurt their own people. In actual fact, it is the neocons in Washington and their allies who have no love for humanity and will exploit them for financial gain (not the average people of ANY country). There could be a possible exception to the average American who voted for Trump. Such white people are just as racist and hateful as the elite they fawn over, but they fortunately do not have the power that the elite do.
I am a private tutor for international students, and they all adore Assad and Putin, whether they are Christian or Muslim, poor or rich. There are many pictures of Assad with laughing children and adoring citizens. There is only one reason why the elite wishes to war with Syria. It is oil. It is the fact that Assad can’t be bullied (and neither can Putin) to go along with the elite’s violent agenda. They also hate the Muslim rule against usury.
This situation will never change until there are newspapers that cover the Muslim perspective, and politicians who rush to please Muslim demographics in the West.
Special Ramadan series, Day One
The mainstream media defends Muslims to a degree. The media encourages migrants from Middle Eastern countries to enter Europe, for example, and offers them benefits. Perhaps this is a way to offer some sort of reparations for the colonialism and imperialism of the past. Or perhaps there is a more sinister agenda in the hearts of the former oppressors. Of course, an argument can be made that the Muslims as a whole are still victims of systemic discrimination and prejudice. There are certainly an enormous number of Islamophobes in the world. For the next week or so, Amphiist will look at the Quran and ask what Islam really teaches.
The Other Side
In the second chapter of the Quran, there is a verse which reads: “And fear a Day of Judgement when a person shall not avail another, nor will intercession be accepted from him, not will compensation be taken from him, nor will they be helped”). (Surah 2:48).
The fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity is that Jesus in Islam does not intercede on behalf of individuals. Muslims adore Jesus and respect and love him as a Prophet and as a Messenger, but they do not think he is the Son of God, and nor is he an intercessor for people’s individual sins. Muslims believe, based on this Quranic verse, that we as individuals are responsible for our own salvation and we should not pray to other people, no matter how righteous they may be, to help us with God.
Muslims are monotheistic, which means they believe in one God. They do not believe Jesus could be half God, and half human. Christians are polytheistic, as they believe in the Holy Trinity. In Arabic, this is known as shirk. It is insulting to God to associate with partners with him, or to pray to the created, rather than the Creator.
We should not depend on anyone else to put in a good word for us with respect to God. We should work out our own salvation and do the things that God wishes us to do.
Special Ramadan series, Day Two
The mainstream media defends Muslims to a degree. The media encourages migrants from Middle Eastern countries to enter Europe, for example, and offers them benefits. Perhaps this is a way to offer some sort of reparations for the colonialism and imperialism of the past. Or perhaps there is a more sinister agenda in the hearts of the former oppressors. Of course, an argument can be made that the Muslims as a whole are still victims of systemic discrimination and prejudice. There are certainly an enormous number of Islamophobes in the world. For the next week or so, Amphiist will look at the Quran and ask what Islam really teaches.
The Other Side
In the second chapter of the Quran, the word ‘jihad’ comes up. I have heard two alternative versions of what this word means. One is self struggle. So one might have a jihad to overcome a particular sin, like drinking, gambling, anal sex, etc. (all sins according to Islam). The other definition I have heard is that it means fighting infidels/disbelievers.
The second definition is right, according to the Quran, 2:216. God says here that it is noble to fight jihad in His name. He says that the average Muslim might not like the idea of such a violent fight, but still, it is his duty in the interests of protecting Islam from disbelievers. God knows things we do not know, and so individuals should pay attention to what God knows, and not what they assume they know.
I am sure ISIS looks at such verses and uses them as justification for their attempts to form a worldwide caliphate. It does seem, based on these scriptures, that it is acceptable, any time of the year, with no exceptions, to fight in self-defence those disbelievers who threaten the health of Islam. However, often the Quran warns people to have sabre, or patience. I will update my readers if there are any more mentions of jihad in the Quran, and particularly if I see the first definition of self struggle then I will be sure to say.
Special Ramadan series, Day Three
The mainstream media defends Muslims to a degree. The media encourages migrants from Middle Eastern countries to enter Europe, for example, and offers them benefits. Perhaps this is a way to offer some sort of reparations for the colonialism and imperialism of the past. Or perhaps there is a more sinister agenda in the hearts of the former oppressors. Of course, an argument can be made that the Muslims as a whole are still victims of systemic discrimination and prejudice. There are certainly an enormous number of Islamophobes in the world. For the next week or so, Amphiist will look at the Quran and ask what Islam really teaches.
The Other Side
In the second chapter of the Quran, the word ‘usury’ comes up. If you are not Muslim, please read Chapter 2 of the Quran, especially this area, 2:279, so you can see the glorious mindset that is displays. People should not charge interest on any loan. In fact, they should give it as charity.
