How deep do we go? And how deep are you willing to go? How deep can you go? If a terrible movie was overwhelmingly cheered by brainless audiences, would you still one of the few who still engaged in thinking and criticized the film’s obvious flaws? If the vast majority of people on social media falsely accused someone of racism or declared someone guilty of sexual assault, or any crime for that matter, without evidence, would you be one of the few who would remain steadfast and reject such false accusation? If 99% of the people in your society believed the Earth was flat, or that the Sun and the other planets in our solar system revolved around the Earth, would you be the top 1% who rejected this dogmatic, unscientific nonsense? If there were 600 people in a village and 599 of them still believed in punishing people for witchcraft, would you be the one person who rejected this superstitious barbarity?
We are not asking a person to abandon prudence by engaging in open defiance and rebellion against the evil masses, against their delusions, dishonesty, absurdity, hypocrisy, and barbarity, however tempting it might be, as doing so would no doubt get a person persecuted and eliminated; for example, if you were that single, good person out of the small village of 600 who rejected the witch-trials and ending up voicing your rational thoughts by speaking against them, you would probably find yourself quickly accused of being a witch yourself, so that village has a convenient excuse to remove you for being a troublemaker or nuisance, in other words, for exposing their cowardly, malevolent ways, for exposing the truth. No! What we are asking for is more internal, that the condition of your heart, your spirit, be unyielding to the pressures of the evil masses, that your soul, your true inner being, your inner life, reject their lies, their falsehoods, that which they stand for and impose upon others, that your heart still accepts the light of truth, of reason, which today is sought by the numerous hordes to be extinguished.
The timeless values below are of truth! As such, they are certainly hated in modern society to the point where anyone who states them, or simply believes them, will be ruthlessly shamed and persecuted in mass by evil mobs if such speech-thoughts are discovered. Although our club gives members anonymity, and, in so doing, tries to make bravery and courage not required in the first place, as members are not openly defying and rebelling against the mobs with their real names, we, by speaking our minds and defending such values, still naturally defy and rebel against the tyranny of the evil masses regardless so some measure of fortitude is still required. Can you deal with the social pressure and heat and speak these values anyway? Are you brave enough? Are you unique enough? We, Truthful Witness, strive to have such bravery and uniqueness every day, and we, more importantly, strive to thrive amidst such pressure and heat that now comes when publicly speaking and promoting such values.
Understandably, reason and sense enrage the evil mobs and their ringleaders; they drive them absolutely crazy (hysterical, berserk, nuts) because anyone who has such values can easily recognize the lack of character, the moral cowardice, residing in such creatures, and because such values are the truth, and because we should ideally enjoy enraging (injuring) the evil mobs and narcissists by speaking the truth, Truthful Witness will forever uphold these values, in defiance of mob tyranny and the New Inquisition.
Most importantly, these values help prevent (and reverse) any mental deterioration caused by evil mob rule, idiot groupthink, the mass dumbing down of our society, narcissism, political correctness, and civilizational decline; the New Inquisition seeks to keep everyone stupid by suppressing truth, so the bad guys appear good, and the good guys appear bad, but these values prevent this and help promote clear thinking, again to the evil’s utter frustration.
*Truthful Witness is an online club for brave people who resist mob justice and online vigilantism when these things prove to be evil and stupid. Self-evidently, this requires us to recognize then state what is good and smart and what is not, hence we have created this extensive page for this purpose.
*Although we do not demand all members think the same as this would be cult-like and redundant (we want diverse viewpoints), we do expect members to be brave enough uphold basic moral values which are obvious and just. We hold these values to be self-evident; they are based on common sense and reason.
*These are the values the last remaining good, brave citizens of Western Civilization will defend no matter how many evil people attempt to stand in their way. These are the values of the Truthful Witness…
Our club believes in:
Defending the needs of society (the many) over the mere selfish wants of the few. We recognize Western society has grown grossly selfish; citizens now oppose the wellbeing of society, for their own selfish ends, while simultaneously praising those that attack society’s rules. Rude, entitled people are cutting others in line more frequently, and more brazenly, showing no respect for anyone and no regard for order. Hooligans now blast music loudly and street race with loud exhaust in their vehicles disrupting the neighborhood, showing disregard (contempt) for everyone and everything. Rude restaurant patrons now blast music and videos from their cell phones selfishly disturbing other patrons sitting next to them. Protestors and activists now block city streets, airport runways, and businesses while harassing pedestrians and restaurant patrons in a childish attempt to impose their hypocritical delusions on others. Dangerous criminals are now praised, or sympathized with, while the police who are defending society from such criminals are now persecuted, often for being righteously harsh on such willfully defiant criminals. Parents, instead of protecting the common good: order in the classroom and the wellbeing of all students, now side with their unruly children against the teacher and the school. People have no loyalty to anything outside their minute social circle, family, or groups of friends, trampling on anything, or anyone, which they perceive as a threat, treating outsiders, meaning all of society (the common good), with contempt. Those that expect others to dress, behave, and speak more modestly in public are lambasted and mocked relentlessly or even outright physically assaulted. Those who stand up for Western values and virtue: sensible immigration, traditional marriage, sex roles, parental discipline, respect to others, respect to authority, and respect to history are villainized. People no longer even care have and raise children, as they have become so selfish, they cannot even see beyond their own lifespans, leading to declining birth rates weakening the West overall. The needs of the many no longer outweigh the selfish wants of the few, or the one; now the selfish wants of the insane few, or even the evil one, have come to trample on the needs of the many. We at Truthful Witness see this truth. We are not afraid to speak on behalf of the common good. We place the needs (the wellbeing) of society first.
Commercials are disgusting, People are rude
Man could be driving recklessly …stopped by police, refuse police commands and is beaten and people sympathize with, for whatever reason (medical condition) him rather than all the people on the road he put at risk
Protecting members from mudslinging and mob attack (by granting members online anonymity) for speaking the truth or seeking the truth. We believe the best way to gain knowledge, uncover the truth, and think clearly is to have ideas freely spoken then rigorously challenged, where the merits-flaws of the argument are attacked, not a person’s character. Modern society does the exact opposite. If it does not censor outright (which is now rare), it still mercilessly attacks a person’s character with no concern for the merits of their argument, with no concern for the truth. We reject modern society’s fallacies that are designed to avoid accountability.
ON CURRENT DEBATE
Most public debate has become meaningless, as toxic tribes have now taken to “owning people” (humiliating and slandering people) who do not agree with them and who question their policies, especially on the tribe’s slanted platforms (their networks, channels, websites, events) where they can control the footage and the narrative. Most of these slanted platform debate arenas are for profit which means they use debaters and people who ask questions as merchandise for entertainment and to promote a self-serving agenda to win views and sponsors which ultimately increases their bottomline; they do not care for a mutual search for meaning and truth. This is ignored and instead people now expect a showdown where debaters have two minutes each to monologue and cram their points down their opponent’s throat with as many insults, strawmen, deflects, and fallacies as possible to confuse and stupefy the opposition. Debaters also must have immediate clever retorts, rebuttals, and counterarguments or they are considered “losers” of the debate who were “owned and destroyed,” like they are ignorant thugs engaging in a rap battle. This means an idiotic argument, and the charlatan presenting it, which/who can easily be disproven when a person is given time to think in hindsight and dissect their points, is passed off as clever and victorious to the public simply because the person debating against it/them did not have an immediate counterargument in the exact moment, even if that person was completely dumbfounded by the argument’s (the charlatan’s) stupidity. Segments require a person to immediately dominate another person and get them drowned out by clapping seals (the emotional audience: ad populum fallacy); debaters cannot ponder an important point then come back in two weeks to debate it when they had time to think about its flaws and merits, which is how intelligent, good people work together and operate.
The slanted platforms normal people are expected to debate on, or express disagreement on, give them little time to think then state their arguments and counterarguments (political events usually require people to asks one or two questions on a microphone to some shady speaker) which allows any charlatan to ignore sensible points, use smoke screen, slogans, word salad, and deflect blame and have the audience shout them down with boos, with the charlatan then calling time and dismissing the person and having their microphone cut off, with security escorting them out if need be; the limited time also better allows evil mobs to twist words and misrepresent arguments since the victim (the debater) cannot clarify their views.
We dismiss this modern form of debate as a sham.
Strawmen, putting words in people’s mouths and attacking it (most charlatan debaters do this now so they can try to look like they won the debate) “I do not like guns” gets warped into “this person thinks guns should be illegal”
Waiting for facts and evidence before reaching a conclusion. We believe in using reason, not emotion, when making decisions, and we strive to control our feelings so we will not impulsively rush to judgment (resisting prejudice). Again, we will be patient, and hear all sides of the story and examine all evidence before said judgment is rendered. When hearing a vague story about a man hitting a woman, we will not automatically assume the man is a vile woman beater or that the woman deserved being hit. When hearing a story about a child being hit by a vehicle on the road, we will not automatically assume the driver must be blamed, the parents must be blamed, or that the child was stupid. When seeing an inflammatory headline that a cop violently arrested an elderly suspect, we do not assume either the cop or elderly suspect is in the wrong until we have all evidence. When seeing footage of parents yelling at a school board, we do not automatically devolve to child worship by assuming the school board to be evil people trying to pervert students, nor do we automatically assume the parents are in the wrong (are child worshippers themselves) before evidence and context is discovered. When seeing an unsubstantial video of two people fighting, we do not assume either is in the wrong, again, until we have the entire story of all parties involved and all evidence. We will ask “what happened before the recording,” “what happened after the recording,” “did he confess to the crime,” “is the video footage real or fake,” “do they interview many people but only publicly release the interviews of the few people whose responses/answers fit their narrative,” “why is this being recorded and released publicly in the first place? Is the person recording the true abuser,” and so on. We are not stupid enough to take slanted news, slanted articles, slanted video titles, and edited (manipulated) footage at face value. Most of the world does the exact opposite, resulting in hysterical protestors and online mobs making kneejerk reactions and harsh judgments on a whim. This leads to riots, looting, online harassment, and innocent people getting publicly shamed, falsely accused, wrongfully fired, and unjustly incarcerated.
PEOPLE NOW SAY “MY TRUTH” OVER THE TRUTH
People state “there is no objective truth” but consider that an objective truth
Furthermore, we understand that it often takes time to think and to get all information, facts, evidence, context, witness accounts, all sides of the argument-story, etc. Therefore, we are not afraid to talk about past news and events that are weeks, months, even years, decades, centuries, and millennia old, as time grants greater clarity. We believe in having time to reflect-think on an issue. We strive to never react hysterically like modern society does which results in false accusation and wrongful shaming. We strive to never be manipulated by the profit-hungry media and the weak-minded to kneejerk react to recent news that is unsubstantiated.
Believing in personal responsibility (the value: I, and I alone, and responsible for my actions) and justice (the good being rewarded and the evil being punished). We define good behavior as that which strengthens society (the common good) and evil behavior as that which weakens society (the common good). We reject society’s abandonment of responsibility and justice. We reject people always childishly blaming other people for their wrongful actions (he made me do it). We reject citizens always childishly blaming evil doers’ actions on another; the bartender is now to blame for serving the deadly driver the drink; the gun store owner is now to blame for selling the mass shooter the gun, the serial killer’s past (alleged) bullies are now to blame for the man committing multiple acts of murder. Furthermore, we reject sue happy society where people can deny personal responsibility and can sue (legally rob) the innocent, including innocent businesses, for frivolous reasons. Finally, in the interest of justice, we reject good people being publicly shamed, bypassed for employment, and made outcasts while the well-spoken con men, the mudslinging race-baiter, the slanderous agitator win status, employment, and praise. Because we understand responsibility and seek to promote justice, we assure that we support the good while rejecting the vile, and we can easily refute the nonsensical arguments made in defense of the vile which seek to absolve them of blame-accountability-responsibility.
ON RIGHT AND WRONG
We understand the easiest way to measure right or wrong is to apply the act to everyone (assume everyone does the act) and see if the act benefits or destroys civilization. If everyone cut each other in line, the lines would breakdown into chaos and everyone would lose, as no one could be served. If everyone stole whatever they wanted, there would be no personal or private property, no possessions, no rights. If everyone could just murder others they did not like, many innocents would die, life would be terrifying, and there would be no society, only a savage jungle. This is so obvious but must be stated. Defending the common good requires punishment of (justice upon) those who act against it, meaning they commit acts that destroy civilization, made obvious when the acts are applied to everyone. Defending the common good also requires rewarding of (justice upon) those who act for it, meaning they commit acts that benefit civilization, made obvious when the acts are applied to everyone, such as a person bravely putting their life on the line to save others.
We also determine a person’s character based on their response to witnessing good and evil. If a criminal protestor selfishly disrupts a football game by running on to the field while fleeing security and is eventually tackled to the ground by said security, or even by a player, those who side with security and the player and side against the criminal protestor are in the right. They are truthful witnesses, as they understand crime must be punished. The needs and rights of the many, in this case those participating in the game and those watching the game (which could number in the thousands, even millions) outweigh the selfish wants of the single protestor and his likely idiot cause. The protestor is responsible for the crime in the first place. It is the protestor who is evil for disrupting the game, violating the rights of others, and he is the one responsible for being tackled to the ground (the protestor deserved to be tackled to the ground and subsequently deserves to be arrested and charged). Anyone who ignores this truth and sides with, or sympathizes with, the criminal protestor (for example, by claiming the tackle was morally wrong because the criminal protestor could have been injured) and sides against security or the player (for example, by claiming security or the player should be sued for tackling the criminal protestor or by ignoring the fact that by having to chase and tackle the criminal protestor to restore order, security or the player could have been injured which means, in reality, the criminal protestor was the one who was negligent, not those chasing and tackling him), is a false witness beneath contempt. Circumstances and eventualities (what could or will happen) matter in each case and can be debated, however, when the moral circumstances are clear, in this hypothetical case where the protestor blatantly commits an immoral-selfish act (crime) by disrupting a sporting event, there is no compromise on this issue. We cannot tolerate those that side with evil and side against the good. We will not allow such morally bankrupt people in our community to ensure our community is of the highest standard and remains protected and free.
We believe, now in the 2020s, it is better to have an alias (secret identity) to speak the truth, as a person using their real name and face while publicly speaking the truth leaves them susceptible to pressure, threats, and intimidation from evil mobs. Anyone who uses their real identity to speak on moral and political issues usually must water down their words, or lie outright, to avoid persecution and loss of revenue. Therefore, our discussion board allows anonymity, as members are free from mob pressure. Today, one must usually state their honest thoughts (what one believes is the truth) wearing a mask.
The willingness to help others without concern for profit. We inherently distrust the opinions and the intent of those who seek profit, especially those who speak about politics, morals, and social issues for profit such as news, political shows, political commentators, YouTube channels, podcasts, and “socially conscience businesses”. When one seeks profit, appealing to customers, will always supersede speaking truth. One cannot serve two masters and serve them equally, as they conflict with each other. For example, if customers (the evil mob) accused your employee of being racist when your employee is not, do you serve profit and fire the employee (throw them under the bus) to appease the mobs and prevent the customers from leaving your business or do you serve truth and keep the employee at the expense of profit? Do you post an inflammatory, clickbait headline that falsely accuses another person (of racism, sexism, homophobia, or whatever) which can get you one million views and more money, or do you post an intelligent headline that does not falsely accuse another person (because you serve truth) which can get you only 100,000 views and less money?
At Truthful Witness, we shall never sell our opinion for money (by seeking sponsors, ads, book sales, etc.) which allows us to better speak the whole truth, and it allow us to better support the highly persecuted (those publicly shamed by the majority) that would otherwise be unprofitable to support due to evil mobs attempting to hurt the bottom line of those publicly acknowledging their victim’s (their target’s) innocence and good character.
