First blog post

This is the post excerpt.


This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.


An Open Letter to Qasim Rashid “Can the Teachings of Islam Help Prevent More Sexual Abuse Scandals?”

On Oct 15th 2017, the Independent (UK) Published the article, “How the teachings of Islam could help us prevent more sexual abuse scandals”, subtitled, “Harvey Weinstein is just another case of a powerful man abusing women because we live in a society that lets him get away with it, but we can change that” by you, Qasim Rashid.

In this essay, I will examine the veracity of your article and I will show that;

1. According to the Quran’s standards, it is nearly impossible for a man to be found guilty of raping a Muslim woman due to inequality under the law. Hence rape is an institutionally protected practice under Islamic law, in accordance with the Quran.
2. Non-Muslim women, captives, slaves, “those whom your right hand possesses” as the Quran renders it, can not be raped (even if you rape them) because rape is redefined as non-rape, in accordance with the Quran and the Hadith.
3. According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad committed marital rape on his child bride Aisha, and this is viewed as a good thing; something for a man to try to live up to. Furthermore, in many communities within the Islamic world, child brides are socially sanctioned and legal. This means that it is legal and considered normal and acceptable for an adult to rape a child.

So, with these three being the case, is it realistic to say that the teachings of Islam can help us prevent more sex abuse scandals as you claim, Rashid?

Your article reads;

“I’m a Muslim, and a civil rights lawyer with a special interest in advocating for women’s rights. My advocacy is informed not just by the law, but by strategies detailed in Islamic teachings and Prophet Muhammad’s example to pre-empt sexual abuse. . .”

This is the opposite of the truth as I will show below.

“…Let’s start by understanding two facts. First, a woman’s attire, alcohol intake, marital status, and education level do not contribute to sexual abuse – abusive men do. Second, sexual abuse doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Every level of society – social norms, media, and Government – is complicit in promoting the rape culture that perpetuates sexual abuse…”

Hypocrisy! I am not arguing about rape culture in the West in this essay because that warrants an entire essay to itself (at least). But notice, Rashid, that you are making a logical fallacy here. You are saying that Islamic culture doesn’t contain rape culture because the West that has rape culture. Notice this presupposes that only one can contain rape culture which is a very juvenile assumption. It’s a bit like a child that says something like, “I’m not the stupid one! You’re the stupid one!” as if only one person in question can be stupid. How binary of you Rashid! How naive or dishonest you are! Moving on…

“…Islamic teachings and Prophet Muhammad’s example provide a solution that no state truly can…”

Oh, I see! The solution is a Caliphate? A caliphate with sharia law? No, thank you! As I will show, such a system institutionalizes rape culture, indeed it sanctifies some forms of rape so that they be held up as good, ethical and pious behavior! We’ll come to that below. Again, no thank you, Rashid. You should be deeply ashamed of yourself . . .

“…Yes, Islam implores accountability to the creator, but rather than preach empty dogmatic theories, Islam instead prescribes a proven secular model…”

Secular? What an insult to the intelligence (for those who are intelligent, at least)! A caliphate is the exact opposite of secularism. In a caliphate, the state and the religion are one. Secularism is what we have in the USA with the separation clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the USA (see note 1), as well as the Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (see note 2). I can see why you would hold up secularism as a good thin, Rashid, because it is, but why are you lying? There is virtually no chance that you do not know that a caliphate is the exact opposite of a secular system.

“…In a recent internationally broadcast lecture given live before roughly 6,000 Muslim women, the Khalifa of Islam…”

Again, Rashid, you, being a Muslim familiar with the concept of a Caliphate, are intentionally trying to deceive the reader. Shame on you! How dare you tell such blatant lies!

“…the Khalifa of Islam said, “Chapter four, verse two of the Holy Quran…clarifies that women were not created out of the body of a man or from his rib. Rather, the Quran testifies to the fact that men and women were created from a single soul and are of the same kind and species…”

Actually, that’s not what it says. 4:2 reads, “Give unto orphans their wealth. Exchange not the good for the bad nor absorb their wealth into your own wealth. Lo! that would be a great sin.”

You continue;

“…Thus, the Quran 4:2 first establishes men and women as equal beings.”

But as I have shown, 4:2 says no such thing. 4:1, however says something similar enough, though with very different words. At any rate, you continue;

“Chapter 4:20 then forbids men from forcing a woman to act against her will, thereby ensuring women maintain autonomy and self-determination.