If a loan is arranged between two people, there should be two witnesses. If two men are not able to be found, then one man and two women is permissible. Of course, this raises the point of why two women = one man. It is explained in the Quran that in this case, this is so, if one of the women makes a mistake regarding the terms of the loan, the other can correct her. It is not meant as a disparagement of women in any sense, and throughout the Quran, there are many verses which clearly demonstrate how women, in their own roles, are respected and admired. Context is important.
I know Muslims who really live this. One time, one of my students was out of the country and he needed his friend to send me money. His friend took the money for himself, rather than pay me. My student paid me anyway, which meant that he ended up paying double. And guess what? My student said he forgave his friend, because maybe he really needed the money. God is not always in Heaven; sometimes He appears through His followers on earth.
Special Ramadan series, Day Four
The mainstream media defends Muslims to a degree. The media encourages migrants from Middle Eastern countries to enter Europe, for example, and offers them benefits. Perhaps this is a way to offer some sort of reparations for the colonialism and imperialism of the past. Or perhaps there is a more sinister agenda in the hearts of the former oppressors. Of course, an argument can be made that the Muslims as a whole are still victims of systemic discrimination and prejudice. There are certainly an enormous number of Islamophobes in the world. For the next week or so, Amphiist will look at the Quran and ask what Islam really teaches.
The Other Side
Muslims are not supposed to take Christians as friends, based on 3:118 in the Quran. The reason is that Christians, Jews, pagans, hypocrites, etc. do not believe in the Quran, but Muslims do accept the scriptures of Christians and Jews, people of The Books. Non-Muslims might pretend to be on the side of Muslims, but in fact they are only pretending in order to gain an advantage.
This idea is borne out by the sheer amount of Islamophobia that exists in the world today (and probably always has since the Prophet created the religion). It works both ways. There are people like Tommy Robinson who allegedly pretend to hate Islam just for the money that it brings from racists who really do hate this religion. And, of course, there are others who pretend to be interested in Islam because they have a sexual pull towards Muslims, or because they have been hurt by a Muslim and want revenge, or even because they have an imperfect understanding of what the religion entails.
However, I do know that Muslims can perform dawah, or educate non-Muslims about the religion. So why they shouldn’t strictly be friends, based on the Quran, it’s not like the two groups can’t intermingle. But the context should be Muslims teaching non-Muslims. One perspective, anyway!
Special Ramadan series, Day Five
The mainstream media defends Muslims to a degree. The media encourages migrants from Middle Eastern countries to enter Europe, for example, and offers them benefits. Perhaps this is a way to offer some sort of reparations for the colonialism and imperialism of the past. Or perhaps there is a more sinister agenda in the hearts of the former oppressors. Of course, an argument can be made that the Muslims as a whole are still victims of systemic discrimination and prejudice. There are certainly an enormous number of Islamophobes in the world. For the next week or so, Amphiist will look at the Quran and ask what Islam really teaches.
The Other Side
One of the fundamental challenges to Islam by Islamophobes is women’s rights. Let’s look at Chapter 4 of the Quran. There are two main sections which discuss women. The first discusses inheritance. Women, even 1400 years ago in Islam, as a fundamental tenet of the faith, already had substantial inheritance rights.
On the subjects of sex and marriage, the Quran is equally clear. Women who commit adultery are to be confined to their houses (not stoned) until they die. If they repent (either men or women) they are to be set free. Women cannot be inherited against their will. In the matter of divorce, women must be treated very fairly in a financial way because a covenant has been made. However, if a man does not get along well with his wife, he should not immediately consider divorce, because perhaps God is testing him with a trial that will ultimately benefit him.
Men excel compared to women; however, because of this, they should protect women and guard over them. Women should obey and if they don’t, men have the right and obligation to rebuke them, and if that doesn’t work, deny them sex, and if that doesn’t work, then gently slap them so they get the point, but at no point, actually hurt them (Quran 4:34).
Special Ramadan series, Day Six
The mainstream media defends Muslims to a degree. The media encourages migrants from Middle Eastern countries to enter Europe, for example, and offers them benefits. Perhaps this is a way to offer some sort of reparations for the colonialism and imperialism of the past. Or perhaps there is a more sinister agenda in the hearts of the former oppressors. Of course, an argument can be made that the Muslims as a whole are still victims of systemic discrimination and prejudice. There are certainly an enormous number of Islamophobes in the world. For the next week or so, Amphiist will look at the Quran and ask what Islam really teaches.
The Other Side
In Quran 4:100, it says that Muslims who are being oppressed in one country have different countries that they have a duty and obligation to move to a land where Islam is honoured.