We believe that speaking plainly is essential for communication. We recognize language is becoming more unclear and stupid. The word girlfriend is being changed to idiot slang like, shawty, shorty, shauty or shortie which brings needless inaccuracy, as some women are tall and/or taller than their male date or partner. A woman who claims to be a man is now called a transgender man and a man who claims to be a woman is now called a transgender woman, both of which are false and ignore the perhaps most accurate term: tranvestite. An American protesting about the lack of security on the Mexican American border is now accused of racism and is called a racist, despite Mexico being a nation and Mexicans being a nationality, not a race; the most accurate terms would be a nationalism-nationalist, but this tends to be much less negative than the words racism-racist hence the appropriate term is abandoned for purposes of demonization.
Fast-food employees use to take orders by greeting customers with a clear “Hello, welcome to Fast Food Place XYZ. May I take your order?,” now they (if you can actually manage to get them to take your order and not some annoying computer) want to take orders by greeting customers with an unclear, “Hi, how are you?,” which is confusing, as this greeting is typically used to ask about your condition, mood, or day. What is worse is the fast-food employees often get irritated with customers who do not immediately interpret “Hi, how are you?” as the request “May I take your order?” which is nonsense, as fault lies with the greeter. We do not believe in ambiguous communication; we do not believe in making language too receiver oriented.
We reject how gradually language is becoming soft (softer) and confusing (more confusing). The word riot now becomes riot situation, the added word is needless and stupid. The word weapon becomes weapon system which again adds a needless word. People will now say the vehicle was traveling at a high rate of speed instead of just saying the vehicle was traveling at high speed. People now say, “the man committed a criminal act”, instead of just saying “the man committed a crime.”
UFO (unidentified flying object) was used often to describe an extraterrestrial aircraft, (flying saucer) but has since been replaced with the far less interesting, far less descriptive UAP (unidentified anomalous phenomena) which also sounds boring, more like witnessing a strange light in the sky than witnessing an alien spacecraft.
The softening of language was mentioned by the famous comedian George Carlin: shell shock became battle fatigue then became operational exhaustion then became post-traumatic stress disorder which denies seriousness of the condition. Toilet paper became bathroom tissue, medicine became medication, jungle became rain forest, trailers became mobile homes, used cars became pre-owned cars, slums became sub-standard housing, kill became neutralize, old people became senior citizens. Secretary of War (Department of War) became Secretary of Defense (Department of Defense), retreat became strategic withdrawal, 50-years old became 50-years young, and today, with today’s internet jargon exacerbated by today’s absurd social media restrictions, killing or murdering became the ridiculous unaliving.
Many of these changes were implemented for commercial purposes, faking intelligence, and/or to protect feelings but help destroy meaning. It is most effective to describe a man who cannot walk as crippled (as a cripple) rather than as handicapped (as a handicapped person) or, even worse, as disabled (as a disabled person). It is essential to refer to someone as hungry rather than the ridiculous food insecure. Using the word latest is more direct than state of the art when describing a new or advanced computer, machine, or gadget. Redundant words should be weeded to the best of one’s ability, for example, harbinger of things to come is just harbinger (as this word already includes things to come) and stubbornly obstinate is just one word obstinate (as the word already includes stubborn). As stated above, criminal act (two words) should just be the single word crime (one word), as the one word itself is already an act.
Finally, we recognize pornography and sexual images are now being called creative content which is a blatant lie to apply meaning to lewd, lustful material while digital prostitutes or cyber-hookers are now called influencers or e-girls. Invasive recording (by camera-predators like frauditors) or outright harassment-slander-stalking is now being called independent journalism. We recognize the destruction of language and meaning is spearheading the decline of our civilization and is the prime contributor to the mental decay of society.
We, the Truthful Witness Community and Sacred Order, will also be sometimes guilty of not speaking perfectly or plainly, of adding needless words to terms, of using indirect language, or perhaps we simply misapply terms claiming a word, or lack of a word, is a better alternative when it is not , or perhaps we even claim certain words, phrases, and writing are unclear, indirect, redundant, and too soft when they are, in fact, not. Even this writing itself may contain many of the above errors; even for us, the mental decay, and language decay of Western society is hard to avoid. Still, we always strive to speak clearly and plainly, and we will make corrections, hear feedback from those who want to correct us, and we will better ourselves (our writing and speech, our communication) to the best of our ability.
Resisting tribal extremism and anti-intellectualism which have become so prevalent in our current time. We strive to see both sides of the coin; we believe in moderation (for the most part); we will not sacrifice discipline and allow ourselves to devolve into unnecessary extremism. When contemporary society (the angry mobs within) sees a man wrongfully scolding another man, the angry mob needlessly brings race into it. If the man scolding is white and the man being scolded is black, an angry mob automatically assumes that the white man is racist against black people; likewise, if the man scolding is black and man being scolded is white, another angry mob automatically assumes the black man to be racist against whites. This prejudicial thinking ignores the fact that the scolding man A) may be simply having a bad day and/or B) that, even if there is a repeat pattern of this immoral behavior, he may have also lost his temper before and wrongfully scolded every type of person: women, children, Asians, Hispanics, people of his own race, etc. Each tribal, toxic mob of society will also conveniently ignore cases where the situation is reverse and not in their favor; black supremacists will ignore cases when a black man wrongfully scolds a white man, or any person, and white supremacist will ignore cases when a white man wrongfully scolds a black man, or any person. This is called cognitive bias and we recognize its harmful effect, as it compels people to only find selective data which confirms their point of view while ignoring everything else.
Some cases are obvious. If one man robs another, bringing race into it is usually stupid and irrelevant; the robber should be punished, and the man being robbed was the victim who deserves to see justice brought upon his robber; the color of their skin does not matter in most circumstances. Race is needlessly brough into such clear cases regardless due to today’s idiot tribalism. If a white man cuts a line that as a multitude of different races in it, he will be called a racist (against blacks and other minorities) because some of the people in line were blacks, brown or whatever, but this ignores that there were also white people in the line that the rude man cut in front of; they were also wronged. Hence toxic tribalistic thinking ignores the truth of the issue and exposes the belief that anyone outside the toxic tribe does not count. They will criticize the man and want him punished because he wronged blacks and browns or whatever only, not because he wronged everyone in line which is the whole and only truth.
Another example, tribal citizens will see the statement,” I think women should not be allowed to vote” and assume the writer to be sexist, when the information is incomplete. Even if the statement is what the writer truly believes (the comment is not taken out of context), the writer also might think all people should not be allowed to vote, a group of which women are a part of. Hence his comment “I think women should not be allowed to vote” is factually true of his beliefs but incomplete. Therefore, to immediately assume sexism, to focus on a single tribal aspect without additional information, is folly.
Tribalism makes a person idiotic, and we seek to avoid this. For example, we will not only concern ourselves with “the war against police” or “ the hatred of police” without also considering how contemporary police and the law oppress citizens, how unnecessary laws create unnecessary criminals, how the law today blames the innocent for another person’s actions. Another example: toxic tribes will protest against police (accusing them of anti-black racism) ignoring the fact that many police officers are black. Many tribal people accuse police officers of racism, sexism, etc. for pulling people over in traffic stops despite the fact that police officers often cannot know the race-sex-identity of the driver until after they pull them over.
We will not only concern ourselves with “the war against men” and “attacks on masculinity” without also considering the problems facing women and without first considering the problems facing all citizens at large. We, the men in our group, will strive never to boast about being physically superior to women, as prideful men succumbing to tribalism commonly due, without first understanding that physical strength, like looks, is fleeting and that humans (both men and women) as a species are physically weak overall compared to lions, tigers, gorillas, bears, etc. We will not succumb to male tribalism by laughing at the unrealism of women in movies beating men (or multiple men) in hand-to-hand combat without first understanding that all movies are unrealistic, for both men and women and in all aspects (to super powers, to the supernatural, to ridiculous CGI stunts that defy the laws of physics and gravity, to characters who never have any human needs and who never show fear in terrifying situations, even if they are about to die, and who never face true death as a consequence, as they always somehow return in the next movie despite dying in the previous one, to guns that never need to be reloaded); the same ridiculous movies that often have a female character unrealistically beating a man (or multiple men) in a fight also often have a male character unrealistically beating multiple men (or large groups of men) in a fight, not to mention all the other aforementioned forms of unrealism.
We will not focus on the rich escaping punishment (class privilege), white people escaping punishment (white privilege), black people escaping punishment (black privilege), women escaping punishment (female privilege), men escaping punishment (male privilege), or any other group escaping punishment without first understanding that all evil criminals universally, across the board, are now escaping punishment and receiving lighter sentences.
Furthermore, we will not focus on any group escaping punishment or getting lighter sentences if the laws are immoral and oppressive. Why demand that a white man, a woman, and a rich man get the exact same sentence as a black man, a man, and a poor man (or vice versa) for a crime that should not be a crime in the first place (like with many drug laws and child worship laws: with the age of sexual consent being absurdly high at 18 in some areas and the drinking age being as absurdly high as 21 in the United States)? Such a tribal mentality will only lead to more innocents being wrongfully imprisoned and more harshly punished for crimes that should not exist. This tribal hypocrisy is not limited to law. As an example, tribal men’s groups complain that men are now publicly shamed online for flirting with women (when the encounter is recorded and then uploaded online) but in retaliation these tribal men’s groups will then start publicly shaming women for flirting with men (when the encounter is recorded and uploaded online) which just leads to more innocent people being wrongfully shamed; the truth is, both men and women who flirt and make sexual advances typically should not be uploaded online (have their privacy invaded) and publicly shamed ruthlessly my internet mobs. Resisting tribalism allows one to understand justice.
Finally, we will not only concern ourselves with “the death of expertise,” where opinions of the layman and vapid social media content idiotically supersede the elite opinions of experts without also considering how expertise, or specialization, is now used to needlessly confuse the layman for monetary exploitation and is used to violate the greater good and common sense, like with modern psychology attempting to grant endless mental health excuses to the depraved, and with medical doctors continually trying to charge clients by merely addressing symptoms rather than curing the disease and identifying the original cause of the disease.
A nation of victims but ignores other side of the argument: many victims are ignored and labelled abusers
Everyone is offended by every thing without explosring the other side, why arent people offended enough
Social media censorship without understanding the other side (that there is not enough censorship)
A Nation of victims (without understanding the other side (real victims are neglected and called the abusers)
We will not oppose communism by resorting to the other extreme, fascism, and vice versa. We will not use idiot slogans, like “Black Lives Matter” nor will we use idiot slogans which rose as a counter to them, like “Blue Lives Matter,” as both are equally stupid as they deny truth, devolve society into needless tribalism, and are used as justifications to persecute the innocent under said tribalism (anyone who rightfully challenges Black Lives Matter is accused of being a racist, being a police bootlicker, and of not caring for black lives, anyone who rightfully challenges Blue Lives Matter is accused of being a crazy leftist, of supporting criminals, and of not caring for police). We strive to never swing the pendulum this stupidly far to the other side of the spectrum.
Mostly, we try to avoid emotional swings. An unstable person will go from allowing others to verbally abuse them, to chasing people with a baseball bat the second they call them a name. The public can love someone one year and then hate them the next year, despite the person being exactly the same, this occurs often in cases of celebrities, athletes, and politicians. Today, the law can swing emotionally from zero tolerance (which can see draconian punishment) to total leniency (which can see criminals receive no punishment) based on the changing mood of the masses. The real estate appraisal profession saw almost no oversight prior to 2008, when real estate appraisers had free reign to price homes at astronomical prices but the profession then swung to strict, overbearing oversight after the 2008 Real Estate Crisis (as appraisers were blamed for that crisis) which saw appraisers hindered in their ability to price homes effectively, and in a timely matter, and this resulted in the price of a home appraisal doubling; both extremes were absurd. Share buybacks foolishly restricted despite them being logical at times.
We strive to be broadminded, to not only focus on white vs black, men vs women, political party vs political party, rich vs poor, etc., but on the wellbeing of all: the big picture. We will focus less on evil individuals and more on overall society which incentivizes (rewards) evil behavior, we will focus less on greedy businesses selling useless products and more on the customers (the masses) who knowingly buy such useless produces and who that business is appealing to, we will focus less on the slanderous, profit-hungry media, and more on the viewers (the masses) who demand such reprehensible news reporting, we will focus less on the character (or lack thereof) of the politician and more on the character (or lack thereof) of the people (the masses) who elected him and place him in power. It is crucial to look at society’s incentives.
Again, our members strive to focus beyond their own: local area, nation, race, group, political party, religion, family, gender, time-period. We strive to see beyond both first-tier consequences and the present moment. We strive to not be trifling. Modern society has become the exact opposite. It focuses, at most, only on the next four years (the next election), ignoring timeless examples and wisdom from the centuries past and long-term future trends. It demands action (for example: banning guns, banning hate speech, outlawing drugs: raising minimum wage, rewarding police for the number of arrests they make) before consequences are understood (banning guns can create a black market and leaves law-abiding citizens defenseless, banning speech encourages more violence as people cannot say what they really think which leads to frustration, anger, fear, and backlash, making drugs illegal creates unnecessary crime and drains-endangers law enforcement and taxpayer dollars, raising minimum wage often causes companies to fire employees, increase workloads, and embrace greater automatization putting more people out of work while increasing costs of their products and services, rewarding police for number of arrests they make gives police incentive to make up crimes, like with drunk or impaired driving, which wrongly charges and convicts innocent people).
END ALL QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR POLICE (WHICH MEANS NO ONE WANTS TO BE A POLICE OFFICER IF THEY CAN BE CHARGED WITH ANY MISTAKE
Napoleon Example: (deep tier thinking is a sign of intelligence
Although we stand against the evils of mobs justice, Rewarding people for being wrongfully shamed incentives them to be shamed on purpose or fabricate.
In our current society, there are now multitudes of tribes competing against each other and attempting to divide the community (social division: balkanization) and attempting to live at the expense of everything and everyone (destroying the common good). Extreme feminists, paranoid about rape culture, will demand that men, accused of rape against a woman, be convicted without substantial evidence, on a woman’s word alone. Extremist male groups will, in turn, demand that rape be legal against a woman who dresses provocatively or that a woman’s rights be completely stripped. Militant black activists will demand that white people accused of violence against blacks be savagely punished or executed without trial (lynching: street justice) while white supremacy groups will try to trample the rights blacks or seek to have blacks expelled from society. The extreme political left often wants to censor everyone they do not like (denying citizens the right to free speech and freedom of expression) while the extreme political right often wants irresponsible free speech (the opposite extreme of censorship), meaning they think a citizen can ruthlessly slander and degrade others without consequence. Sometimes these political tribes switch stances, when it is convenient for them, with the left now advocating unrestricted free speech and the right demanding censorship. Regardless, all these tribes attempt to shame and slander the moderate, freethinking people that rebuke them.
Intelligent people are always shamed by these tribes and falsely accused of being a member of another tribe. If you disagree with Blue Lives Matter, you must be a crazy democrat that supports Black Lives Matter. If you disagree with Black Lives Matter, you must be a racist republican that supports Blue Lives Matter. Overall, when challenging the wrongs of the left, the intelligent person will be accused of being a stupid right-winger and, when challenging the wrongs of the right, the intelligent person will be accused of being a stupid leftist. Challenging the wrongs of feminism gets the same person accused of being a woman-hater or an incel or a chauvinist or a sexist man child or whatever while challenging the wrongs of men’s rights groups gets one shamed as a simp or cuck or man-hater or crazy cat lady or feminazi. An intelligent person will be called a racist or race-traitor if they challenge any toxic tribe based on race, sometimes they will be called both simultaneously by rival tribes, despite the contradiction.
Understand that at Truthful Witness members can certainly speak on behalf of a particular group or disadvantaged minority; we welcome this. If such advocacy, however, vindictively tramples the rights of others, if it tramples the common good of society, and insults human intellect, then such a stance will be opposed.