This verse also commands men to consort with women in kindness, forbidding men from so much as thinking ill of their wives. This preempts emotional and mental abuse.”

Is that so? Well, we shall see. But let’s look at the very next verse.

4:3 reads, “And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hand possesses. Thus it is more likely that ye will not do injustice.”

As you can see, 4:3 says to not marry more women than you can treat fairly but that this is different for the captives that “your right hands posses”. So, captives; slaves or sex slaves, whom are infidel women are less than Muslim women who are less than Muslim men.

As we see in this verse, men can have multiple wives. Women can not have multiple husbands. So, is this sexual equality Rashid? And why did you omit this very next verse? It’s called lying by omission, Rashid. You are a liar. Islam is sexist, as we can plainly see.

You continue;

4:35 furthermore prevents violence against women by forcing men to control themselves and never resort to physically harming women– preempting physical abuse.

Again, Rashid, you are wrong. 4:35 says no such thing. Again, if we look at nearby verses, we see the exact opposite of what you claim is true!

4:34 reads, “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made one of them to excel over the other… …As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them…”

Well, maybe you meant the very next verse, 4:36. Well, no, 4:36 also says nothing of the sort, and besides, we just saw that 4:34 already refutes the your claim. At any rate, 4:36 again condones the owning of slaves. Hardly equality! That’s unacceptably barbaric. What an inferior ideology you have, Rashid! Your religion is evil and you should stop being a Muslim.

You continue;

“…And when it comes to the Islamic concept of Hijab, it is men who are first commanded to never gawk at women, and instead guard their private parts and chastity, regardless of how women choose to dress – pre-empting sexual abuse…”

Well, that is a claim. Do you support this claim? No. Anyone can read the article and see. So you do nothing to establish your claims and in fact you have directed our attention to the fact that the opposite of what you claim to be true is the truth, liar.

But wait there’s more! You conclude;

Together, we can employ a proven Islamic model that will stop this madness, and re-invoke gender equity today in America, and the world.

As I have demonstrated above and will further demonstrate below, your conclusion is false, dishonest, ignorant, insulting and you should be ashamed of yourself, you vile, disgusting lying pig-dog. Well, after reading this article, much like the many rape victims within Islamic culture, I need a shower to wash off the filth. But let’s move on.


In Islam there is something called Shariah, which is Islamic law, based mostly on the Quran and the Hadith, which is a body of literature that purports to describe the deeds and words of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. Different branches of Islam do not totally agree about all of the texts that make up the Hadith. However, when we read from the Quran and Hadith, know that these serve as the basis for sharia law.

The Quran 2:223 reads, “Your women are your tilth for you (to cultivate)”. Tilth is a soil’s suitability for yielding crops. This verse continues, “so go to your tilth as ye will.”

So this means that she has no right to say no to sex with her husband. This denies that marital rape exists. But marital rape does exist. A wife can say no to sex if she wants and if a husband forces sex upon her, it’s rape. Only a savage, barbaric culture would deny this or a savage person, Rashid.

Islam can seem to decrease the rate of sexual assaults, by only by denying that some sexual assaults are sexual assaults.

The Quran 2:228 says that men are “a degree above” women.

The Quran 2:282 states that a woman’s witness testimony in a court of law is worth half that of a man. Oh, but as you may protest, Rashid, this is contradicted elsewhere in the Quran. Well, yes, as we will see, elsewhere in the Quran, it says that a woman’s testimony is worth one quarter of a man’s – but only if she is a Muslim, of course! If she is an infidel, her testimony is virtually worthless.

The Quran 4:24 says that it is forbidden to have sex with married women except for your captives. So, if you have a slave, it’s not a sin to rape her. For some reason, the Quran thinks it’s necessary to say that even if she is married, it’s not a sin.

The Quran 5:6 talks about purifying oneself after touching unclean things, like a toilet or a woman. In fact, after touching a woman one can clean themselves with dirt. It doesn’t say this about men or even animals. So dirt is more pure than women. So much sexual equality!

24:4 through 24:13 establishes that a man’s testimony in court is worth four times as much as a woman’s testimony. So, for example, if a man rapes a woman in front of 2 other women and all of these women testify in court that he raped her, but he says he did not rape her, then as far as the court is concerned, he did not rape her. By the way, how likely is it that there would be 4 women witnessing a rape? By definition, if a man rapes a woman without there being 4 women witnesses who would tell the truth in court, the rape is not rape. Virtually all rape, then, is redefined as not rape.