I may be wrong, but this seems to me that Muslims who are being oppressed in a certain country, do not have the obligation or duty to fight the non-Muslims (or oppressing Muslims) there in that land. They should leave and go somewhere where they are actually appreciated, and where they will not be oppressed. A practical example these days would be not to complain about oppression in Britain, the US or Canada, but instead to go to Saudi Arabia, where they can truly live their religion (or Iran, for example).
This is basically for men. Women and children are under no obligation to travel to a country where Islam is practiced, although if they wish to, then they are certainly allowed. Always in Islam, women are protected.
The most important implication for this is that ISIS has no legitimacy when they state that the Muslim duty is to fight the disbelievers. In the Quran, it clearly states that it is better to practice self-restraint and self-discipline (also patience), but that if it is a matter of self-defence, then fighting is permissible.
Special Ramadan series, Day Seven
The mainstream media defends Muslims to a degree. The media encourages migrants from Middle Eastern countries to enter Europe, for example, and offers them benefits. Perhaps this is a way to offer some sort of reparations for the colonialism and imperialism of the past. Or perhaps there is a more sinister agenda in the hearts of the former oppressors. Of course, an argument can be made that the Muslims as a whole are still victims of systemic discrimination and prejudice. There are certainly an enormous number of Islamophobes in the world. For the next week or so, Amphiist will look at the Quran and ask what Islam really teaches.
The Other Side
In Quran 5:32, it outlines when murder is permissible. It is okay in self-defence. It is also acceptable to kill if someone is spreading mischief. This made me think of how people with extremist views can sometimes not commit murder themselves, but they can encourage others who are mentally ill to do so. Thus, they represent a major threat to society. According to the Quran, it is acceptable to kill such people for the public good, but only as a final resort. Contrary to popular belief, the Quran prohibits violence as much as possible.
Another example of what is known as Islamic or sharia law is what happens to a thief. Cutting off their right hands from the wrist joint is the prescribed punishment, according to sharia law. This acts as a strong defence against thievery. However, it should be remembered that if a person repents after the stealing but before punishment, they should be forgiven.
Quran 5:45 makes the valuable point that traditionally the viewpoint of sharia is an eye for an eye, like the Bible says (there are obviously tons of similarities between the two sets of scriptures). But in an amphiist way, it goes on to say that if someone wishes to forgive the person the transgression against them, the person who forgives will also have their sins forgiven.
Tommy Robinson supporters
Tommy Robinson was arrested yesterday for violating restricted regulations respective to journalists concerning reporting on sex abuse trials such as what’s going on with the grooming gang trials in the UK. Robinson’s defenders try to obfuscate by pretending he was arrested for hate speech, manifestly not the case. They say that he is being railroaded because he is not popular with British law enforcement since he is highlighting the issue of young girls being raped and they for some unknown reason wish to cover this up. His supporters also state that the media has banned coverage of the incident, which proves that they are covering up for bad people. These are the kind of people who got triggered over a joke tweet of mine about the rape Robinson could face in jail.I was merely making the point that if he is in a cell with Muslims, he could be in for some trouble.
The Other Side
Robinson makes his money by spreading hate about Muslims in Britain. He highlights anything a Muslim does which is criminal. He co-writes books which lie about what’s contained in the Quran. He yells and incites violence against Muslims.
There are clear rules in British law with regard to citizens not capturing on film anything to do with sex abuse trials. This is so that the jury and/or judge is not prejudiced. (rapists could be set free in a mistrial). Last year, Robinson received a suspended sentence for such interference, and was warned that if it happened again, he could face jail time.
I have heard the supposition that Robinson got arrested on purpose to make himself look like a martyr, and also to make money (like Count Dankula did in his recent trial, because a lot of these men’s supporters are only too willing to financially support their terrorist heroes). It’s possible.
The British government has an obligation to protect citizens from the hate preachers like Robinson espouse. Crazy people exaggerate what he says and then violence occurs, usually directed at innocents. Therefore, the UK ban on media coverage of this incident is entirely justified.
Tommy Robinson supporters
Tommy Robinson was arrested yesterday for violating restricted regulations respective to journalists concerning reporting on sex abuse trials. Robinson’s defenders are saying on Twitter that the reason he was arrested is really because the New World Order conspirators are implementing their agenda to stop people from reporting on the fact that grooming gangs are raping girls as young as 11. The media is not reporting on this, or is as little as possible, because they are protecting pedophiles. British law enforcement officials involved with Tommy Robinson are trying to silence him because he is a hero who is trying to protect the victims of these grooming gangs. He fights for white people who are being replaced by migrants who are threatening the safety and security of Britain.