MORE ON TRIBALISM
Furthermore, all these tribes engage in fearmongering and demonization. For example, if a very small number of leftwing crazies declare the American Flag, British Flag, or Canadian Flag to be offensive, the right will make it seem this evil insanity applies to all left. If a small number of male supremacists want to legalize rape and revoke a woman’s right to choose her husband, women’s groups will claim this belief is widespread and applies to all men’s right groups. If a small number of Christian zealots want to execute people for being homosexual and overthrow the government, atheists and religious critics will use these few extremists to declare all Christians to be crazy and dangerous. We see the people who fixate on a few extremist loons (the few rotten outliers) to stereotype-condemn a group that is otherwise moderate and condemns-rejects such extremism within its own community, as silly and nonsensical.
Finally, tribalism makes a person so deluded, they (and all toxic tribes) are often willing to side with scoundrels, lunatics, criminals, psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists simply because these evil people side with a rival tribe. An anti-feminist or men’s rights advocate will praise a conman simply because he is debating and debunking feminists. Child worshippers side with prisoners who assault and murder convicted child molesters in prison, despite these prisoners themselves being prior convicted of serious crimes like robbery, assault, and murder.
We refuse to believe that an evil person must be challenged by another evil person. Today, a rightwing conspiracy nut will be challenged by a leftwing loon (and vice versa) and a deluded tribe, or the public at large, mindlessly sides with whatever charlatan is popular in the moment ignoring the obvious character defects of their current “champions.” If, in the moment, they despise the rightwing conspiracy nut, the leftwing loon is praised (for challenging and debunking the conspiracy nut) and becomes able to promote their insane policies. If, in the moment, they despise the leftwing loon, the rightwing conspiracy nut is praised (for challenging and debunking the leftwing loon) even though he is spreading delusion in the public and accusing others without evidence. Two evil elephants fighting end up only crushing the grass beneath them which represents both the truth and the innocent. Unlike the public, we refuse to side with the narcissist (and any evil person) and any toxic tribe who is most able to divert accountability and blame by pointing to another evil person or tribe. We won’t let tribalism make us support a person or tribe of vile character in order to defeat another person or tribe of vile character. Communism is not answered by fascism and vice versa and we won’t cheer for fascists cause they “own” communists and we won’t cheer communists cause they “own” fascists. An opposing toxic tribe may be menacing to another toxic tribe, but both condemn and slander the innocent, and both compete with each other on how best to do so.
Overall, we, Truthful Witness, do stand as a tribe ourselves but we stand as a tribe against toxic tribes. This is an important distinction as not all tribes are bad (some tribalism, and some tribes, in fact, are good, like the best sports teams, wonderful businesses, elite military units, and civilized nations); the tribes violating the common good and rights of others are bad, however. This is why our value is Logical Anti-tribalism, as saying we are against all tribalism is idiotic.
Censorship usually causes the opposite effect, where the person, book, material, or idea being censored becomes more popular as a direct result of the censorship, even if these things are all asinine. A more recent term to explain this is called the Streisand Effect, where attempting to remove, hide, or censor information online increases its sharing, typically because this suppression becomes public news and, since people do not like to have information hidden from them, they are more motivated to uncover it and distribute it to others. The problem with this is that the masses are so stupid today they tend to automatically believe that anything (or anyone) banned, suppressed, or censored must be true (truthful) or have a large measure of validity. A conspiracy nut, such as a Holocaust denier, a mass shooting denier, or an election denier will be more believed when they are imprisoned, censored, or sued for defamation. This is idiotic and we at Truthful Witness recognize this. We certainly believe in freedom of expression until words become defamatory, yet this is not the issue. We are simply resistant to the mental decay that causes present day people to automatically believe and validate the censored. Just because something is censored doesn’t mean it is right or true (or wrong or false), no more than things that are permitted. Things must be judged by their individual merits, as must be the reasons for that thing being censored.
Recent examples of this (2022) would be conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones, who was sued for defamation because he continually called the parents of the victims of the Sandy Hook mass shooting “crisis actors,” with many of Alex Jones’ viewers believing such outrageous, unsubstantiated claims, as they were deluded by irrational fear that the government would conduct some false flag operation as a pretext to take their guns. Jones losing the resulting lawsuits, however, did not silence such conspiracies but instead compelled many online commenters to further side with Alex Jones in the name of free speech and claim his censorship and the court’s ruling against him, must mean he speaks the truth, truth that the government wants to hide from the public, when the two things, the court’s ruling, and Alex Jones’ theory have nothing to do with each other and must each be examined by their individual merits.
This is false, Alex Jones punishment made the false witnesses shut up and they should have been punished.
Andrew Tate serves as another example, as his banning from social media for his apparent misogynistic comments increased his following and popularity, and the belief that his viewpoints are valid and that he is some free speech hero for men and/or the political right, despite the fact that he, at best, on his individual merits, is a notorious pornographer, scammer, and fake guru. At the time of this writing, Tate is currently facing sex trafficking charges, but even if he is found innocent of these specific charges, Tate has openly and proudly admitted to scamming men online and using manipulative behavior to coerce women into doing pornography to enrich himself. Oncemore, he gaslights these people into thinking they are the abusers ...The characters banning Andrew Tate might not be good either, such as radical feminists or misandrist or leftwing loons, but this does not mean Andrew Tate, the one being banned, is automatically a good person and his views are right. In fact, it is the exact opposite in this case. The mental decay, the stupidity that causes people to automatically side with the one who is censored and side against the one doing the censoring (or vice versa) without further examination of evidence, circumstances, or individual merit is testament to today’s stupidity, modern people’s inability to think beyond simple binary terms. A vile criminal could be censored, resulting in people siding with him and trying to validate his evil words on the mere basis he was censored alone, the fact that his words make no sense and are morally reprehensible no longer even enters their thought process.
Andrew Tate gets guy to send 10 k then another issue arises then asks for another 10 k, then when guy gets mad and calls girl a scammer he turns it around on guy and says “you are making me nervious. I am not coming”
Because we believe in personal responsibility and logical anti-tribalism, we reject attempts to deflect blame by resorting to Whataboutism. For example, when the wrongdoings of the political left are brought to light, leftists wrongdoers will deflect responsibility by saying “what about the wrongdoings of the right” and vice versa (right wrongdoers will do the same). When men’s rights activists engage in wrongdoing they often will say “what about the evil’s of feminism” and vice versa (feminist wrongdoers will do the same). Whataboutism is usually accompanied by false accusation. The man rightfully calling out the wrongdoings of the left is falsely accused by leftists of being an evil (or stupid) right-winger because he is holding the leftists accountable and “is not focusing on the wrongdoings of the right instead.” The man rightfully calling out the wrongdoings of men’s right activists is falsely accused of being an evil (or stupid, weak)) feminist, cuck, or simp because he is holding the men’s activists accountable and “he is not focusing on the evils of feminists instead.” This is character assassination and a childish attempt to deflect responsibility for immoral behavior. This offends common sense and decency. You cannot commit a bank robbery and use “What about all the rapists and murderers? Why can’t you arrest and prosecute them instead? You must support rape and murder since you are arresting and prosecuting me instead” as a shameful defense in court. Why should this nonsense be allowed in discourse?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
We understand that things are getting dumber and more debased. An immoral person who would have rightfully been seen as a fool or degenerate 30 years ago is now praised (especially because people today generally are even worse by comparison). A terrible movie that was rightfully seen as stupid and/or bad 15 years ago is now praised (especially because movies today generally are even worse by comparison. This, for example, is the case with the three Star War Prequels 1999-2005 which are well-known to be poorly written, poorly executed, childish films, evidenced by any movie reviewer with an IQ above double digits, but these three films have since become viewed more favorably due to more recent Star Wars films being even worse). Insane mobs now declare women can be men and men can be women based on how someone feels what sex they are which makes someone who refutes this insanity seem smart by comparison but, in reality, stating an obvious fact (that a man is a man and a woman is a woman regardless how one feels) does not make this person smart, they only now look smart by comparison because the mobs they contradict are so stupid. Yet, more and more, we are now pressured, due to the further deterioration of society’s intelligence and by relative bias, to accept this honest but mediocre person, or the obvious facts they state, as smart, when they are not smart.
MENTAL DECAY IN MOVIES, MUSIC, AND MEDIA
Movies are becoming more and more unrealistic with a main character going from defeating five armed men single-handily in combat to now defeating 50 armed men single-handily in combat and, even when one is willing to stretch the imagination, the stories, scenes and character motives make no sense (like in the Dark Knight Rises where the main villain somehow tricks the citizens of the fictional Gotham City to join him in a revolt despite the villain simultaneously threatening these very citizens with a nuclear bomb that could be denotated at any moment, which would just turn the citizens against him, as the villain and his henchmen are also threatening the citizen’s lives, and would psychologically render the revolt (Revolutionary activity, the human drive for change) pointless, as everyone would know they could be killed instantly from the nuclear explosion making the future way too uncertain to care about some surprise Revolution and after: murdering the city’s beloved football team, trapping police underground while releasing dangerous convicts into the city, and isolating-trapping everyone in the city by blowing up bridges and tunnels and sealing off all entrances-outlets, all acts which would just terrify and antagonize the very citizens he inspired to join him in a revolt which means the subsequent revolt seen on screen makes no sense; it’s totally contrived) and with the characters behaving more and more like overly-emotional children (like in The Maze Runner where a girl character wakes up with amnesia-memory loss and starts frantically attacking boys with rocks instead of just being merely startled, alert, and interrogative, how any sensible person would react in that situation) and Terminator Genisys where the character Kyle Reese, a beloved protagonist from the original Terminator movie, now behaves like a trigger-happy nutcase and frantically shoots at the good terminator without hesitation despite circumstances making it virtually obvious that this terminator is a good guy, and not only that, but, even after the immediate reaction, the character proceeds to continue frantically trying to shoot the good terminator in the scene despite the other character attempting to stop him, which only further insults human intellect.
Childish stories combined with the unrealism of video games are becoming increasingly prevalent (like in John Wick where the main character keeps effortlessly annihilating waves and waves of bad guys to the point where, about 45 minutes into the movie, it becomes repetitive and boring, the viewer starts to feel sorry for the bad guys who never stand a chance against the main character who is basically an unchallengeable god (like he is a video game character with an infinite life bar or one playing on easy difficulty) and with a moronic story that sounds like it was created from the juvenile minds of fourteen-year old boys playing in the neighborhood: “Bad guys kill this dude’s dog and steal his car, but it turns out this dude also happens to be a secret super assassin, and he then goes crazy and kills all the bad guys.”
Nostalgia is ruining movies, as film makers have abandoned all creativity and originality (like in Star Wars: The Force Awakens which has the exact same story as the original films and, for no reason, casts elderly actors from the first Star Wars films that are well past their prime, despite them having none of their youthful charisma, beauty, and appeal; they are so old and weak, they are unpleasant and sad to look at, and in the Terminator Franchise which, for the same idiot nostalgia, still casts an elderly Arnold Schwarzenegger simply because he was the main star in the franchise’s original films decades ago, which means the story has to be selfishly manipulated to justify his old appearance (the human skin on the Terminator machine now must age). Movie makers simply think they can just throw old stars from the original films onto the screen with the same rehashed plot and that will be enough to make a good movie.
Music and radio stations are losing their quality and being replaced more with pop culture music more watered down (diluted) for the masses; often a bands most popular song tends to be the one of the least quality, and it is played the most, much to the discomfort and annoyance of our ears. Vulgar, lewd lyrics are now commonplace with egotistical rap music being commonly accepted and praised despite it lowering our intelligence to that of primates. We resist this mental decay, this brain drain. We recognize social media is getting dumber and dumber and losing its edge to appeal to the masses (and because edgy content creators end up getting banned eventually anyway). This means stupid videos in time may eventually be seen as smart. We resist this. We are not fooled by recency bias, relative bias, and the dumbing down of the masses. A terrible movie that was bad 15 years ago, is still bad today. An evil man who was villainized 30 years ago, is still bad today, regardless of what the current public or current elements of the public think.
Programs, podcast, and debates, when they are not droning on and on about absolutely nothing, when they are not endlessly chatting on and on about the future which is usually impossible to predict, when they are not spreading gossip, and reacting to useless noise, events, statements, and occurrences, most of which will be forgotten in under a week, are dignifying more and more lunatics by conversing with them and entertaining their stupid arguments, which can still prove harmful even when the host and viewers vehemently disagree. For example, popular news channels and debate channels invite on climate alarmists who vandalize property and disrupt sporting events and/or who feel morally justified when committing such crime and who promote such crime as righteous, under the false noble cause of saving the environment, as if we are supposed to somehow entertain their morally warped arguments, their excuse for crime, as valid, as if we should be required to devote time to hear their side. Anti-frauditor channels rightfully expose and humiliate frauditors (self-proclaimed first amendment auditors), who use cameras to maliciously harass, loiter, provoke, blackmail, smear, and cyberbully others but then many of these channels also frequently invite frauditors to debate, as if these creatures are worthy of debate and legitimacy. We are entertaining more and more nonsense, more and more scumbag charlatans, more and more circus clowns, more and more crazies, more and more freaks, when, in reality, this is only hurting our intelligence, as such reprobates deserve no voice. In clear cases such as these, there is no “other side” to argue, there is no “other side” to hear. Nonetheless, we keep wasting audience’s time (the public’s time) by giving attention to those who least deserve it, who least deserve to be heard, whether someone is arguing about computer chips in vaccines, being abducted by aliens and UFOs, or claiming men who pretend (declare themselves) to be women should participate in women’s sports (be allowed to cheat and bully real women), constantly giving broadcast time to lunatics, liars, and fools is bound to have a damaging effect on the mind.
MMA Media has devolved to literal basement dwellers (who dont groom themselves) talking shit to fighers (low hanging fruit to provoke reaction and general media use click bait (two men having a pleasant conversation with no major disagreements and one was owned (or perhaps they both had good poits but tribes ignore this and say they were owned
A SHALLOW DEBATE SOCIETY
You’re mad at me “Because I have a difference of opinion”
“You are just afraid of what others say”
“You support Censorship”
“You must support Violence”
All substance-less phrases used to dismiss others, the opponent and win approval of the mob
A SHALLOW SOCIETY
The shallowness of Western society is increasing, and this is displayed in all forms of entertainment, as shows now rate people (judge their value/worth) based solely on their looks. Dating sites for beautiful people, and sugar daddies (women looking for rich men) are popular showing people commonly only care about looks or money, and older popular dating sites are still around, like Plenty of Fish, that functions (as its very name suggests) on the basis that everyone, all people, regardless of circumstances and uniqueness, are all equally disposable, can all be easily replaced in the end, as the site encourages a rudeness and superficiality in its users perhaps unparalleled (with women’s dating profiles often saying things like: “If you are under 5’10 don’t message me” and men’s dating profiles often saying things like “If you are flat chested or have baggage, don’t message me”. No depth in discovering the value of a person on their individual merits, beyond the surface, is seen as a worthy endeavor.
Reactionary content now dominates over careful review and analysis, like extensive movie reviews being replaced more and more with movie reactions where a person reacts to a bad movie the same as they react to a good movie, as immediate reaction gives no time to thought and reflection resulting in the bad films being usually lumped in the same lot as the good films.
Uninteresting movies like the Purge (2013) are popular, even though the movie is about a dystopia where anyone can be victimized and eliminated (robbed, raped, maimed, and/or killed) in certain times of the year, no mental effort in the fictional society is devoted to discerning (using thought to determine) who deserves to be eliminated, meaning, in this fictional world, a good person, a good father, mother, friend, or whatever is just as legitimate a target as a convicted felon that committed numerous heinous crimes. A person can be purged for telling a bad joke or for being a lousy date or for simply having blue eyes, the exact same as a scammer or fraudster who stole billions, the exact same as a false accuser who got an innocent person wrongfully imprisoned.
The ethical dilemma of
“Should people who work hard in honest professions, whether in academia, business, medicine, journalism, manual labor, law enforcement, or anything, be legally allowed, with a state sanctioned purge, to rob or attack a popular online sex worker (digital prostitute) who makes, on average, over 300 times (300x) more than them in income a year all by showing and charging desperate men images of her body since her fame and financial success is objectively undeserved and massively offends decent people’s sense of justice, the notion that good, smart, hardworking people should be rewarded in the end and evil, stupid, lazy people should be punished in the end?