So this would deny rape occurs when it does in fact occur. So again, this would not decrease sexual assaults, it would only increase denial of sexual assaults and hence perpetuate, even encourage and increase sexual assaults. Talk about rape culture Rashid! Shame on you!

33:50 says that you can do what you want with your wives and with the captives “whom your right hand posses” as the saying goes, and it is not a sin to do so. Again, in your religion, Rashid, women are possessions, objects, fields to be plowed as the man wills.

So, I have established the truth of my claims 1 and 2 made earlier;

1. According to the Quran’s standards, it is nearly impossible for a man to be found guilty of raping a Muslim woman due to inequality under the law. Hence rape is an institutionally protected practice under Islamic law, in accordance with the Quran.

2. Non Muslim women, captives, slaves, “those whom your right hand posses” as the Quran renders it, can not be raped, even if you rape them, because if you rape them, it’s not defined as rape, according to the Quran.

But what about my third and last claim? Did Muhammad rape a little girl?

For this question, we will have to look at the Hadith, a body of literature that purports to describe the deeds and words of Muhammad, being the most perfect man possible who lived a virtually perfect life. Virtually everything he did was right and just, and therefore, what he did and said is lawful in shariah.

Muhammad had a child bride whom he molested, and therefore, in shariah, molesting child brides is lawful and holy and celebrated, even if denied to Westerners in accordance with taqiyya and kitman which is deception permitted in Islam because it is deception used to protect Muslims. Yes, in Islam, it is OK to lie and deceive to make Islam seem less evil and destructive than it really is in order to protect Muslims from being judged and punished by good, civilized people.

Now, it must be said that as in many other religions, in Islam there are different sects and not all of these agree on everything. But virtually all Muslims believe that Muhammad was the most perfect person who ever lived, that what he did was good and right and that one should try their best to be as much like Muhammad as possible. With all this in mind, let us now ask;

Did Mohamed molest and rape a little girl?

Let’s be clear, marital rape is real. It is possible for husbands to rape their wives. Everyone has the right to say no to sex, and refuse to have sex with their husband or wife. Marital rape is a crime, and for good reason. If a person can not give informed consent, then it’s rape. Children can not give informed consent. An adult husband who has sex with a child, even within marriage, is committing rape.

According to the Hadith, Mohamed married a little girl named Aisha when she was 6-7 years old and when she was 8-9 and took her virginity. The Hadith literature makes it clear, as we will see, that this was before she had reached puberty.

Some people deny this is recorded as history and believed as such in Islam. Let’s see for ourselves by looking at the Hadith.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236: Narrated by Hisham’s father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Narrated by Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65: Narrated by Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that ‘Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).” what you know of the Quran (by heart)’

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88: Narrated by Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3309: Narrated by A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah’s Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234 Narrated by Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.

Book 008, Number 3310: Narrated by A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Book 008, Number 3311: Narrated by A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

Book 41, Number 4915: Narrated by Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr’s version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 41, Number 4917: Narrated by Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: When we came to Medina, the women came to me when I was playing on the swing, and my hair were up to my ears. They brought me, prepared me, and decorated me. Then they brought me to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and he took up cohabitation with me, when I was nine.

Notice that in Sahih Muslim 8:3311 it mentions that Aisha had her dolls with her when Mohamed brought her home with him. Girls were not allowed to have dolls once they reach puberty. But you should already know this, Rashid. So, according to the Hadith, Aisha was not yet ready to procreate. So your “perfect” prophet Mohamed was molesting Aisha and committing marital rape.

How dare you lie like this about so serious a subject! Lying about rape? How vile! I know a pig is supposed to be a disgusting animal, Rashid. But a pig doesn’t lie about rape like you do, Rashid. So you are lower than a pig, Rashid. Shame on you! What do you have to say for yourself, Rashid?

You should make a public apology to all the readers you have lied to. We are waiting, Rashid.

– Justin Antitheist


1. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” First Amendment if the US Constitution – Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute. The Separation Clause is a term used in US Jurisprudence to refer to the way the First Amendment requires separation between the government and religion. It is commonly referred to as “separation of church and state”.


2. “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” – Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp#art11


Al-Qur’an al-Kareem – القرآن الكريم

Pickthal, M. W. (1953). The Meaning of the Glorious Koran. New York. A Mentor Book.