The Other Side
There are undoubtedly some Muslims who are involved with grooming gangs in Britain. However, there are also members of other religions, races, etc who commit this evil. Tommy Robinson focuses on Muslims because he is paid to do so, to divide and conquer Britons. That way, Britons will not wake up to what is really going on around them. The elites (no one has a precise idea who comprises these elites) want to keep the masses down so that, for example, wages stay stagnant, while expenses rise all over the place.
Some point to the US as the nation at the helm of this initiative; however, even though I have said as much in the past in Amphiist, I would like to revisit this idea, because there can be no doubt but that there are many wonderful things about America. The US has its glorious constitution, after all, and though they have departed from it, it is still a bedrock. Still, the leaders of possibly every nation on earth do have things to answer for, especially when they deal in violence. Amphiist is against all violence.
The New World Order did not force Tommy to accept pay to preach hate. They did not (if they even exist) force him to badmouth Muslims on a constant basis. Ridiculous.
Tommy Robinson supporters
Tommy Robinson was arrested yesterday for violating restricted regulations respective to journalists concerning reporting on sex abuse trials. Robinson’s defenders are saying on Twitter that the reason he was arrested is really because the New World Order conspirators are implementing their agenda to stop people from reporting on the fact that grooming gangs are raping girls as young as 11. The media is not reporting on this, or is as little as possible, because they are protecting pedophiles. British law enforcement officials involved with Tommy Robinson are trying to silence him because he is a hero who is trying to protect the victims of these grooming gangs. He fights for white people who are being replaced by migrants who are threatening the safety and security of Britain.
The Other Side
Imagine being a police officer and working hard to protect citizens, including young victims of grooming gang crimes. Your significant other sees you off at the beginning of your workshift, wondering if you will ever return in one piece. Then you log on to social media and in spite of the fact that the person you love and admire spends their days taking their lives in their hands in order to protect the citizens of your country, you see many posts insulting law enforcement officials.
Imagine being a hard-working government official like Theresa May, Sadiq Khan, Justin Trudeau, etc. only to have your contributions dismissed by conspiracy theorists who are filled with hatred. Occasionally, I will criticize certain nations for having bad policies, but I realize now that leaders have so many stakeholders to consider that it is impossible for them to always do things the way we citizens would like. Of course, I am against violence, but as soon as we enter into the realm of self-defence, the issue becomes murky. And we as citizens don’t know the intelligence behind many decisions.
On a related note, Anjem Choudary will be out of prison in October, and Tommy Robinson will still be in jail. We will discuss in the future if this is fair or not.
Tommy Robinson supporters
Tommy Robinson was arrested for violating restricted regulations respective to journalists concerning reporting on sex abuse trials. Robinson’s defenders are saying on Twitter that the reason he was arrested is really because the New World Order conspirators are implementing their agenda to stop people from reporting on the fact that grooming gangs are raping girls as young as 11. The media is not reporting on this, or is as little as possible, because they are protecting pedophiles. British law enforcement officials involved with Tommy Robinson are trying to silence him because he is a hero who is trying to protect the victims of these grooming gangs. He fights for white people who are being replaced by migrants who are threatening the safety and security of Britain.
The Other Side
Two men stand in contradistinction to one another. Tommy Robinson is a thug who allegedly has beaten his wife, and allegedly beaten a police officer for intervening in the domestic violence incident.
Choudary is a conservative Muslim who believes that the world would be better off under an Islamic caliphate. This is par for the course for adherents to a particular religion. Mormons, for example, believe the world would be better off if everyone were Mormon. They believe that if you are not Mormon, you will not go to heaven. Choudary believes the same, except as seen through an Islamic lens. Choudary, it is also important to note, has never committed violence, or at least I am not aware of it ever being reported that he has. Robinson is a career criminal. As far as I know, Choudary’s current imprisonment represents his first offense.
Setting aside the issue of violence, which obviously is awful no matter who does it, the motivations between what Choudary and Robinson are doing are profoundly different. It’s been reported that Robinson does what he does for money. No one has ever made that accusation against Choudary, whose motivation appears to be religious in nature.
Mainstream media
Anwar Al Awlaki is a figure of great controversy in American politics. The mainstream media depicts him as a terrorist. President Obama killed him with a drone in Yemen in 2011. Later, drones would also kill Awlaki’s children. The rationale according to Obama was that Awlaki was dangerous because he was preaching hate to young Muslim men, who in turn would exercise violence against America. Rumours are that Awlaki was indirectly involved with the 9/11 attack. The media said he was a jihadi as far back as the 1990s. They say that when he was in Washington, DC, he used the services of a prostitute. They tell such stories to imply that he was a hypocrite, and did not really care about Islam; he just cared about violence because the act itself excited him.