Should devoted fans of movie franchises be legally allowed, again with a state sanctioned purge, to rob movie makers, to burglarize the movie makers luxury homes, the same movie makers who keep ruining their beloved franchises with stupid, forgettable, useless remakes while they, the greedy movie makers, still somehow magically make a killing (a massive profit) at the box office despite the movies being utter garbage and insulting the fanbase?
Should good intelligent people be legally allowed, again with the annual state sanctioned purge, to assault, rob, and injure some ignorant thug who acted all entitled on some stupid talk show and unjustly won 2 million followers and sponsorships deals as a result or perhaps the target could be some contemptible boxer who, without shame, keeps taunting the public and blatantly lying to them that he is the greatest fighter in the world and who he keeps unjustly making millions upon millions of dollars per bout and publicly bragging about it and flaunting his wealth, despite him clearly only picking fights heavily rigged in his favor, despite him fighting talentless scrubs (old men, smaller men, and/or total amateurs), while he ducks (avoids) real challengers, and holds up (selfishly stalls) his division, or the entire sport, for months, if not years?
These are more relatable questions, more intimate issues, to the human condition, to our dark inner nature, to human rage and envy, and especially to our time period. as evil and stupidity seems to triumph regularly (daily) and be financially successful; the free market has failed us. Where is God? Why is God constantly allowing the good to suffer and the bad to triumph, all while the bad constantly mock the public, flaunt their ill-gotten gains, with impunity? Why is nothing being done about it? Perhaps man should remedy the situation with vigilantism, or better yet, with a legal purge (so we don’t have to resort to vigilantism in the first place)! Perhaps vengeance belongs to us, not God, since God has failed his eternal promise to man!
These questions and concepts are nothing new, but they are still deeper than random or indiscriminate targeting. It would certainly feel good, cathartic, to rob and punish such people, with vigilante justice, those narcissistic scumbags who are rich, popular, and successful, meaning they attained such triumphs by actively and cruelly insulting the public’s intelligence and sense of decency over and over again (especially if they engaged in false accusations to attain success which significantly multiplies the desire, perhaps even the justification, to bring retribution upon them with vigilante justice or a sanctioned purge), but this notion is abandoned by the Purge movies and instead replaced by the mentally lazy concept of ALL CAN BE PURGED, or almost all, mainly because, using mental energy (discernment) to determine who deserves to be punished (purged) and who doesn’t (who should be immune) outside of superficial titles like political status and having the strength to both state, then defend the objective truth (in one above case the fact that sex workers who show off their body online, do not deserve such fame and success) is beyond the mental ability of most Western citizens.
THE ULTIMATE VILLAIN IS RETARDED
Such superficiality is also present in the Marvel movies (superhero/comic movies), where the proclaimed “Marvel Cinematic Universe” was supposed to reach an epic conclusion, a jaw-dropping climax, in a final battle with the Intergalactic superbeing Thanos, something the previous films have been setting up for years, only to have Thanos display zero depth, and only to have Thanos’ entire plan to be perhaps the most boring, insulting, and unimaginative in film history. Once Thanos gains some powerful stones, he plans to eliminate 50% of the population of the universe so there would be double resources for everyone.
The plan is incredibly stupid and has already been picked apart on social media by intelligent reviewers (especially since resources are the highest now in human history even with Earth also having the highest human population, among other things, such as Thanos’ idiotic solution only being temporary since the population would eventually recover, and why wouldn’t Thanos just use the stones to wish for double the resources which would also be temporary but not involve mass extermination), but the superficial, random selection process really insults the intellect, as there is, again, no effort (no thought, no analysis, no mental energy) to discern who should be eliminated; it’s 50/50. A good, intelligent person has the same equal chance to get eliminated as a deranged serial killer since “both use resources” or “everyone uses resources”. People from an advanced free culture, a civilized culture, have the same chance of oblivion as savages from a superstitious, barbaric culture; those who value freedom and life have the same chance of elimination as those in a death cult, as those in a terrorist state. The shallowness displayed on screen is so breathtakingly stupid, so mentally lazy, it deserves nothing but utter contempt.
By contrast, imagine if real historical figure like Napoleon I had the same power as Thanos. The French Emperor would have logically used the stones to eliminate all his (the French Empire’s) enemies, the British, the Russians, the Portuguese, the Spanish, potential assassins, etc. so he could take over the world, but modern audiences are so stupid they think Napoleon indiscriminately eliminating 50% of the world’s population, including that of France itself, and France’s allied-client states, the nations, kingdoms, and populations Napoleon rules over and controls, whether directly or indirectly, is somehow an interesting plan worthy of their attention when the plan is beyond moronic because it’s self-injurious and rejects any idea of merit and appraisal, of assessing and identifying the enemy.
Why would a patriot, a dutiful citizen care about a hostile state, an enemy nation, also having abundant resources to feed its population (would the USA or UK today really care about helping evil nations like North Korea and Iran maintain sufficient resources)? Why would he want his nation to be weakened, through the annihilation of half the population to which he has an allegiance, which benefits the enemy nation; wouldn’t he just logically prefer to annihilate the enemy nation without doing harm to his? Ruling a nation is still the greatest means by which a man can exert his power upon the world. So, does Napoleon wiping out 50% of his army, 50% of his elite imperial guard, the forces he used to subjugate and conquer Europe, and 50% of the population pool, the nation, which he drew these forces from sound like a sensible plan, one worthy of being put to screen or book? The character of this absurd story is one that is so incredibly stupid that, even though he has the power to wish away a disease on his arm, he instead would wish that the entire arm be severed/removed safely to eliminate the disease. Simply put, they made Thanos a retard and expect us to somehow accept him as the ultimate adversary.
More boring cause less people = more boring (someone in 1750 using it, cant have Napoleonic wars in first place or WW2 or whatever..
Thanos is supposed to be the ultimate villain, an inter-galatic dictator, space Hitler, but he is so stupid he makes Hitler look sane. Hitler would never devise an idiotic plan that wiped out 50% of the Axis populations for which he reigned (he would us it to eliminate UK, Russia, USA, Jews etc)
THE DESTRUCTION OF VULCAN: A SYMBOL OF TODAY’S CONTEMPT FOR INTELLIGENCE
Star Trek use to have philosophical depth, discussing profound ideas like when does the need of the one outweigh the needs of the many, and does superior ability always breed superior ambition, when should the prime directive of not interfering with the natural development of alien civilizations be ignored to save lives but gradually has devolved into mindless action, sex, and explosions, especially since its reboot in 2009. Any deep issues, any thoughtful ideas, any insights into humanity, into man’s nature, if any of these concepts are present in the films to begin with, are now mere given token attention, merely paid lip service, and are swiftly pushed aside for meaningless spectacle.
The 2009 film was egregiously stupid, and showed how much the franchised had fallen. Here audiences can be insulted as they are introduced to stupid villains who want vengeance upon the Federation (the good guys) after their (the villain’s) home planet, Romulus, is destroyed by a supernova; they blame the Federation, more specially Spock, one of the characters (protagonists) and an ambassador on the Federation, since he failed to save Romulus from destruction, but, after the villain’s ship falls into a black hole and the villains are sent back through time (black holes do not work like portals or wormholes, they are massive gravity wells that would mercilessly crush and spaghettify your starship and body, but nonetheless are commonly, and erroneously, depicted as portals and time travel plot devices in fiction; it is important to also mention that in this very film blackholes do whatever the writers want them to do, they sometimes destroy and sometimes act of portals based conveniently on what the plot requires in the moment), instead of warning their people/planet (the Romulans) of the future supernova and their impending doom, that the Romulan Sun will explode destroying the planet, the villains just sit around idle in space in the same spot for decades waiting for Spock, again the protagonist, to emerge through the same black hole (apparently the black hole distorts time so two ships can fall into the black hole at nearly the same time and emerge at the other end years, even decades, apart from each other; this is random and cannot be predicted). The villain’s actions of just sitting around for 25 years doing nothing, therefore, already insults the intellect with its unrealism; it’s the result of poor writing, but the movie then devolves into nothing more than a series of brainless action scenes all while destroying the canon of the original beloved series since this stupid time travel plot alters the timeline.
The main alteration, the main insult, in the timeline is the destruction of the Planet Vulcan, Spock’s home world and intellectual center of the Federation (again, the good guys) since Vulcans are generally portrayed as great thinkers, intellectuals who strictly adhere to logic while suppressing emotion. Spock’s cold, logical character traits and how they interact and often conflict with other characters on the show are one main aspects, the most entertaining parts, of the story of the original series and films, along with his ability to analyze and solve problems using such logic and intellect.
In the movie, however, the villains get revenge upon Spock by destroying the planet (his home world) and killing most of the Vulcans. The planet’s destruction not only happens after a pointless action scene, where the main character’s must recklessly space jump/sky dive on a massive laser the villains are using to drill to the planet’s core so the villains can then launch their black hole weapon (black hole bomb) in the center of the planet to destroy it (the villains could have simply denoted the bomb and created the black hole on the planet’s surface or just outside the planet’s atmosphere and it would have worked just the same without the stupid laser drill), but this unacceptable event, perhaps inadvertently or deliberately, symbolizes the downfall, the utter stupefaction of Star Trek, and of all movies in general.
Of course, the most intelligent planet and race in the United Federation of Planets were targeted and destroyed by the writers in this film, in this relaunching of the franchise, creating an alternate timeline where everyone would be dumber as a result! Star Trek itself is now a dumbed down action franchise with no meaning, and we cannot have intelligent people, the critical, independent, calculating, wise, deep and logical thinkers (the Vulcans, the intelligent fans) ruining the process, trying to insert depth to anything, and maintaining high standards
Again, no event in movie history, in fictional writing, epitomizes the dumbing down of movies, of all Hollywood, of Western society in totality than the blatant (and pointless) destruction of the Planet Vulcan in the Star Trek universe (in the 2009 film). No event in film more epitomizes the utter callousness to intelligence and logic in today’s Western society. Those who truly value wisdom, who value the light, would find it unthinkable to create such a story, an inferior alternate timeline, where Planet Vulcan, the epicenter of intelligence and reason in the fictional universe, is destroyed because everyone in the Federation (the good guys) would again, be less intelligent in the new timeline! The Federation would be unbearably weaker. It’s like people’s thinking an alternate timeline where the feudal Middle Ages never ended, and everyone is dumber as a result, with no technology, no Western population boom, industrial revolution, imperialism, discovery, enlightenment, secularism, medicine, and expansion and no future conflicts like the Seven Years War, Napoleonic War, and the World Wars where massive armies engage on the battlefield with modern technology ever happening is somehow an interesting story.
What Star Trek audience, what fans, actually favor their beloved fictional universe starting a new timeline where, not only is all the precious original canon erased, but everyone, every beloved character, is also inherently dumber? What morons the writers are! What saboteurs these same writers are! It is like they were seeking to relaunch the Star Trek franchise by first eliminating (weeding out, deliberately spitting in the face of) the older fans (the old order) who valued the original series, more accurately its substance. What total morons the movie audiences would have to be to actually see this new dumber timeline as a good thing!
SYMPATHY FOR VILLAINS, VILLAIN WORSHIP, AND AN INCREASE IN IMMORAL BEHAVIOR FROM PROTAGONIST (“THE GOOD GUYS”)
Love and tolerance for villainy in films is also common where an evil antagonist, who murdered people and caused massive destruction, somehow becomes a protagonist (and joins other protagonists) in the next film (like the characters Loki and Magneto in Marvel movies), The undeniable malevolence of evil character’s actions from the previous film is just swept under the rug which shows utter cluelessness to the true nature of evil, that wicked people do not change, that a murderer will murder again and that decent people need to cut-off all contact with the depraved.
Leatherface now anti-hero/sympathetic
Nightcrawler Film (wicked person with a camera)
Movies, like Red Dragon in the Hannibal Franchise, sympathize with the wicked by having the main character, an FBI Agent, concluding that the movie’s villain, who murdered entire families in the film, was only evil because “he suffered years of abuse as a child” and Hannibal, the sophisticated, Cannibalistic, serial killer himself, the star of the franchise, is gradually becoming more humanized and seen as the protagonist.
Man of Steel (2013) has Superman’s adopted father, when Superman was a young boy, suggest to him that “he maybe should have let drowning kids die” to hide his (Superman’s) powers, something the character, Superman’s adopted father, never would have said in previous renditions, as Western audiences had greater morals back then; they would have rightfully found this idea too abhorrent. Therefore, it’s not surprising that this same film, at best, only pays lip service to the extensive collateral damage Superman causes in the film when battling the film’s supervillains.
The Amazing Spiderman 2 (2014) shows Spiderman, who is supposed to be our hero, showing off (showboating) during a dangerous chase scene. Rather than quickly defeating the bad guy who is driving dangerously through the city streets in a high-speed police chase, and stopping his huge semi-truck, something Spiderman can easily do using his superpowers, Spiderman instead toys with the bad guy which then results in multiple fatalities, injuries, and cars being destroyed during the pursuit and later in the film, this character callously denies his dying friend a sample of his blood to save his life. The Spiderman depicted here is morally offensive, and a stark contrast the previous rendition started in 2002. In the 2002 Spiderman movie, Spiderman became Spiderman for more selfless reasons, whereas the Amazing Spiderman (2012), he first becomes Spiderman for personal revenge. The moral decay between the two franchises is obvious.
It would be one thing is these events occurred and Spiderman showed remorse (that him showboating resulted in) and shame and in subsequent scenes had him stopping bad guys without risking people by showboating but this is absent in the film, morality is absent…
Deadpool 2 sees the main character, who is still supposed to be a protagonist, immediately execute a man, while attempting to execute two more men, without due process, without trial, without any thought, without any investigation, because a child character said he was abused by the men and showed signs of suffering abuse. This is not surprising, as in the first film shows Deadpool confronting an evil stalker, doing a seemingly good deed, but only after breaking into an innocent man’s home, robbing him, assaulting him and threatening him with a gun; he also supports his taxi driver sidekick when the taxi driver kidnaps, and apparently kills people, and, also in the second movie, Deadpool casually gets most of his team killed in a reckless sky diving scene all for laughs. Deadpool’s hilarity and charisma, however, makes him difficult to despise (it’s very hard to dislike a person or character who is funny) which means audiences tend to overlook these evil acts; they fail to recognize that while Deadpool is supposed to be an anti-hero, he is actually being depicted here as just another depraved villain. Perhaps one should not assume malice here when stupidity will suffice, nonetheless, the writers for the Deadpool Franchise seem to treat murder and death in their movies as thoughtlessly and carelessly as young boys do when spontaneously playing with their action figures.
A true anti-hero may be fictional characters like Riddick (from Pitch Black) or Snake Plissken (from Escape from New York, Escape from L.A.); these two are never really seen doing depraved acts (they are only accused of such or they threaten to do such, but, in reality, they are only really ever seen though killing bad guys, or in the case of the former, bad guys and alien monsters) but by the 2020s, due to moral decay, actual villains, who clearly do depraved acts, can effectively disguise themselves as mere anti-heroes.
The Star Wars Franchise pioneered villain worship when it tried to make its most famous villain Darth Vader a sympathetic, redeemable character despite him committing depraved acts for decades in the storyline, and the Star War franchise continues to do so with other characters, like Kylo Ren, despite his depraved acts, including murdering his own father, Han Solo, in a shameful (appeasement-like) scene which showed Han Solo foolishly trying to forgive and reason with this wicked man-child (his evil son) first, in which Han Solo was subsequently killed for his efforts. Still, the notion that a man can be wicked, that he can commit malice murder, numerous atrocities, and many other acts of depravity, yet somehow can still be redeemed (becoming a good guy) is sold more and more to audiences despite its absurdity; it insults the intelligence all those who have dealt with evil abusers (psychopaths, sociopaths, malignant narcissists) and understand their dark inner nature; it insults human experience. Hardly any characters in movies seem to have conscience anymore; their motives are completely selfish with no regard for the common good and human life; today’s movies, like today’s society, are a place where evil men are more and more being sold as good men.