Rashid, Q. (2017, October 15). How the teachings of Islam could help us prevent more sexual abuse scandals. Independent. Retrieved October 15, 2017, from https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/harvey-weinstein-islam-sexual-assault-rape-womens-rights-a8001521.html


Youtube Alliance Against Censorship

The List




Edgy Dtv




Globalization in Question





Acton the Actor



Angel Maleficus


Anthony Lopez


Barbaric Gentleman



Being Here


Blaze ontheright



Brave Counsel


Call me Smurf



Creepy Little Book




Diary of a Modern Caveman



Dual Hand Path





Hard Bastard

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYmqiv_DNFYFkn8fvvJujmA?&ytbChannel=Hard Bastard

History by Jummy


Howie Hellbent


James Hazeth



James Pawson


King Nine


Ling Anderson


Mauritian Struggle


Michael Black


Millenial Revolt









Real Matt Forney




Righteous Rodion







Sevvie rose


Shattered Citadel








Varg (ThuleanPerspective)


Viktor Ulfrikson


W2W (Will 2 Win)

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmPho-fjyuqU3ZwPm_MiJIw?&ytbChannel=The Will 2 Win

Suit yourself






Turd Flinging Monkey





Stardusk (Thinking ape)




Reactionary Expat



The Fortress


MGTOW University



Red Pill Germany







Black Pigeon Speaks



50 Shades

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCa3meRxRwQrXg__x– Goxrg?ytbChannel=50+Shades

On The Offensive



karen straughan



Feminism LOL











The Red Pill Ghost



MGTOW Granpa


Messenger Rising





Traversable Asceticism







Canadian MGTOW





Jolly Misanthrope



MGTOW Knowledge – Darius



Misguided MGTOW



Prince Ricard


Legend MGTOW



Beacon of Butthurt





Red Ras al Ghul



Pyrrhic Victor




Pharaoh Osiris






bar bar


Liberation Y


Tony Broom


Raging Golden Eagle



Richard Wheybrew



Cordwainer Bird



Han Lockhart


Nathan B. Champine





Groundwork For The Metaphysics of MGTOW



Greg Silverado




Pass Port To Glory



Staying Free



M Krafts







40% of Millennials are Against Freedom of Speech & Other Shocking Poll Results

                                             by Justin Antitheist

40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities” reports the Pew Poll Research Center on November 20th, 2015.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

– Evelyn Beatrice Hall

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation, must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”

– Benjamin Franklin

The headline refers to millennials in America. While there is no universal agreement on exactly when a given generation begins and ends, Millennials, also known as Generation Y, includes people born about 1980 to the mid 1990s, according to some, or the early 2000s according to others. As of the current year, 2017, this would be people who are in their teens to about the age of 37. Pew defines a millennial as a person between 18 and 34.

American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups…”

I knew that millennials in America are generally more opposed to free speech than previous American generations, but I was still shocked that a Pew Poll would show such a high percentage, 40%, would be in favor of the government preventing people from saying things that are offensive to minorities.

I was even more shocked to read that, according to the Pew Research Center, 27% of Generation Xers were in favor of the government preventing people from such speech. I would have guestimated a far lower figure. Generation X which is generally considered to include people born between the mid 1960s to the late 70s or early 80s – my generation. That would be people from about the age of 34 to about 52. Pew defines Generation X as people between 35 and 50. This is my generation. Now generation X has faults; we tend to be too cynical, too negative, pessimistic, apathetic, etc. and we have good qualities; we were the first generation to openly reject homophobia and sexism and we are also a very anti-authoritarian left wing generation. As anti-authoritarians, we generally do not want the government to enforce political correctness and “social justice”, unlike millennials. It’s basically the difference between running to mommy, daddy, or the teacher to deal with issues with other kids or just dealing with other kids. So, 27% is higher than what some might expect. Shame on you Gen X. 27% is far too high.

Of the Baby Boomer generation, 24% are in favor of such limits on free speech. Again, I am shocked. The Baby Boom generation roughly includes people born from about 1946 to about 1960, being people about 53 years old and about 71 years old, again, this is as of the current year of 2017. Pew defines this generation as people between 51 and 69.