The Other Side
Before I begin my actual discussion of Awlaki, let me explain something first. Amphiist does not condone any sort of violence whatsoever. No one knows for sure who was responsible behind the scenes for 9/11. I don’t believe Bush was. I don’t think he is so evil as to send thousands of people to their death for political reasons. Whoever planned it will get the reward all murderers receive in the next life.
However, the media plays favourites and has enemies. Awlaki is one such convenient enemy. They tell about his prostitutes because they do not understand that Middle Eastern men have very high sex drives. If Awlaki indeed visited prostitutes, it’s to his credit, not his detriment. It shows he’s a real man, only. articles which discuss how he he is a terrorist are even forced to admit that there is no record of his exercising violence himself. He was born in America (New Mexico) and it was unconstitutional to have him killed, particularly as there was never any proof that those who committed violence did so at his encouragement. He was a convenient scapegoat for Western media. Many examples of Awlaki’s celebrating the life of the Prophet Mohammed and his companions exist. This man is far more complicated than the biased Western media would suggest. He should never have been killed.
Mainstream media
The mainstream media does not advocate for any particular religion, which is as it should be, of course. However, they also do not acquaint their readers enough with the differences between religions. They treat Islam as though it is a monolithic faith, and Christianity and Judaism fare little better. When they discuss Islam, it is within the context of migrants supposedly causing ruination among the communities they invade or infiltrate. Christians are seen as backwards and not keeping up with the progressive times, while Judaism is written about rarely if ever. Religion is an important part of millions upon millions of people’s lives, and although media should not advocate for a particular belief system, they should at least delineate between them better.
The Other Side
Because of my personal journey, I have been asking questions about Christianity and why it has failed so many (but succeeded for some). The main difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and died on the cross for our sins, erasing the original sin of our births because of the transgression of Adam and Eve (especially Eve, of course).
Muslims love Jesus, because they believe that he is a Prophet and Messenger of God. In fact, he is one of the few Prophets of Islam who merit that application, according to them.
My question on this matter is: If Why was Lucifer banished from heaven if he was part of God’s plan? If Jesus, according to the Bible, died for all sins and Luckifer tempted Adam and Eve to sin, which set up the need for the Atonement in the first place, then should God have rewarded Lucifer? Why was Lucifer thrust down into hell if the plan of salvation could not have occurred without him?
A belief in Islam solves this problem, because they believe that another man was substituted for Jesus so that he did not die on the cross, and was protected (taken up to heaven).
Mainstream media
The mainstream media does not advocate for any particular religion, except in an indirect way, the New Age religion which several philosophers from the past have espoused. Although the occult dates back to Greek mythology and no doubt before, in modern times, names that are often mentioned in conjunction with this world view include Helena P Blavatsky, Manly P Hall, Benjamin Crème, and the wickedest man in the world, Alesteir Crowley. Blavatsky’s theosophy moved beyond Christianity. Hall was a member of the highest realm in both Freemasony and the Illuminati. Crème also advocated for a post Christian, humanist-centered world. Crowley worked with magic and summoning demons because he was totally committed to advancing Lucifer’s cause.
The Other Side
Personally, I am torn between Islam and the New Age. The advantages to Islam are that it encourages morality. Many Muslims I’ve met personally have strong family values. However, according to its critics, Islam does not allow for freedom of speech. It is not compatible with democracy. Muslims’ collective mindset is not as advanced as the West in some areas. The advantages to the New Age is that asks important questions about Christianity. If Christ was supposed to die for our sins, as a result of Lucifer tempting Eve to sin, thereby creating original sin in all human beings which had to be atoned for, wasn’t Lucifer’s role necessary? Why would a loving God punish him for his integral role in the plan of salvation? One of the fascinating premises of the New Age religion is Lucifer represents good, and God evil. Lucifer is good, according to this line of reasoning, because he is the one who wanted humanity to be free, possessing as much knowledge as possible. New Age also promises sexual freedom. Few admit it, but we are all extremely sexual beings, and any stream of thought which does not recognize this seems limited. The disadvantage is there’s a certain contempt for humanity as expressed in the New Age. The credo of depopulation is a central example in how the masses are dehumanized inconveniences. Then again, the vast majority of people are selfish and unintelligent, so it is tempting for the intellectual elite to dismiss their needs when in conflict with their own.