The film the Town (2010) now has bank robbers as the protagonists, meaning the robbers being protagonists is not done in a joking (self-aware) lighthearted way, or in a way that more morally digestible, rather, in this movie, the robbers are simply ruthless bad guys, the FBI and police are now serving as the antagonists, or, at the very least, moral equals (mere rivals, obstacles) the protagonists must overcome. That fact that the FBI and law enforcement still serve on the side of good, serve to protect the common good, serve to protect all of society, from the robbers, is a message totally absent in the film. At the end, the female lead, a bank manager who was threatened and kidnapped by the robbers in the film’s opening, even keeps stolen money the main robber gives her out of pity, and she keeps it, she does not do the right thing and turn it back into the authorities. Contrast this to the popular bank robber move Heat (1995) which, although the bank robbers were main characters with plenty of screentime, and the film itself, despite its intense shootout scenes, from an entertainment standpoint, was hurt (was drowned out) by needlessly mixing numerous personal and family problems into the plot, still had the underlying good message that the cops were on the side of justice and that the robbers needed to be stopped. What a difference a mere 15 years makes in showing the decay of societal morality in filmmaking.
Law and Order, the popular TV series, has nearly every witness or potential suspect the detectives, the main characters, question act in an utterly selfish way, even if the characters being questioned are not guilty of any crime. Rather than displaying any concern for the common good, the wellbeing of society and the safety of the overall public, rather than politely and respectfully answering the detective’s questions to help law enforcement weed out potential suspects and solve the case, (especially with these cases usually involving heinous crimes like kidnapping, rape, and murder), rather than cooperating with police which helps law enforcement punish the crime and stop the dangerous criminal faster and cheaper, the people, the normal citizens being questioned barely care to give the detectives their time of day, and, furthermore. act overly offended and irritated by the routine questions the police must logically ask them when doing an investigation.
For example, when the police on the show ask simple questions like “Where were you last night between the hours of 7 pm and midnight?” or “Did the victim have any enemies, did she receive any death threats?” the characters being questioned usually give stupid, emotional, indignant responses like “You can’t possibly believe I killed her!” You cannot possibly consider me a suspect! How dare you!” “How can you think that!? She was a sweet, young girl! all idiotic responses which show clear lack of empathy, as the characters/suspects/witnesses being questioned cannot understand that the detectives just met these people and do not know them or their circumstances, all responses which show zero regard for justice, as the characters/suspects/witnesses care more about their personal feelings, their illogical offense to being questioned, more than the wellbeing of the community, of catching and stopping the criminal before they do more harm, all responses which show, even in the case where the victim is a friend, partner, colleague, or family member of these morons being questioned, zero regard for safety and justice for this victim (and other potential future victims) as again, these people care more about their stupid indignation, their irrational outrage to merely being logically questioned, than they do about someone they apparently care about, even love, being saved or receiving justice. When it comes to Law and Order, perhaps no show better displays the growing selfishness in Western society, the widespread denial of something higher than oneself.
Limitless (2011) is a film that also perfect displays the selfishness of modern society, as it holds no deeper message than keeping a revolutionary drug, which dramatically improves mental ability and productivity, all to oneself, rather than mass producing it for general consumption to improve humanity. The movie instead just has the man character selfishly use the drug to become successful; the drug is merely used for personal gain, so the insufferable character can appear superior to everyone (including the audience which the film is deliberately trying to belittle). To add further insult, the film also has the main character, this selfish scumbag, become successful in politics, when, in reality, being truly smarter and better than others, as the film suggests he is, would significantly reduce someone’s chances to be a successful politician in today’s society, as politicians are representatives of (spawn from) the evil, stupid masses, the selfish-ignorant electorate, which means to be elected, you must better reflect citizen’s lack of character and intelligence. In other words, you must be an evil fool yourself to win the vote.
Morons can try to silence critics of this garbage film by dishonestly claiming that the main character being a scumbag means he would, in fact, fit perfectly in politics, since, again, he is a scumbag like most politicians, so, according to them, the story makes sense, but while this technically true, the problem is the film is not in on the joke, it is not self-aware of this truth, it actually portrays this scumbag as a good guy we, the audience, should root and cheer for, it actually portrays his selfish behavior as normal, as some virtuous ideal to help justify a false idea of meritocracy and triumph in our evil, selfish society where, in reality, primarily the worst appear to succeed (and are incentivized to succeed). The film not only insults us by making the character selfishly horde a drug so he can then be unnaturally all better than us, it also betrays (invalidates) the human experience.
Any other messages? Like taking drugs? Murder suspect?
THE DECLINE OF MORALITY: RETURNING BACK TO COMICS AND OTHER FICTION
Professor X and Spiderman, some of the most famous Marvel Comic characters, now violate others by erasing people’s memories (the idea was still stupid in 1980 when it was pioneered by Superman 2) without the people’s knowledge and consent, whether it be the memories of the innocent or fellow protagonists, which is not only a heinous crime (basically mind rape), it furthermore nullifies what happened (the experiences) in the previous films which insults the audience, like an annoying friend who keeps hitting the reset button (turning off) a video game or deleting save files which erases all progress made; the audience now is forced to wait for the amnesia-stricken characters to have to catch back up on events when we, the audience, already know what has occurred in the previous movies and we were invested in those events, and we expect the characters to have the same experience and investment, but, since they lost their memory, they can no longer have this. Therefore, it’s not only an insult, but also tends to be self-defeating for the story (meaning it makes the story less interesting and compels people not to watch), as the movies are making it seem that all the important events, destructive battles, heroic actions, stunning achievements, moral conflicts-resolutions, and great victories in its own universe ultimately do not matter in the end.
Furthermore, as stated, it is a crime. Imagine if someone erased the memories of your most adventurous and significant experiences, events which shaped who you are:
“Billy? Nah, he does not need those memories of that relationship, he does not need those memories of hanging out with close friends, he does need those memories of being overseas in the military, he does need memories of that gorgeous woman he took to his hotel room, he does not need those memories of studying at the university and getting his degree, he does not need those memories of traveling the world.” “We will just nonchalantly erase them! I’m sure everything will be fine. It’s for the greater good! It’s not like erasing his memory also won’t make him appear stupid, immature, and unqualified for his age or anything because he will no longer have the experiences and lessons and teachings that shaped him as an adult!”
This is how pervert today’s “heroes” are, and we, the audiences, are expected to accept this moral perversion somehow as virtue. In the case of Spiderman, more specifically in the film Spiderman: No Way Home (2021) he plans to erase people’s memory using some spell from another prominent character, the wizard Dr. Strange, which sees Strange, immediately go to cast the spell without any careful planning or consideration for the enormous damage it can cause, which, of course, results in widespread damage, the entire conflict of the movie, resulting in death and destruction, including Spiderman’s aunt. These two heroes are, in reality, shown to be criminals guilty of mind rape, reckless endangerment, criminal negligence, and, perhaps, even manslaughter, with modern audiences completely ignoring this obvious truth because they enjoy the explosions and nostalgia the film presented (with seeing villains and former Spiderman’s from previous franchises emerge), even though the contrived manner in which it was presented ignores all moral accountability.
The film ends in an insulting way, usurpingly, with memory loss
The previous film, Spiderman Far from Home (2019), was already stupid due to the Bloop (Thanos exterminating 50%
The female lead in Captain American, who the film makers are trying to portray as a strong heroine (some badass), in an attempt to display the durability of Captain America’s metal shield, impulsively shoots the shield while Captain America is holding it, another reckless, depraved, breathtakingly stupid act shown by these comic book movies which put the lives of everyone in the vicinity at risk, including herself, as the bullets can ricochet and kill or seriously injure someone. The filmmakers had to specifically show the bullets somehow magically not ricocheting off the shield to justify the stupid scene, when later scenes show that bullets do, in fact, ricochet off the shield. Even without this, however, her actions were still reckless, as she could have simply missed the shield and shot Captain America, or someone else, like if the bullets missed the shield and did ricochet off another surface.
Venom, a supervillain and one of Spiderman’s strongest opponents, is now apparently a good guy and audiences can watch him kill helpless common criminals who he easily overpowers and forces to surrender with his superhuman abilities, rather than just taking them to the police and providing the police the evidence. No moral query necessary. All while horror movies, like MaXXXine, have protagonist pretty much just as bad as the horrors they face, where the main character, an unscrupulous porn star, maims people and commits murder, and then, of course, gets a movie deal by the end. Hooray for justice!
Hollywood is running out of ideas, and Western populations are becoming more and more tolerant and accepting of evil, so, of course, numerous villains are now getting stand-alone films, especially in the aforementioned Spiderman Franchise, from Venom, to Kraven (despite the word craven being a synonym for cowardice), to the vampire Morbius. Disney, which currently owns Marvel, nonetheless is making its other iconic villains of the past now sympathetic, rebooting them simply as misunderstood and redeemable from Maleficent (originally the villain in Sleeping Beauty), to Cruella (originally the villain in 101 Dalmatians), to Scar (originally the villain in the Lion King), despite their past depictions showing them commit acts of utter treachery and murder, and in the case of Cruella, wanting to skin puppies. These villains were pure evil, but movies today are now trying to make us feel sorry for, and like, these same vile characters because now they have some contrived, sad backstory, as if having a troubled upbringing or past is meant to justify their depraved actions in the original films, as if they were made to do those actions and are somehow now justified and exonerated, and this goes to the point of total absurdity, like Cruella’s mother now being shown to have been killed by Dalmatians (the film Cruella 2021), a laughable backstory, one impossible to take seriously.
The remakes making villains more sympathetic has the inverse effect of making the heroes more villainous and also, we the audience. Are we bad now for wanting to defeat these villain characters, for wanting to see their downfall, after new stories suddenly reveal they had a difficult upbringings and traumatic events in the past, even though the villains still display overt malignancy? In the film Peter Pan & Wendy (2023), Captain Hook, the primary villain in Peter Pan is, again, made to be more sympathetic and redeemable, despite him killing crew mates on a whim and attempting to murder children in the movie. The story reveals though that he was now the first Lost Boy and Peter Pan banished him when James (Hook) left Neverland to find his mother which results in their arch-rivalry, where Peter subsequently cut off James’ (Hook’s) hand and fed it to the crocodile. Hook is certainly evil, but Peter Pan also sounds evil as well in this rendition; therefore, it’s like two psychopaths are battling each other for supremacy rather than a clear good fighting evil, rather than pure light vs pure darkness. In movies today, often the “good guy,” at best, now might only be slightly less dark than the bad guy.
Leatherface now anti-hero/sympathetic (change to anti-hero). Turns chain saw to corrupt police (authorities) who are responsible for family’s murder. Leader face teams up with protagonist (revealed to be his family member: cousin I think) and saves her life.
This decline in movies is partly the result of trying to humanize villains, of trying to see and restore humanity in the inhumane, an act of utter futility. The concept of no one is evil, just misunderstood and that everyone can be rehabilitated (redeemed), has infected the Western mindset, and this foolishness is displayed in our movies today, an ominous sign of the times. It is why, in the real world, the West fails to resolutely punish vile criminals resulting in more crime and evil lurking amongst us, it why the West fails to stand up to predatory states like China and Iran, as these nations constantly watch for weakness in the West, constantly look for an opportune time to strike.
MORAL DECAY IN TV SERIES
The moral decay of villain worship has infiltrated all forms of entertainment, including TV series, creating utterly unlikable characters, like the Girlfriend Experience, where audiences can watch an unlikable main character, an entitled prostitute, swindling men out of their money and stealing from her law firm (using blackmail and frivolous lawsuits), or the show Billions, where audiences can watch an unlikable main character, a greedy rich prick, constantly abuse staff and engage in criminal activity like bribery and insider buying, or the show the Idol where the main character, a decadent, lewd, publicly indecent singer (pop-star), at first seems to almost be victimized by a cult, only to then, by the end, have her suddenly take over the cult and reward the cult members for false rape accusations (she herself is also later revealed to have publicly defamed her dead mom as physically abusive, to win sympathy from fans), or the show the Boys where audiences can watch unlikable main characters, superpowered beings who are corrupt, who have no respect for human life, and who commit outright murder.
Watching TV and film today has become abusive to the audience. More accurately, it is like an abusive relationship. This is because, decades ago, in a time of greater moral clarity, such evil characters would simply serve as villains; many would be quickly dispatched and discarded, as some are so pathetic, so utterly banal, they aren’t worthy of much audience attention, of much screen time, but nonetheless all would be eventually exposed, arrested, injured, or killed by the good guys, but now, instead of being defeated, these scumbags, get their own TV series, where we can watch them, episode by episode, constantly commit wicked deeds with virtually impunity, almost as if the evil creators of the shows are mocking the audience (and Western society overall) for what sickness they can get away with on screen.
The characters, the walking cancers now put on the screen, insult our intelligence and offend our conscience, but, often, they are also so deplorable, so both worrying and intriguing because they reflect the moral decay of times evidenced by the fact that much of the viewing masses no longer see anything wrong with the immoral behavior the characters exhibit on screen, we, the good people, as the audience are still often compelled to hate-watch in frustration and fascination.
Godwin’s Law
In adherence to Godwin’s law, the malevolence of Nazi Germany is well documented in history, but moral decay of today’s Western society has reached such a point the movies can actually make audiences feel sorry for the Nazis.
Inglorious Bastards (make Nazis look good) novelly change history but allies did not want to kill Hitler cause it would martyr him (and he was conducting poor strategy)
Allies plan an operation that is beneath them
Training Day and Fury (try hard movies) and in the case of the latter portrays a 50 year old Brad Pitt as an Enlisted Staff Sergeant
Add THE IDOL (which shows the degeneracy of the music industry, where characters engage in public indecency, cultlike behavior (to which they never repent) and are rewarded for false accusations.
Fury: American troops threatening to rape German women
or Inglorious bastards where Americans are seen just as worse (baseball bat and assassinations)
Rick Sanchez in Rick and Morty (audience is in on the joke when he exhibts depravity and criminal behavior) only now its degrading and frustrating
Comparing comic movies to past mythology
Man of Steel (dialogue) and Dawn of Justice (Dialogue) (also pre-historic, not ancient)
Man of Steel (father
Dark Knight Rise (people just believe Bane and he also restores Batman’s reputation which is odd))
Spiderman 3 (just happens to wander..
Star Wars (same plot as original film with empire/first order being in power and Sidious being alive which destroys meaning in first films. (Sidious would of had to survive two explosions (including Death Star)
Should have been republic built Star Killer base (with Sith Infaltrating ) but no time goes into the stories
Movies on assemble line
Star Trek (villain waits pointlessly for 26 years??) (destroys vulcan, symblozies the stupefication of film since Vulcan was intellectual center of Galatic Federation and Starfleet.
Wonder Woman 1984
Turning R rated movies to PG-13 for money
Invisible Man (rather than using invisible suit to dominate the world, or to sell for billions of dollars, or engaging in vigilantism and political assassinations, he spends the whole movie stalking his ex.
Goons shooting at superhero or villain for a full minute even though its obvious he is invincible to bullets within the first few seconds.
Both Iron Man 2 and Amazing Spiderman have dead parents somehow predicting son will find their message in impossible to predict display/ or his dad knew he would break calculator for coins to find dad’s message or whatever.