The silent generation includes, roughly, people born from the mid to late 1920s to the early to mid 1940s; so people from about age 72 to about age 92. Pew defines them as being between 70 and 87. According to the Pew Research center, 12% of the Silent generation are in favor of such limits on freedom of speech. The Silent generation, of course, is the generation that saw the rise of authoritarian ideologies and regimes; dictatorships, Fascism, totalitarianism, Bolshevism, Stalinism, communism, Imperialism and Nazism, so it seems natural that they would be more opposed to authoritarianism. But 12%? That’s still far too high.

According to Pew, out of 38 nations surveyed, the USA is still the least likely to support the government limiting freedom of speech of any kind. Two thirds of Americans, that’s about 66%, want no limits to even speech that is offensive to minorities, whereas the average of the other 38 nations polled is 35%.

The poll also claims that fewer White Americans (23%) are in favor of such limits to free speech than non-whites (38%).

Women in general weigh in at about 33% and men about 23%.

Apparently, 35% of Democrats are in favor of such limits compared to 18% of Republicans. Also, it seems that those with less education are more likely to want the government to put such limits on speech than those with more education.

Results in Europe vary from nation to nation, but on average, 49% of the people polled in Germany, Italy, Poland, France, Spain and the UK want governments to limit such speech. That’s even more than American millennials. Pew suggests that this has much to do with the very high racial tensions in Europe related to the intense pressures involved in the migrant crisis. To be fair, the difference varies considerably from 38% of people polled in the UK to 70% in Germany.

As in the USA, millennials in the UK are more likely to want the government to enact such limits on free speech than older generations. However, the opposite is true in Germany and Spain, according to their poll.

Now let’s look at an other Pew Poll Global Support for Principle of Free Expression, but Opposition to Some Forms of SpeechAmericans Especially Likely to Embrace Individual Liberties. This Pew Research Center Survey was conducted in 38 nations among 40,786 respondents from April 5 to May 21, 2015. As you can see, out of the nations they polled, the United States is still more, on average, in favor of freedom of expression than other nations. According to this poll, America is 71% in favor of freedom of speech as opposed to 69% for Latin America, 65% for Europe, 50% Asia/Pacific, 46% for Africa, 43% for the Middle East, with a 56% Median. So America is 15% more in favor of freedom of speech.

However, look at the figures for “Media can report the news”. According to these polls, only 67% of Americans think the news should be allowed to report the news. (Who the fuck are the other 23% and why would they think that the news should not be allowed to report the news?) Compare this with Latin America – 71%, so Latin America is actually more in favor of a free press than the USA!

The report goes on;

Although many observers have documented a global decline in democratic rights in recent years, people around the world nonetheless embrace fundamental democratic values, including free expression. A new Pew Research Center survey finds that majorities in nearly all 38 nations polled say it is at least somewhat important to live in a country with free speech, a free press and freedom on the internet…The United States stands out for its especially strong opposition to government censorship, as do countries in Latin America and Europe – particularly Argentina, Germany, Spain and Chile. Majorities in Asia, Africa and the Middle East also tend to oppose censorship, albeit with much less intensity. Indonesians, Palestinians, Burkinabe and Vietnamese are among the least likely to say free expression is very important.

While free expression is popular around the globe, other democratic rights are even more widely embraced. In Western and non-Western nations, throughout the global North and South, majorities want freedom of religion, gender equality, and honest, competitive elections. Yet the strength of commitment to individual liberties also varies. Americans are among the strongest supporters of these freedoms. Meanwhile, Europeans are especially likely to want gender equality and competitive elections, but somewhat less likely than others to prioritize religious freedom. The right to worship freely is most popular in sub-Saharan Africa. Across all regions, people who say religion is very important in their lives are more likely to value religious freedom.

Even though broad democratic values are popular, people in different parts of the world have different ways of conceptualizing individual rights and the parameters of free expression. Publics tend to support free speech in principle, but they also want limitations on certain types of speech. While a global median of 80% believe people should be allowed to freely criticize government policies, only 35% think they should be allowed to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, or that are religiously offensive. Even fewer support allowing sexually explicit statements or calls for violent protests.