Mainstream media
The mainstream media does not advocate for any particular religion, except in an indirect way, the New Age religion which several philosophers from the past have espoused. Although the occult dates back to Greek mythology and no doubt before, in modern times, names that are often mentioned in conjunction with this world view include Helena P Blavatsky, Manly P Hall, Benjamin Crème, and the wickedest man in the world, Alesteir Crowley. Blavatsky’s theosophy moved beyond Christianity. Hall was a member of the highest realm in both Freemasonry and the Illuminati. Crème also advocated for a post Christian, humanist-centered world. Crowley worked with magic and summoning demons because he was totally committed to advancing Lucifer’s cause.
The Other Side
The great philosopher Nietzsche advocated for a superman. He thought that such an ideal man necessitated certain blood and bleeding. An amphiist, on the other hand, believes that just as Carlyle posited, a man can be a natural aristocrat (or woman). This means that he does not need to be born into a certain line to be great. If someone is emotionally intelligent, or open-minded, if they pursue pleasure, if they believe in unity, in a one-world gov’t, religion, etc., then they can be a superman.
The elite believe that no human being can ever really attain this great individual height. They believe in transhumanism. They believe the most powerful ‘people’ on earth are non-human entities to whom the shadow government of the world reports. They believe that Christianity represented the age of Pisces, and that we are now entering the age of Aquarius. We are now in a post-Christian world, in other words. A superman now would not be a Christian, but someone far more progressive. Perhaps the superman will be Maitreya, the being whom all religions await at the end of days. He is the Christ, the Madhi, the Messiah, the Buddha Maitreya, or the Krishna. A common sense way to look at this is to acknowledge that a person’s father can be known by his first name, or referred to as Grampy, Dad, as a brother, etc., but he is always the same person. Or perhaps the superman is in each of us, once we move past the restrictive cage of organized religion?
Amphiist 72: John McCain (Sept. 5/18)
Mainstream media perspective
John McCain recently passed away in America. For those who don’t know, he is being celebrated in the mainstream media as a war hero, someone who was captured in Vietnam and heroically escaped. What is the real truth about this controversial man?
The Other Side
There’s something called neoconservatism. It’s the belief that America should implement regime change in various parts of the world. It is a violent ideology (Amphiist is pro-peace). Neoconservatism believes that America should topple Syria’s Bashar Al Assad and change Syria into a democracy. Right now, Assad is a Shia Muslim (Alawite, to be exact), in charge of a secular country which has been ravaged by American bombs. Of course, the real reason is not democracy, but…oil.
John McCain never met a war he didn’t like. Although the obvious reaction people have to such statement is we shouldn’t criticize the dead, I can honour that sentiment; however, what about the millions of children, especially brown children, killed by McCain’s neoconservative policies? He once joked about bombing Iran. Iran and Russia are two countries which are often criticized and hysterically written about in the mainstream press, which is all you need to know that they are actually credible countries. Not that they are perfect. Both Assad and Putin treat journalists in a way which should not be tolerated by people who care about human rights. But not everyone is lucky enough to have a leader as emotionally intelligent as Justin Trudeau.
Amphiist 73: Iran (Sept. 6/18)
Mainstream media perspective
It would be devastating, the mainstream press tells us, if Iran obtained nuclear weapons. It has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, and constantly we hear chants of “Death to America” from many of its citizens. We are told that Iran is a violent theocracy with constant human rights abuses. We are informed that past and current leaders wish to overtake the world until we are held prisoner to a dictatorship which does not have our best interests at heart.
The Other Side
However, many can argue that Iran simply defends itself against those who would seek to oppress it. When America captures it in a moment of violence, is it initiatory violence or is it self-defense? I would argue it’s self-defense against the Wahhabi Islam onslaught. Iran, Iraq and Syria are Shia-dominated countries. Shias do not espouse violence. They are willing and able to fight if that’s what’s required, but they are not about beheading people, oppressing them, or forcing their ideals on others. Iran is undoubtedly a theocracy, but if the religion upon which is a theocracy is not problematic, then the theocracy itself is not problematic.
Iran has one of the world’s great cultures. Along with certain other Middle Eastern countries, Iran lays claim to being part of the cradle of civilization. We look at the world upside down because the media wants to perpetuate the status quo, since the people who pay the media’s journalists have an agenda. That agenda is to make good look like evil, and evil look like good, a warning we are taught in the Bible. I recently converted to Shia Islam, but I still see many truths evident in the Christian scriptures. Iran’s leaders fight this agenda. I don’t have space to go into it all here, but future issues will expand on the themes I’ve outlined above.
Amphiist 74: Individual potential (Sept. 9/18)
Mainstream media perspective
The mainstream press generally focuses on life on a macro scale. In other words, they discuss world events, and local newspapers tend to concentrate on local affairs. Neither kind of journalism seems to focus on life on a micro scale, or the individual level.