EXCLUSION OF INTELLECTUALS IN FILM
In an age if self-proclaimed tolerance, a title which by itself is idiotic as to tolerate something depends on the circumstances whether it is sensible or not, there is nonetheless a cruel (evil) intolerance for the intelligent and for the wise, for the top 10% and this is shown in movies today the majority of which are now clearly designed to appeal to the bottom 90%, to the dumbest, most simpleminded amongst us, while deliberately excluding the top 10%, the critical, deepest thinkers; movie makers have become the school yard bullies seeking to abuse and ignore who they perceive to be the “nerds”, despite the fact that designing movies for the top 10% ultimately ends up satisfying everyone, both the top 10% and bottom 90% (as meaning, as substance, augments the action, appearance and special effects, the superficial things the least intelligent fixate on, while also increasing the film’s storytelling and longevity, perhaps making it a fan favorite or cult classic admired for decades, the things that the intellectual fixates on) but the stupefaction of Hollywood and the movie industry continues in the callous quest for short-sighted profit (assembly line movie making) causing most movies today to be utterly forgettable,
Movie makers rather keep abusing the public, making braindead films designed to appeal to the simpleton (the bottom 90%) while intentionally excluding the intellectual (the top 10%) showing the true depth of their “tolerance” and “inclusion”, more accurately their total lack of such. They have no regard, no sympathy, for the intellectuals who are insulted and alienated by the stupidity and amorality of their films, they have no desire to include them in the club, even though this ultimately would end up benefiting everyone. Such movie makers always give the same dismissive, bullying response to those who possess any measure of wisdom and critical thought, in other words, to those who have the mental capability to accurately appraise and analyze their movies, they always end up just saying “perhaps this movie is not for you!,” “perhaps this franchise is no longer for you!” or “well just do not watch it if you hate it!,” in response to valid criticism, in response to their vile intolerance of the light, in response to their lack of moral accountability of putting absolute idiocy on screen for people to somehow digest as entertainment.
But why? Why shouldn’t the movie be made for smart people? For what purpose are the truthful witnesses excluded? Why was the movie specifically made not for us? Why weren’t we welcomed to it? Why can’t we also enjoy the fictional world, the lore created? We weren’t we welcomed along for the ride? How can the movie industry needlessly keep excluding 10% of the population, keep throwing them under the bus, keep leaving them behind, when this 10% has the most to offer in terms of establishing quality standards in film, when there is no need for this exclusion as satisfying this 10% improves storytelling and film making for everyone, without it being anything else but a form of utter callousness, a lack of conscience? They are like the schoolyard bully who, for no reason, does not permit a certain kid to play in the game while he invites all other kids to play; like the bully, the scumbag movie makers today love leaving the deep thinkers out in the cold.
We the TW Community do not…
Hardcore fans are ignored (who know most about comics). like batman killing casually in Batman v Superman movie.
People with memory and able to go back decades (able to see more than a week in the future/past) know new star wars betrayed old as, Sidious is back and Empire still reigns making the victories in previous films meaningless. They are betrayed by “oh look Star Wars pretty, Light saber battles cool crowd”
Kevin costner says “maybe you should let them die” to keep his identity a secret” Superman has no regard for casualties (even in second one after bomb goes off next to him) he just flies away. Only Lip service to destruction he is causing and Batman kills and brands (which is a death sentence in prison)
What about hero worship (like Anakin becoming space Jesus, or Riddick becoming the man of prophecy or whatever when he was flawed in Pitch Black
The opinion of 10 hardcore fans who love the game/movie and play it, watching and have analyzed it, is superior to the opinions of 100,000 casuals who simply are not knowledgeable enough to know what’s best to make a superior product/masterpiece/work of art.
Ash v Evil Dead (resurrects in drunken stupor showing depravity)
Star Trek into Darkness (Khan , who is white for some reason, which is usually opposite, is not a good guy wanting to protect his crew, fellow supermen) (contrast him to 1960s where he and his gang are simply biological supermen who want to dominate all they deem inferior) (also reason Khan appears in movie is stupid)
DISRESPECT FOR AUTHORITY NOW COMMONPLACE AND NORMALIZED
Authority figures, like politicians, are constantly ridiculed and mocked on TV, on social media, and in public showing an increased in childishness of Western populations. By the 2020s, in fact, decades before the 2020s, this has become completely normalized to where even good citizens are utterly desensitized to it. It is no longer shocking to turn on a comedy show and see an actor in some skit imitating the President or Prime Minister as some laughable fool, idiot, or buffoon. This is another example of Mental Decay. Many citizens are unaware, due to long-time exposure, that this behavior is not normal and would have been totally unacceptable many decades prior because people of the past were more well behaved and virtuous so therefore had awed respect for authority. Authority figures are fools today but this must be stated, as they come from citizenry.
Conclusion
The Moral Decay is subtle, insidious, almost goes without seeing it
Might not notice due to actor charisma, exciting tone or humor of movie
Cause citizens are tolerating whatever garbage they put on screen. (in fact are demanding it)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Having good discernment and common sense. We understand that any act, depends on the circumstances whether it is good (right) or evil (wrong). Unfortunately, society has become so asinine it now rejects this truth. When defending the innocent and protecting their country-community, soldiers and police are now often perceived just as bad as the terrorists or criminals who murderer the innocent because both groups “use violence” when the acts, the use of violence, are not the same. When it comes to modern slogans, modern foundations and abuse support groups, they also ignore this obvious truth, an insufferable shallowness. They use slogans: ” End Public Shaming, “Love Don’t Hate”, Kill them with Kindness,” “Make Peace Not War,” “Honesty Not Lies,” Violence Never Solves Anything,” “Stop Cancel Culture” and such mindless superficiality, if not attributed to sheer stupidity alone, can often be interpreted as pandering to the masses in an attempt to gain fame and/or customer revenue, or donations if they are a charity. For example, rarely is there anything wrong with citizens publicly shaming a slanderer, a fraudster, a rapist, or a murderer, and all those who exhibit depraved behaviors which offend civilized man’s sense of decency. There is nothing wrong with lying to protect oneself from a savage beating by a domestic abuser. There is nothing wrong with using violence to defend oneself and others against vile criminals. There is nothing wrong with canceling (business boycotting) a person who advocates something abominable, like the selling of dead baby brains on the black market. To not consider “the why” is ludicrous and to treat all actions as equal is to treat no actions as good or bad or all actions as good or bad.
Worse, would be the institutions, including the modern church, which encourages abuse survivors to universally forgive (or worse, reconcile) and uses ridiculous slogans such as, “Love Thy Enemy,” “Forgive your Abuser” or “Hug your Vampire” weak, foolish notions indicative of our soft and decadent age that is devoid of fighting spirit, and an unscrupulous attempt to treat the survivor as equally bad, or worse, than the malicious perpetrator for purposes of exploitation. Just like any act, forgiveness, reconciliation, and generosity depends on the circumstances if it is good or evil; it is not always good. In truth, forgiveness is about leaving vengeance (or karma) to God (or society), yet this is not sensible if you have the means to successfully sue, imprison, or expose an evil abuser; one must act. To reconcile with a good person who made a mistake is fine, to reconcile an unrepentant narcissistic predator who will only continue to maliciously hurt others is not sensible. To be generous to this predator in most cases would be shameful appeasement unless luring him into a confession or trap or for some other unforeseen reason. Unlike modern society, unlike the modern church, we understand this, and we will not make you feel guilty for exhibiting common sense. On the contrary, we feel it warrants praise.
Extremism and extremist comments and remarks are prevalent in our society, especially on social media. You constantly see video titles and hear commands like, “Never Talk to the Police,” “Never Take Back Your Ex,” “Never Marry,” “Never Trust the Media,” “Never Hit a Woman,” “Never Apologize,” “Never Talk Trash,” “Never Cheat,” “Never Compare Yourself to Others,” “Never Celebrate Another Person’s Failures,” “Never Speak ILL of the Dead,” “Never Criticize,” “Never Consider Yourself a Victim,” “Never Act Entitled,” “Never Care What Other People Think of You,” “Never Explain Yourself,” Never Raise your Voice,” “Never Resort to Violence,” absolutes which only insult a man’s intelligence, as these commands are not applicable to every circumstance, nor is their exact opposite (“Always do…”). Many of these idiotic commands even ignore basic human nature and thus are impossible as extremes. We do not believe in insulting the intelligence of others by abandoning discernment.
Public shaming is not always bad. Therefore, the duty of a Truthful Witness is not just to recognize, speak for, and support the innocent who are publicly shamed by evil mobs, it is also to back, support, and reinforce the rightful public shaming of evil people (the guilty). This not only includes evil: rioters, thieves, degenerates, fraudsters, scammers, murders, serial killers, mass shooters, barbarian nations, but the evil online mobs (the internet vigilantes) and their ringleaders (narcissists, racebaiters, frauditors, predator poachers, political agitators, etc,.) who maliciously shame (point the finger at) the innocent in large groups, publicly or otherwise. A society that shames the innocent is also a society that will praise the guilty; a society that see a hero as a villain is also a society that will see a villain as a hero. This is the current state of our Western nations we seek to oppose and rectify. For this reason, understanding, backing, and supporting good public shaming is equally essential to a Truthful Witness as calling out the bad public shaming. We will certainly cheer when a fraud is exposed, when a murderer gets executed, or when evil public (or mass) shaming backfires.
A Truthful Witness must redirect shame (redirect fire) back upon the evil, at times when innocent people are being publicly shamed. This is something that now occurs daily. Evil mobs will publicly shame someone now (if they are filmed) merely for trying to ask out a member of the opposite sex and being unsuccessful but these hypocritical morons who shame such an innocent person for being human are quickly silenced when one mentions a story of a radical Islamic state beheading innocent Christians, or burning them to death in cages, or when one mentions a vile serial killer being caught by police. In light of such heinous crimes, their continued public shaming of a person for merely asking someone out awkwardly looks ridiculous and cruel. In many cases, a Truthful Witness should just redirect fire (shame) back upon the evil mobs themselves, the ones who are doing the evil public shaming (publicly shaming the innocent) and who are praising the charlatan ringleaders who deliver them innocent victims via online, public humiliation, to bring shame back to where it rightfully belongs, to the stupid, hypocritical evil mobs and the charlatan ringleaders themselves. The Truthful Witness does this to break their spirit and thin their ranks. If all in the evil mob are unredeemable, just redirect contempt, as shaming an insect for being an insect is futile. Regardless, the fact that a Truthful Witness both sees and calls out the evil mobs’ and their ringleaders’ fake virtue, their facade which tries to mask their cowardly nature, is enough to enrage these false witnesses and this is a good thing.
Our policy of redirection and reinforcement is to channel human anger, outrage, and violence back to the bad guys. Men always need a villain to fight but today that destructive energy is being misdirected; people are now making up villains by demonizing normal people for petty mistakes or understandable things while ignoring, exonerating, rewarding, and praising the malevolent. A Truthful Witness sees this truth and makes it his/her mission to change it by channeling man’s destructive energy back to the scum and away from the decent. The Truthful Witness does this for the good of humanity.
Lastly, a Truthful Witness backs, supports, and reinforces the rightful praising of the virtuous, the good, and the heroic, not the wrongful praising of fake heroes and virtue signalers of today’s evil mobs who character assassinate others to get ahead. Public praise, like public shame, is never always good or bad; it is our job, the job of a Truthful Witness to deliver these where they rightfully belong: shame (or contempt) to the bad guys, praise (and love) to the good guys and apathy to (ignoring) the mediocre.
Having the strength to pick sides when it’s logical. We strive to side 100% with the abused (the true victim) and side 100% against the abuser (the true perpetrator: the wicked; the narcissist, the psychopath, the sociopath). Modern society and the modern church fail at this; it now treats both the abuser and the abused as equal, or worse, it now shamefully sides with the abuser. If someone gets irritable and angry because of false accusations, they are treated just as bad, or worse, than the evil people leveling the false accusations. While this does not mean one should abandon discipline (we should maintain it even in the face of false accusations, verbal abuse, slander, and harassment), the public never holds the false accusers accountable, and instead directs all blame on the falsely accused (the victim) because they reacted to the abuse, despite the psychological torture they endured. This is now commonplace.
In elections, the politicians that sling the most mud (slander and false accusations) seem to always win over the politicians who react to the abuse and defended themselves from it. Again, while we do not want leaders who are thin-skinned and easily prone to provocation, the fact that electorate just votes for the mudslinger instead (when delivering slander and false accusations is a clear indicator of evil character) stands as undeniable evidence of the Western voters’ predatory nature. They will mock the weak (in this case the thin-skinned politician) and vote for the predator (in this case the mudslinging politician) who preys on weakness rather than finding a better alternative, the one (the good person) who defends society and the weak from such predators. The sheep is rejected, the wolf is elected, while the sheep dog is completely ignored and, therefore, dejected.
General hostility is now declared even when it is idiotic; most often, people now claim someone getting angry and yelling at wrongdoers makes them just as bad as the wrongdoers, when the anger (moral outrage) is typically justified and caused by the evil of the wrongdoers. This hostile stance (or this hypercritical stance) attempting to condemn both parties so one does not have to morally commit to anything only further encourages evil behavior, as it denies justified moral outrage which grants good people the energy to fight evil. At a public protest, there could be a group of evil, militant extremists harassing bystanders on the street, calling for the extermination of a certain group of innocent people, and calling for a violent overthrow of the government and, next to them, there could a moderate group counter-protesting the first group and, when the footage of such a protest is shown in the media and online, people will criticize both groups (claim both parties are in the wrong), with idiotic comments like, “look at all these stupid protestors acting crazy over nothing;” they refuse to take a side, despite the villainy of the first group, a fact which shows a complete and utter lack of discernment, a failure to prioritize, total stupidity. Again, when arguing with an evil person, such as a narcissist or psychopath, good people may find, at best, observers will now simply rather stay neutral or criticize and mock both parties (them and this evil person) and scoff at the entire argument despite the evil person’s malicious intentions (and your noble attempts to stop them or expose them), and despite the fact that the evil person started the argument (with false accusations and insults or whatever) and is sole person responsible for dumbing down of the conversation into a flame war, and this is the best case; more often and at worst, people will now side with the evil person due to a failure of people’s character added to the fact that such vile creatures are often talented at hiding their lies by slandering others and controlling perception. When using justified violence against a bully or criminal, people now will take a neutral stance refusing to acknowledge the violence as good and justified or they will try to sound smart and enlightened by again saying “both parties are in the wrong,” which is outright cowardice.
This thread literally has devoled into “I know you are but what am I” when the narcissist started the fight. This happens when he calls you something he himself does and you point this out.
Moral leveling is when evil abuser attempts to make his victims, or those attempting to expose him, seem just as bad as himself so he can avoid accountability and slander people as hypocrites. If the evil abuser is successful, the good people attempting to expose him end up looking worse because “they were criticizing him when they are also do bad” which makes the good people look mean, bullying, and obsessive. Today’s idiot neutrality and lack of discernment only helps evil abusers in this endeavor. A convicted fraudster can smear a noble critic by claiming this critic “cheated on a math test in the 7th grade ” and observers are now so stupid they probably would think this ridiculous rebuke (this attempt at moral leveling) somehow discredits the critic and, as a result, they may refuse to take a side or even side with the obvious fraudster.
The lack of discernment, the inability to recognize good and evil, is so widespread in society that, when evil is confronted, the true heart of the matter is usually ignored leaving an unsatisfying result for the truthful witness even when evil is punished. For example, most narcissists are accused (softly) of being troublemakers or agitators or assholes or they are accused (softly) of pushing people’s buttons when their true crime is publicly shaming, slandering, smearing, and online humiliating innocent people (feeding people to evil mobs and cyberbullying) for the very acts the narcissist is doing, total hypocrisy, a hypocrisy for which the narcissist is fully aware of and does with glee, as successfully accusing others of the very acts he, the narcissist, openly does gives him a sense of godhood, a feeling that he is superior, that he is allowed to do evil acts others cannot do; it also fills the narcissist with glee that he is enraging and offending the public by showing them he can get away with crime gaslighting them into accepting his hypocritical behavior, his perversion, as righteous under a false cause, while denying witnesses the healing power, the need, of the truth, the obvious truth that clearly reveals it is the narcissist himself who is guilty of the very evil acts he accuses others of doing. It is said that all cruelty springs from weakness but the narcissist abuses others from a position of strength with no mercy, using large groups, his followers, his enablers, to gang-up on, persecute, and destroy the helpless. The slandering of the narcissist also intends to get the evil mob (his followers-enablers) to escalate to crimes, often blatantly savage crimes, against the narcissist’s targets (the scapegoats) and therefore, is an act of total depravity.