The Other Side
We don’t focus enough, the Amphiist asserts, on ourselves as individuals. I don’t mean we don’t pay enough attention to our selfish needs. There is all too much of that. I am talking about reaching our own maximum individual potential. The reason that Trump’s Presidency in the United States is so troublesome and problematic is that his policies create ingroups and outgroups. It’s hard for a member of the LGBTQ2 community to reach our full potential if we are discriminated against. I, personally, was discriminated against in the Mormon church for being a shemale or transgender, whichever label you wish to affix to my personal situation. They would not let me stay without harassing me on a continual basis. I see bullying all over the world of gay people, etc., and of other oppressed minorities.
We need to not judge others. We need to respect the fact that not everyone is going to agree with us. We need to stop creating ingroups and outgroups. That is the Nazi mindset. If we are not a member of the LGBTQ2 community ourselves, that doesn’t mean we can’t leave them alone to live their best lives and realize their ultimate potential. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has as one of its motivators the category of belongingness. We all belong to the human race and are motivated when we are accepted by our fellow human beings.
Amphiist 75: Nazi mindset (Sept. 11/18)
Mainstream media perspective
The mainstream press refers to the altright as Nazis but they don’t delve into what this term means. They mean people who believe in white supremacy, in a supreme Aryan race, which is obviously what the genocidal Hitler believed in. They restrict the definition to this, but there is actually so much more going on. I would like to take this opportunity to explain in a little more depth what I mean by the Nazi mindset.
The Other Side
A Nazi mindset is the very opposite of what an Amphiist is. A Nazi is not just someone who believes in white supremacy. If you mock a person for being fat, and don’t believe they have a right to be respected, then to me you’re a Nazi. If you believe that only your religion is the correct one, then you could be a Nazi. If you think everyone who disagrees with you is going to hell, then that is part of the Nazi mindset. On the other hand, if you are an Amphiist, you believe that you don’t know why a person is fat. Maybe they have a thyroid problem. Maybe they feel more comfortable when they are larger. Maybe they are lazy or maybe they just have an incredibly slow metabolism. It might be their fault and it might not, but an Amphiist doesn’t pretend to know the difference. A Nazi mindsetted person doesn’t care what the reason is. S/he (but usually he) just forges ahead with judgment, ridicule and mockery.
And an Amphiist, on the subject of religion, believes that there is truth in all religions, especially when it comes to how we treat others. We can reach our individual potential by allowing others the chance to reach their individual potential. Maybe that means they are fat. Maybe it means they’re a different religion. But let’s all be our best selves.
Amphiist 76: Where Trump is right but for the wrong reason (Sept. 13/18)
Mainstream media perspective
The mainstream press will never give Donald Trump, President of the United States, any credit whatsoever. Even if he were to construct an economy better than any in the past, they would still say there are more important things in life. They are right, but this condemnation of the man without any sense of nuance does the world a disservice, not just him.
The Other Side
The reason why we all suffer from the lack of nuance directed at Trump is because ironically enough, there is a point of similarity between the world view of altright racists and Muslims, for example. We wouldn’t expect this, given the racism of the altright. But both groups hate it when the US intervenes for purposes of regime change in countries like Iraq and Syria. The altright hate it for the wrong reason, however. While Muslims understandably loathe American imperialism and colonialism, and decry the devastation wrought upon their countries by needless violence, the altright’s perspective is far more selfish. They put America first at the expense of the rest of the globe. They don’t care about innocent brown lives, including those of children; they just don’t see the financial benefit of fighting ‘wars’ that are not in their own national interest.
Still, it’s interesting that these two positions connect so perfectly. The Amphiist is against any and all violence. It’s against regime change because Americans pretend it’s for the purpose of spreading democracy when in actuality, it’s about oil. Somehow the countries that have no oil never commit human rights abuses that offend the US. Funny, that! And incredibly sad.
Amphiist 77: Jihad in Islam (Sept. 15/18)
Mainstream media perspective
The mainstream press wants, more than anything else, to sell papers. That is the reason for their existence. So when it comes to a concept like ‘jihad,’ the media prefers to view it as Muslims waging war on all non-Muslims, trying to entertain a global caliphate. The truth of what jihad represents is far less glamorous but far more spiritually rewarding. It is mastering one’s self. The Amphiist wants everyone to reach their full potential, and this is the real crux of jihad.
The Other Side
Muslims are supposed to constantly better ourselves so that we draw closer to God. God is perfect, and so He wants us to be happy. That makes Him happy. However, one does not need to be an adherent to Islam to want to reach their full potential. An Atheist can also be concerned with the idea of being their best self. A Christian can, too. Reaching one’s maximum potential is an honour and privilege given to all human beings, regardless of the exact nature of their religious beliefs. It is a waste if we do not take advantage of it.