This malevolence, however, is rarely stated openly and, therefore, is most often not used as undeniable evidence against the narcissist, so at worst, after exposer, the narcissist might just only be accused of being a loser who needs a job or being a crazy person off his meds when, in fact, he is an evil predator, pathetic vermin that should be removed from society. The failure of modern society, of the public, to identify, condemn, and attack the true heart of darkness, the utter cowardice existing within the soul, is enraging and invalidating. Today, the more witnesses to evil there are (the more the public gets involved), the more the punishment seems to be softened (diluted, weakened) when the opposite should be the case. Justice becomes inaccurate as the heart of darkness, the center bullseye, is missed in favor of the entire dart board. The masses are now too stupid to apply greater gravity (justice) to the more heinous of acts, so they divide justice up by sticking to a broader form of condemnation which grants insufficient force to pierce the veneer and impale the dark heart.
While responding to the narcissist, people often say, “What happened in your life to make you such a terrible person?”, when the only thing that happened in the narcissist’s life is not getting arrested, charged and convicted (AND EXECUTED) like they deserve; they say “Who hurt you to make you so hateful?”, when the problem is not who hurt the narcissist, but who didn’t hurt the narcissist by arresting them, placing them on trial, then throwing them in prison. The truth is always ignored, the evil of the narcissist is always unjustifiable and unprovoked, and the narcissist attempts to hide this fact by gaslighting and perception management to avoid punishment. The fact that it might take time for a normal person to learn that just because they have been wronged, they don’t get to take it out on rest of the world, they should fight to protect people from the same fate, character is how one responds this way and makes the world better, is irrelevant. This is because the narcissist was not wronged first, he wronged others and was undoubtably challenged, exposed, and punished for his vile actions for which he holds utter resentment. He more than likely wants to destroy others and win admiration for it because people rightfully stopped, challenged, or disciplined him when he first started destroying others so, for revenge, he demands everyone seem him as righteous/superior in an act of infantile rebellion. For example, virtually all pedophile poachers earlier in their life falsely accused and slandered innocent people of being pedophiles, pedophile sympathizers, and/or child abusers and were caught and exposed for it, which is the very reason they become pedophile poachers in the first place. It is an act of infantile rebellion to protect their damaged ego, to manipulate perception, so they look righteous/superior, so they look like a hero for their vile acts of depraved slander. Rather than repent and improve themselves, they instead want childish revenge for their evil acts being justly punished. This is their cowardly nature; this is why they are utterly pathetic and interchangeable.
Infuriating how you see the one who scammed you, those who slandered you, those who gleefully and viciously abusers you get charged with …tax evasion or something soft.
See the sued in civil court rather than criminal court.
You see narcs shamed maybe (frauditor channels) but this feels weak cause they arent arrested in some of these videos
OUR POLICY AGAINST THE ABUSER
Today, an abuse survivor, because they feel righteously angry towards their attacker-tormentor, is now treated as bad, or worse, as the abuser, the one who inflicted utter depravity. If a vile, dangerous criminal is shot by the police, the public now sides with the abuser, the vile, dangerous criminal, showing sympathy, complete concern for the criminal’s well-being, all while viciously attacking the officers, the criminal’s victims, and the community as a whole. If someone is mercilessly shamed (ganged-up-on) by an online mob for a simple mistake, a minor offense, for telling an innocent joke, or, for even, telling the truth, the news, the media, and the public now side against this person, the victim, and side with the attacking mob, the perpetrator, despite the victim, at worst, only being guilty of being human (perhaps misspeaking, being unaware, or telling a bad joke) while the evil mob is guilty of malicious bullying. One can only imagine the cowardice and hypocrisy required to gang-up (in large groups) on a helpless person online, one who committed an understandable or a minor mistake (something everyone does, including the mob), or one who told an unpopular truth, which hurt the mob’s delicate sensibilities. The media, however, afraid to hurt its bottom line, now grants this craven, bullying mob legitimacy, attempting to understand “their side of the story” while chastising the helpless victim under the absurd pretense that their offense was not understandable, minor, or worse, that they didn’t speak an obvious truth.
Today, you can be unknowingly recorded (meaning recorded without consent and awareness) saying a politically incorrect comment in the comfort and privacy of your own home, and once the recording is released, the public mob now attacks you while blatantly ignoring the malice of the person (the rat) who uploaded the recording of you publicly-online.
The rat society is best demonstrated with celebrities, as camera-predators (rats, immoral opportunists) constantly record them, waiting on them to make the slightest mistake, so they can sell the footage to some unscrupulous media channel. Typically, once a celebrity does make a minor mistake (as everyone naturally does) and footage is released, the online mob level constant criticism on that celebrity, or use the issue then engage in meaningless talk, conjecture, and debate, never once addressing, A) the rat that maliciously filmed them and sold the footage, B) the media channel that maliciously released the footage, and C) the rat society that maliciously encouraged it. A prime example would be in early 2023 when UFC President Dana White was recorded in a nightclub lightly slapping his longtime wife in retaliation after she slapped him first, a seemingly minor altercation without much context but one that allegedly occurred during a night of alleged drinking. The video footage was published resulting in media uproar with elements of the mob demanding Dana White resign for hitting a woman and spousal abuse, with other counter-elements of the mob preaching that men slapping a woman is justified in self-defense and in the name of gender equality, with toxic tribes preaching white privilege or rich privilege because the UFC President was not being fired, with sport commentators all giving their useless opinions on the incident, all while the true abuser, the rats who recorded and/or uploaded the footage, escape criticism scot-free. This shows that even when modern society is not directly siding or sympathizing with the true abuser, it overlooks and normalizes their behavior, further enabling them (maybe it is directly enabling)
We, Truthful Witness, find this behavior, the enabling and the rewarding of evil, reprehensible; we grant the true abuser, the craven mobs, and the narcissists-charlatans who lead them, no compromise, no appeasement, no legitimacy. We classify wicked people as spiritually a different species (creatures of malicious intent: wolves in sheep’s clothing) who differ infinitely from good people (who although imperfect, have good intent). We understand there can be no reconciliation between the two.
Furthermore, in adhering to this principle and on the added basis of utility, we reject modern society (and modern psychology) treating narcissism, psychopathy, sociopathy (and all evil) as a disease or disorder people are afflicted with or born with. We believe wickedness, the willingness to commit selfish acts of utter depravity to fulfill one’s own desires, one’s own lusts, one’s own appetites, and narcissism, the egotistical drive to be perceived as superior (to be admired-praised-validated and to receive attention) for committing acts of evil, are not diseases, they are choices.
Modern society has grown so weak, so morally debased, it now sympathizes with the most shameless and the most depraved among us by granting these creatures endless excuses (like they were bullied or traumatized-neglected as a child or born with some brain or chemical deficiency) and/or by assigning them some other kind of inborn trait, disease or personality disorder (narcissistic personality disorder or anti-social personality disorder), as if these monsters are helpless to control their actions! This is nonsense; these notions have no meaning, no utility, as it denies the malevolent individual’s responsibility for their actions. How can there be wickedness if wickedness is not a choice? Utter futility! Furthermore, being bullied or traumatized as a child means a person would only be less likely to bully-torment others in that same manner, having personally felt the pain themselves, which means modern psychology’s claims are absurd.
Our resolve against the wicked and the narcissist is unshakable. We reject the false self (the narcissist’s pathetic lie to appear happy, content, loved, or successful, that they have the entire world on their side). We reject their false cause (one that the narcissist uses as a convenient excuse to destroy others). We recognize these are facades, facades, that the narcissist obsessively and strenuously tries to maintain to control perception, an exhausting endeavor. The narcissist’s efforts are in vain however, for we recognize that they are fully aware of their cowardice and lack anything substantive and sustainable.
Having the courage to support and unite the innocent who are heavily mass shamed (publicly shamed) by the immoral populace, evil mobs, and narcissistic enablers; we strive to have the courage to support and unite the innocent who are highly persecuted by society. To the person of good character, even if a million people are siding against you and no one is sticking up for you, we, as a truthful witness, will side with you. For the intellectual who is shamed by hordes of ignorant fools and mad hecklers, as a truthful witness, we will side with you.
Furthermore, our community has the intelligence to focus on who and what is wise and just, not on who and what is popular or unpopular. Modern society grants legitimacy and reward only to what is popular, and this allows sweet talkers, charlatans, and frauds to use their charisma to charm citizenry into giving them money, fame, and power. We base a person’s worth not on popularity and external success but on reason and virtue; we do not care how many Likes a person has on social media or how much money they have when it comes to determining the quality of an individual. Because we do not allow our feelings and prejudices to distort our reason and judgment, we naturally reject the demagogues that unscrupulously appeal to such things in people. Truth, acting honorably, and wise policy are not popularity contests.
We should strive to not only do what is right, even when no one else will, but even when everyone else shames and persecutes those who do what is right.
Courage is only virtue that cannot be faked (WRONG: IT IS THE HARDEST TO FAKE THOUGH. COULD STILL HIRE A GUY TO PRETEND TO ROB SOMEONE AND YOU GO TO SAVE THEM …
Focusing more on what a person should do (duty) than on what a person can do (rights); we place greater importance on what is moral than on what is legal. As the world becomes more immoral, it will further attempt to hide its lies by drowning the truth in legality and impenetrable legalese. What is legally right has now superseded what is morally right; the two are becoming more and more dissociated from each other as time passes. People give police officers needless trouble, they harass others by recording them with their cell phone camera and humiliate them online by uploading the video, they alter videos to make their debate opposition look bad, they troll and throw out unfounded accusations on a whim and they now start unscrupulous businesses-professions like unjustified lawsuit attorneys, guru seminars, psychic readings, and pornography, simply because it is their right to do so. We at Truthful Witness, although we will not always demand immoral behavior be made illegal (as this is impractical), find this immoral behavior unacceptable and will strive to side with good behavior (honor, duty, virtue) when it conflicts with individual rights. This ensures our membership base is of the highest quality.
“It has been stated that a society that sacrifices freedom for security will have neither, but no one ever states what happens when a society sacrifices integrity.”
“Today, a man has the freedom to inform on others by maliciously recording them then uploading them online to be publicly shamed by evil masses, and such freedom comes at the expense of all integrity. This ultimately produces a society of no freedom and no security.”
Not being overly self-righteous or hypocritical. We strive to focus inwardly on self-improvement. We do not seek to aggrandize ourselves by pointing out the minor flaws, or invented flaws, of others like the rest of the citizenry. Large online mobs will shame a referee for stopping a professional fight one second too late or one second too early demanding he lose his job. This is not legitimate criticism, but vindictiveness. Being caught on video hitting an unavoidable animal with your car or not having perfect execution in a high-pressure moment now sees waves of the same online commenters demanding that person lose their driver’s license (in the case of the driver) or get fired (in the latter case). Getting filmed unexpectedly in private or in a moment of weakness brings the same online assault.
The online commenters (the evil mobs) have no skin in the game, they will criticize someone in a life-or-death situation in the clarity of hindsight and from the safety of their keyboards. Worse, they themselves would not want to be filmed in private or heavily scrutinized for every minor offense and for every second of the day, so by attacking others who are victimized by such things, they reveal themselves to be hypocrites. It is no surprise that the citizens lecturing others about humility and respect tend to be the most arrogant and most disrespectful people of them all. It is no surprise the very citizens accusing others of acting entitled act in the most entitled ways imaginable. It is no surprise the very citizens criticizing others for a lack of accountability tend to be the least accountable. It is no surprise the self-righteous citizens condemning America and the Western World for slavery in the past are the same ones obsessed with “owning people” in debates and in online comment sections and cruelly titling videos under such false headings like, “Person XYZ Gets Owned in a Debate” or “Person XYZ Gets Destroyed in a Debate.” It is no surprise that the citizens accusing others of (and protesting about) racism, sexism, fascism, and tyranny tend to be the most racist, sexist, fascist, tyrannical people of them all. For example, a person will hypocritically accuse others of racism against blacks while dismissing the viewpoints of white people, outright, simply because they are white (and vice versa). We at Truthful Witness reject this self-righteous, hypocritical behavior. It is undeniable that the mob engages in unabashed evil because its cruel, crazy members would not want this vindictive abuse, this public shaming, and this inquisitive policing (policing speech for nonsense like micro-aggressions and other thought crimes or whatever) they deliver upon others brought upon themselves. That fact that they do this to others, the fact that they publicly shame others for absurd reasons, means they lack integrity. We see this clearly, and we will call this hypocrisy out.
On the flip side to not being self-righteous and hypocritical, we are not overly tolerant. As stated, we oppose wickedness: narcissism, degeneracy, anti-intellectualism, and insane tolerance (covert intolerance). We do not respect perverted, selfish ideas, such as demanding a man be called a woman or a woman be called a man and subsequently demanding all speech, all institutions, all military branches, all healthcare, and all bathrooms accommodate (by laboriously creating unisex bathrooms), as this denies truth and attempts to enslave citizens to both an immoral minority and to politically incorrect tyranny. We will not be so openminded that our brains fall out of our heads.
Degeneracy also typically uses a person’s past sins to silence them. Degenerates will claim a person cannot speak against Gay Marriage because that person had a divorce. This is nonsense and ignores the degenerate’s dark nature. People are not perfect and just because a person commits sin does not mean they cannot oppose sin, especially those who are proud of their sin, like the degenerates. The difference is the decent person, who committed a sin, is not advocating the sin be seen as righteous.
Not taking malicious accusations at face value. We stand against slander, and we stand against false accusation culture, and, finally, we strive to be able to detect charlatans. We understand that the camera-armed abuser (a camera-phone wielding charlatan or bully) records innocent people without consent; he then attempts to both antagonize and humiliate these innocents (by smear and slander: twisting their words) and then uploads the video online (under an accusatory, clickbait heading) in order to appear virtuous (virtue signal) to some slanted audience. This charlatan, who attempts to aggrandize himself in such a callous manner, and all charlatans, who attempt to aggrandize themselves through the public character assassination of others (attempting to use, or using, evil mobs as weapons), are the worst charlatans of all, wolves in sheep’s clothing. We have the intelligence and the discernment to understand this.
We place premium value on your character, and we will not believe unsubstantial, malicious claims against it. Modern society does the opposite; if a story of a white or Asian business employee denying service to a black customer becomes public (especially if the incident is recorded), the idiotic mob automatically accuses the employee of racial discrimination, even if the denial of service had nothing to do with race. This leads to the employee being wrongful fired and having their reputation destroyed, again by online, craven mobs, and it leads to the business being boycotted and wrongfully sued, despite the lack of evidence that the denial of service was racially motivated. Numerous examples of this happen every week.
We also understand evil people like to gang-up on the good (especially good policemen, good management and good people in general) in numbers, so unlike the rest of society, we do not take multiple unfounded accusations/complaints as proof of guilt. Modern society does the opposite as whenever someone is accused of something, especially police, the media and public will muddy the waters by mentioning previous complaints against the person, even though they are usually baseless and have been dropped, yet the media and public use such previous complaints as proof of guilt. The fact that police officers tend to interact more with evil people, who have a greater tendency (and a huge incentive) to lie about the police officers, especially since the police are the ones citing or arresting them and especially since accusing police officers of unlawful behavior can win them sympathy and can allow them to escape punishment, even win financial reward, is ignored. We find this disgusting. We maintain high standards of evidence and believe a person is innocent until proven guilty. We reject the uncivilized who have abandoned this principle.
We also understand the infinite difference between common interests-agreements-goals and intent. Two men may both end up shaming the same scoundrel, but the first man waited patiently for conclusive evidence of guilt while the second man did it impulsively before any evidence, hence both do not have the same intent and the second man will eventually pose a dangerous threat to the first man, and all civilization, despite the mutual agreement and common goal of treating this scoundrel like a scoundrel. The first man will find out that while the second man shames the same scoundrel as him, the second man also shames innocent policeman, innocent teachers, innocent doctors, even he, the first man himself, etc. Again, two men may both agree that an evil criminal should be punished, but the first man may want this done to protect society and enact justice while the second man may want this done solely for reasons of personal satisfaction-personal gain. Therefore, just because a man shares similar agreements and goals with you does not make him your brother.
A news organization covering a story about a maniac pointing a gun at someone might seems to share common ground with any decent person, but the news organization could only be covering the story because the gunman was white, and the victim was black which allows them to push a race-baiting narrative; behind the superficial condemnation of the maniac, the decent person will find that this slanted news organization may have little to no regard for the victimization of any other person that is not black and may even sympathize and praise black criminals who injure whites and any other non-black racial groups. A person stating simple facts can appear truthful to good people who respect the truth, but they could be using the facts for an evil purpose, for example, a person claiming “Most serial killers and mass shooters are men” is stating simple facts but he/she could be using such facts to degrade men and strip them of their rights with such a charlatan typically silencing any critic with the false claim that they care for feelings over facts, when it is the sinister use of facts that compels the good critic to object.
Mutual agreement and the common goal withers and intent is revealed. A man pointing out fake gurus and conmen may seem noble at first, but his true reasons may be hidden; he may either be doing it to protect others, or he may be doing it because he himself is a fraud who is trying to build credibility and avoid accountability and detection by pointing the finger at other frauds. It is not uncommon to see vile cults point the finger at other vile cults making the first cult initially seem noble. Again, two men might think women should dress less provocatively but, while one thinks the woman who dress in such a revealing way should be chastised and fined (like the old days), the other may think women’s choice to dress provocatively gives him a legal excuse to rape them. Understanding the difference between superficial goals-interest and true intent makes us less vulnerable to charlatanism and enables us to detect charlatanism with greater accuracy, as bad deeds often mask themselves by first pointing out other bad deeds.
Truthful Witness will appear to support criminals and scoundrels because they were presumed guilty without/before evidence and/or punished draconianly due to evil mob pressure. The support of someone who is wrongfully shamed publicly and who is then wrongfully punished (because of the public shaming) does not mean one approves of the shamed person’s wrongful actions once they are proven to have been committed; it simply means the public shaming was unjustified. For example, we will support a man who is publicly shamed by evil feminist because they presume the man to be guilty of rape when there is no conclusive evidence of the man’s guilt yet. Our support remains valid even if the man is later proven to be guilty of the crime (beyond a reasonable doubt). This is because the public shaming at the time was still idiotic and baseless and poses a threat to all citizens. The feminist mobs would just have shamed and demanded the conviction-imprisonment of a man who is innocent, as they would the man who was found guilty.
Again, pedophile poachers, who set up unscrupulous sex sting operations and broadcast them on their social media channels, are notorious for falsely accusing innocent people of being child predators and pedophiles and for publicly shaming the innocent people they accuse online (using their evil, internet vigilantes as a slanderous weapon against their innocent targets so the poacher can profit and virtue signal), but this does not mean some of the people who they accuse and online mob shame won’t turn out to actually be, or end up becoming, child predators, pedophiles, vile sex offenders, and criminals. It just means we recognize the malice, lack of integrity and charlatanism, of the poachers (and their online supporters) when they deny the presumption of innocence and accuse people of malicious acts and slander (mass shame) them online when there is insufficient evidence of guilt, which is often the case.
BEING CAUTIOUS WHEN CELEBRATING THE DOWNFALL OF EVIL PEOPLE
The fall of an evil person is usually a good thing; however, he might have been destroyed, not by good, but by another evil. By celebrating the downfall of evil. we must be cautious that were aren’t backing and enabling some other evil. An evil person who destroys others by falsely accusation may, in turn, be eventually destroyed by false accusations. Although we should have no sympathy for this scoundrel, we cannot celebrate the people destroying him with false accusations because they are also evil people who level out false accusations and threaten everyone, not just this particular scoundrel, with such. We, therefore, only agree with these people on the surface that this evil person, this scoundrel, must be destroyed, but beneath the surface our two separate reasons for this belief are nowhere near similar. We want this evil person to fall because he falsely accused others; they want this evil person to fall because they falsely accuse others. Again, it may seem delightful when a scumbag finally gets convicted of a crime but if it is a wrongful conviction or the crime itself is nonsense and should not even exist, then we can’t support the evil people convicting him, for such methods also threaten good citizens with being wrongfully convicted. We want the scumbag convicted for the crimes that made him a scumbag, not for breaking stupid laws, because using stupid laws against this scumbag not only helps needlessly martyr him and makes him a victim, it also validates and enables the stupid laws, and, therefore, continued oppression under such stupid laws.
We must state this because society has lost this wisdom. People now celebrate the downfall of a villain while foolishly praising the other villains who are bringing him down. We must vanquish evil but for the right reasons, not for the wrong reasons.
FALSE ACCUSATIONS OURSELVES
WE Can become a cult ourselves. Talk about decline of civ but can falsely accuse others and warp everything to this narrative.
Can make us assume the worst in people and in cases
Property owner shoots peoppe trespassing on property makes us initially want to support property owner because society is sympathizng with criminals but this could be total an idiotic take based on circumstances of case, like people were 100 years away and did not know they were trespassing and/or were passing through and property owner shot them from a distance without warning
Tend to Automatically Assume politician or government administrator must be a charlatan cause Decline of Civ
We resist the shamefulness of merchant culture, how businesses keep selling their soul more and more for profit. News reporting is becoming more reprehensible, with inflammatory headlines, stories, and articles that character assassinate others and divide the community, to appeal to the witch-burning, tribal masses (their customers), social media sites allow unrestricted speech in their comment sections that allow unfounded (false) accusations free reign and allow groups to viciously shame others without reason to appeal to the same evil masses (their customers), businesses offer endless apologies to evil mobs and throw their own employees under the bus (fire them) even if employees did not do anything wrong due to the demands of these evil mobs (the evil masses) that call for the employees’ heads, businesses are sponsoring more and more fools, frauds, cyberhookers, and buffoons on social media to try to market to their viewing audiences despite the idiotic, vapid, narcissistic content.
Unfortunately, being a business owner now almost requires shameful appeasement or the loss of revenue due to mob boycotting (not to mention greater risk of frivolous lawsuits due to evil mob rule). Entrepreneurship is, in fact, now far more dangerous, as not caving into the demands of the mobs (such as firing an employee publicly shamed and accused by such mobs) can lead to lawsuits and loss of revenue for a business while caving into the demands of the mobs (firing said employee) can also lead to wrongful termination lawsuits for a business which means businesses are trapped and entrepreneurship is discouraged. This does not necessarily mean one should always refrain from investing in stocks-businesses or starting a business, as doing so can still be successful. For example, investing in the stocks of quality social media companies at good value is, in fact, probably smart because such companies have businesses that naturally appeal to the narcissism, vanity, and selfishness of the age and to the evil mob’s (the New Inquisition’s) desire to publicly shame others for wrongthink (as heretics) which ensures their businesses will remain profitable for as long as civilization remains relatively stable; the social media companies, in fact, could be seen by the investor as neutral, most still have some moral applications, it is the mobs which use the platforms for evil. Nonetheless, people should be aware how businesses have also been corrupted by evil mobs (many employees are members of evil mobs themselves, as they all come from the same populace) and how merchant culture has created a profit-hungry society that abandons the courage and integrity to stand up to evil mobs (and support their victims) for the sake of the bottom-line. The evil mobs are customers, after all; they’re a large source of revenue and today’s businesses do not want to challenge and offend these pathetic worms (even though these worms are blatant hypocrites) because these businesses could quickly lose them as customers, and it could hurt revenue significantly. Integrity and morals be damned!
Merchant culture has long replaced military culture and is leading to decline; Carthage, a merchant culture, lost to Rome, a military culture at the time, in the Punic Wars partly due to merchant culture being unsustainable; it turns out all the money and commerce in the world doesn’t matter if their aren’t honorable men to maintain security by defending society from unruly citizens, evil criminals and foreign invaders; one can pay for mercenaries but they make poor soldiers who give up easily or end up turning on you or pillaging the land.
We dislike how the highest the American dream, and its Canadian-British-Australian counterpart, can aspire to now is to encourage citizens to become rich and famous so you can live in luxury and party like a rockstar. We dislike how the highest entrepreneurship seems to aspire to is to encourage people to hustle clients (sell them things that aren’t good for them: get-rich-quick seminars, over-priced property, gambling picks) or to build a social media platform with no other utility than allowing girls to shake their ass online for male views in order to generate ad revenue (vapid content for the sake of greedy sales). We resist how businesses are becoming dumber where shows like Shark Tank or Dragon’s Den having inane business ideas being peddled constantly. We resist the worship of the money and fame. We focus not on profit, but achievement and we naturally distrust the opinions of the merchant due to their for-profit bias, especially if the merchants are engaging in businesses that do not achieve anything useful, and especially if they have no skin in the game, like a stockbroker recommending an investor risk money and buy a stock so he, the stockbroker, can earn a commission, when this stockbroker himself has not, and will not, risk a sizable portion of his own money: buying the same stock or buying the same stock at the price he recommends. We especially distrust the opinions of merchants who become rich and simply use their wealth to become richer, as this is meaningless.
ON SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP
While evil mobs (as groups) rarely get banned on social media, as this would hurt profits (and be tedious) due to their large number, individuals and individual channels (especially the unpopular) always face this threat, primarily the most thoughtful and intelligent, as evil, online mobs hate such people.
Private enterprise (merchant culture) cannot solve the problem of social media censorship, as evil mobs can always threaten a company’s profits compelling social media giants, and all social media businesses, to ban the people, pages, and channels the evil mobs hate (for speaking truth). This is why one cannot create a sustainable page or channel on social media that speaks unpleasant truths (like us supporting the good people heavily mob shamed and mocking the villains highly praised), as an endless number of malcontents (false witnesses, cyberbullies) of the mob will falsely report your page/channel for abuse, placing pressure on the third party (the social media companies) to ban you. Because of this, almost all social media tends to be trivial, stupid, and dull (it lacks edge), as the intelligent would never start a channel or they have been weeded out (removed from the platform) even if they did.
This is why Truthful Witness is an independent site; independence is a necessity, as maintaining a community on typical social media platforms grants power to a third party over you, meaning the social media platforms (the merchants) have the power to ban your page/channel at any moment, for any arbitrary reason.
Until a state-controlled, state-funded, social media platform is built (an act needed due to social media being so influential today, as being banned from it can put a person at a major economic disadvantage compared to those who are not banned), where a person’s page/post/channel is treated like private property, where they have free speech rights and legally cannot be banned (outside of posting things such as slander, false accusations, crime, death threats, etc.), this act of self-determination (building Truthful Witness as an independent discussion board) is necessary to avoid the ban hammer.
Like evil (sin) masquerades as light (virtue)
Downgrading Technology
Technology Devolving Us All
Breaking what isnt broken (tech overloards doing it)
Leading to unemployment (companies use to brag how many people they hire not its about how many people they put out of work)
Combines
Having fighting spirit (resolve) and understanding violence. We understand that there is nothing wrong with good citizens being delighted at inflicting violence on vile people and foreign enemies. We do not shame people for this. In fact, we believe the human need for violence should be channeled into the good cause of punishing the unruly, the wicked, the narcissistic, and the barbarous, to protect the innocent and the common good. Military and police should have their aggression encouraged for this purpose. Modern society does the opposite. It now fires or, worse, imprisons police officers and soldiers for wanting to capture, injure, or kill the bad guys. Firing two more shots from a gun than necessary to kill a hostile target now brings waves of criticism or a prison sentence for the unfortunate officer or soldier. Even punching a dangerous criminal resisting arrest or putting them in a choke hold can bring the same result. Parents should also be encouraged, when necessary, to spank unruly children (use violence) to maintain order in the household. Modern society, however, has now outlawed violence and spanking and, as such, it has become pathetically weak at defending itself against spoilt brats, unruly citizens, dangerous criminals, and foreign enemies: order and security is slowly collapsing due to society’s lack of resolve when defending the common good. Authority is no longer feared.
Furthermore, Western nations have largely abolished the Death Penalty. More accurately, they have abandoned the Death Penalty in principle which is distinguished from views that want to have higher standards of proof to enact the Death Penalty to avoid a wrongful execution (times when it is draconian punishment) and to avoid executing the wrongfully convicted. This means they believe, hypothetically, even if a man were 100% guilty beyond all doubt of multiple acts of malice murder (or other crimes of total depravity), his life should still be spared; to them, he should not be executed despite the circumstances of total certainty:
This shows:
A): Citizens have become cowardly, as they fear to do what the criminal is not afraid to do.
B): Citizens now care more about the welfare of the depraved criminal than the welfare of society and justice for the victim (meaning citizens have become selfish and, therefore, do not care for the common good). The depraved criminal, rather than being executed and thus eliminated, is kept alive and, therefore, becomes a financial burden to the state.
C) Citizens are now stupid, as they continually claim, “the punishment of life in prison is worse than the death penalty,” which ignores the fact that nearly all criminals and prisoners seek to avoid-appeal the death penalty at all cost out of fear. In fact, the very citizens making this ridiculous claim themselves, if given the choice, would choose a life sentence in a gulag, concentration camp, or prison (which provides some hope of either escape or freedom from exoneration-leniency-regime change) rather than immediate execution (which provides no hope) to delay death, so their words are just empty boasting in an attempt to sound intelligent or tough.
D): Citizens are now negligent, as they give such murderous-depraved criminals the chance to kill again which, as evil abusers, they will. It is not uncommon to see murderous-depraved prisoners kill-injure other inmates, guards, or other prison personnel, or make repeated escape attempts, or sweet-talk (manipulate) parole boards into thinking they are “changed people who are repentant and focused on bettering their life” which can see them eventually released back into society placing citizens at major risk.
E): Citizens have become immoral, as they reject the clear distinction between a depraved criminal wrongfully murdering the innocent and society rightfully executing said depraved criminal. The two acts of killing are not the same; the former is evil, and the latter is good. Modern citizens have become so morally debased they deny such truth. They now treat both acts of killing as equally wrong which means they now side with the dangerous, depraved criminal while attacking the good people who support executing said criminal.
We oppose the community’s lack of resolve and the collapse of military spirit. We support violence when necessary, deadly force when necessary, the death penalty when necessary, torture when necessary, and warfare when necessary. We understand that a nation must use resolved violence to defend its borders. We will not shame the strong citizens who understand the logic of violence. We maintain a strong military spirit.
We believe on collective punishment when logical. We bombed German citizens to the ground. The notion of “not all of them are Nazis did not matter” cause the German people are still responsible for the government they enable.
Terrorist group XYZ (when Muslin state allowed like Hamas in Gaza, so in reality we are at was with Gaza. The notion of providing humantarian aid to the people who created the terrorist state is cowardly and insane.
Wont accept performative crying (crocodile tears) to avoid punishment
The more energy/focus people spend shaming and punishing those who did little to nothing wrong, the less energy there will be to punish the wicked and barbaric.
Shame someone who uses N word, even in jest or in proper context, same week foreign state is cutting heads off of Christians/Jews or petty offenders.
Being secular and utilitarian (sensible). We strive to never use religious dogma to win arguments. We respect the separation of church and state, the separation of science from religion, the separation of knowledge (facts and falsity) from wisdom (recognizing good and evil). We understand that knowing that a man will die if his head is cut off is knowledge while determining if a beheading was good or evil is wisdom. We understand that creationism (religion) should not interfere in science, like with evolution. We respect the scientific process of observation, hypothesis, and rigorous experimentation to reach a theory.
We oppose non-utilitarian ideas, such as:
Non-utilitarianism (or worthlessness, futility) is abhorrent to us. We seek to discover and support ideas which lead to the advancement of human civilization. We will challenge any ideas which attempt to oppose this meaningful end for they bring no utility.
TW: Reacting to meaningless noise (Bill Maher is finally coming around against wokeism with he said the same thing for years (figure out what it is)
People believe what they want to believe so look for (make up) evidence (police “let rioters in” so it was peaceful and not an insurrection. In truth they want to believe that
register
login 
JOIN THE DISCUSSION