The thing is, though, people have a false impression of Muslims always wanting to fight non-Muslims, and overtaking the world. Most Muslims just want to be left in peace to live their lives and worship as they see fit. Regardless of whether or not someone exists as part of a majority or minority, they have the right to excel to the extent to which they are able.
Now let’s talk about repentance. This principle essentially means to change one’s mind. One just doesn’t stop committing a particular sin; they no longer even rationally think it’s a good idea to do it. They see, in a small way, through God’s eyes, that that sin no longer is conducive to reaching one’s full potential.
Amphiist 78: Amphiist Entertainment (Sept. 17/18)
Mainstream media perspective
The press tends to focus on entertainment from a male perspective. They talk about violence a lot more than they do sex (this may take you by surprise, but just think about it). They use special effects and overproduce. That last also applies to the music industry. Remember when songs were simple? And when movie plots were driven by character?
The Other Side
Amphiist is not just about religion and politics, although looking at both sides of religious and political issues is obviously important. Amphiist is also about entertainment. It’s about emotion. When they did what’s called ‘women’s pictures’ when Hollywood began, through the 1940s, women in the family decided which films to see. Therefore, the plots were designed to appeal to the whole family, especially those who wished to see character-driven drama and comedy. The plots were not complicated with special effects.
The Golden Age of the movies was the 1930s and ‘40s. The Golden Age for television was in the 1970s to ‘90s, inclusive. Natural talent carried the day, rather than producers deciding someone had the right look and then practically forcing them to become popular.
Stars like Greta Garbo, Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Norma Shearer and Barbara Stanwyck were the go-to women if you wanted to see charisma and sheer talent. Their roles were very feminine during the classic time frame and can tell us much about how women were viewed almost a century ago. We have a lot to learn from them. Sin was handled very differently, as we will see in upcoming issues.
Amphiist 79: Amphiist Conspiracies (Sept. 19/18)
Mainstream media perspective
The press ridicules conspiracy theories all the time. However, many have actually been proven to be true, ‘conspiracies’ such as Operation Mockingbird. A conspiracy is simply a bunch of people getting together to secretly, or not so secretly, to obtain a group goal, so it’s not really that wild to suppose that this happens all the time…and it does!
The Other Side
There are ‘good’ conspiracy theorists and ‘bad’ ones. Alex Jones is a bad one. He is a performance artist, which means he says what he does only for effect. He is not sincere in what he says. It is entirely possible that he says what he does because he is a paid troll. And the pills he sells could just be a surface explanation for why he makes so much money. No one has any way of knowing how much he makes from selling his male vitality pills,so it could be a cover story.
However, there is a conspiracy theory which makes tons of sense. It is the conspiracy of the violent globalists who wage war and support both sides so that they make money. Amphiism is about peaceful globalism, because it has no problem with a one-world government, but the picture of one dead child is grounds enough for the world view that war and violence are always wrong. Some of the conspiracies that we see played out in the media everyday include the normalization of bestiality and pedophilia, abortion, and war, of course. It is interesting to note that if all of these things were the norm, there would be far fewer human beings born, and that is one of the goals of these violent globalists: depopulation. Check out the Georgia Guidestones for the Ten Commandments of the New World Order!
Amphiist 80: The Ralph Retort raises $26,000 for St. Jude (Sept. 30/18)
Mainstream media perspective
The traditional press views the alt right and anyone who remotely sympathizes with them as a monolithic mass. They are all evil people with no redeeming values. They are a danger to society, should be distrusted, and actually should be feared. If they gain political power, Western society is doomed.
The Other Side
No individual is wholly wrong. Human beings are a mixture of good and evil. Ethan Ralph, founder and host of The Ralph Retort has some faults which are discernible if one listens to his streams, as I sometimes do. But he just raised $26,000 for children with cancer. All donations from his Healstream are going to St Jude in Memphis, Tennessee.
Zidan Lianciel and a bloke who goes by the name of Gator Gamer (he is anonymous) are Mr. Ralph’s cohosts. Mr. Lianciel does a lot of the research for the show, books the guests, etc. Gator Gamer has a soundboard where he plays funny excerpts for the stream’s thousands of listeners (they are not always serious, these guys). The three men all have controversial and often offensive views on the topics of the day. They are good to listen to (if you can handle it) if you want to know what the ‘deplorables’ are thinking. Their YouTube channel is called Killstream.
Mr. Ralph has a wife from Pakistan, so isn’t an alt righter or white supremacist. But do you think the children who might be cured because of the money raised by The Ralph Retort care about the personal views of these men? $26,000 is a lot of money, and these guys (and their chatroom members who donated) deserve our respect for this undertaking. яндекс