Now let’s cut through the bullshit here; if you are against freedom of speech that is offensive to some people, then you do not believe in freedom of speech. Some people are trying to redefine certain speech as being non-speech. In other words, “Hate speech is not speech!”. No. Hate speech is speech. If you disagree with this then you disagree with the definitions of the words “hate speech”, “is”, and “speech”. If you are against some speech, then you are against freedom of speech. That’s just how reality works folks. You can redefine things all you want. It’s not going to change reality. 2 + 2 = 4 no matter what you think. You can say that 2 + 2 = 5, you can believe it all you want, you can convince every human on earth and you would still be incorrect. I have news for you; make-believe does not make things real. Unlike what Disney told you, wishing upon a star does not change reality. If you think beliefs determine reality, do me a favor – go to the top of a tall building, belive you can fly and jump off. Getting back to the article;

Americans, however, are more willing than the rest of the world to tolerate these forms of speech. Large majorities in the U.S. think people should be able to say things that are offensive to minority groups or their religious beliefs. About half (52%) say this about sexually explicit statements, and more than four-in-ten (44%) think calls for violent protests should be allowed.

Note that in the USA, according to Constitutional law, calls for violence are actually not protected speech. Things like yelling, “Fire!” in crowded theater when there is no fire is illegal, as is calling for people to be hurt. In other words, you can not say, “Hey let’s go out there and lynch somebody!”

I am not going to cover everything in this report. It goes on for an other 6 and a half pages, so I will include a link to this poll and to the other poll below. It’s too bad that the Pew Research Center does not also line up the Iqs of the people polled with their answers. Of course this would be impractical because it takes a lot of work to determine a persons IQ. However, I do think such information would be fascinating because I think that if you were to line such information up you would see a correlation between low IQ and lack of belief in freedom of speech. So if you’re against freedoms, know this; intelligent people (I argue) disagree with you and stupid people (I would bet) agree with you. Now how does that feel?

If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all.” – Noam Chomsky

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” – Orwell

There is a song by the band Fishbone called, “Fight the Youth” from the early 1990s. I did not know who they were referring to back then. But at any rate, I think the lyrics are applicable to millennials;

…And every time I see the hatred that engulfs these children
It makes me wonder if the quest for peace will someday subside
I`m not afraid to wage the hopeless battles I must fight
For I could never lose, I know my cause shines in the light

Take a look around
We`re not hiding anymore
Your weapon`s cowardice
And we won`t take it anymore… Anymore
Fight the Youth
The Youth with poisoned minds
Ignite the truth
Restore sight to these blind
Fight the youth
The youth with poisoned minds
And if they suffer it`s no fault but their own

And all the feelings of a generation fed with anger
Make all the choices for a future where all nightmares come true
I choose to fight for youth, to fight for truth, to fight for justice
I choose to heal the wounds of sacrifice made by the children


Paushter, J. (2015, November 20). 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities. Pew Research Center. Retrieved March 1, 2017, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

Wike, R., & Simmons, K. (2015, November 18). Pew Research Center: Global Attitudes & Trends. Global Support for Principle of Free Expression, but Opposition to Some Forms of Speech | Pew Research Center. Retrieved March 2, 2017, from http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/18/global-support-for-principle-of-free-expression-but-opposition-to-some-forms-of-speech/

Against Free Speech – The Freedom to Fight Against Freedoms

Crybully SJW college students at the University of Oregon are concerned about encroachments upon their freedom to protest against freedom and 40% of millennials want limits on speech in the USA.

Daily Emerald – Feb. 13th, 2017
“Is Free Speech at Risk? The time and place to speak”

Pew Research Center – 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities

Paris is Burning – The Justice for Theo Riots, Feb, 2017

It is reported that in France on February 2nd, 2017, in a suburb of Paris, 4 police officers stopped a 22 year old man known only as Theo who, it seems, is a youth worker with no criminal record. Theo allegedly resisted arrest (though the video shows no resistance) and was tear gassed, insulted and beaten by the 4 officers and anally raped with a baton by one. The Washington Post reports that they insulted him with a racial slur. Riots broke out and lasted for days.


“BMI – Nachrichten – Polizeiliche Kriminalstatistik und Fallzahlen Politisch Motivierte Kriminalität 2015 vorgestellt.” BMI – Startseite des Bundesministeriums des Innern. Bundesministerium des Innern, 16 May 2015. Web. 15 Feb 2017. http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Pre….

Al Jazeera. 2017, February 11. Al Jazeera. Paris rally over alleged police rape descends into riot. Retrieved February 14, 2017, from http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/02…

Associated Press, . 2017, February 9. NY Times. French Police Arrest Another 26 in Troubled Paris Suburbs. Retrieved February 14, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017…

Associated Press. 2017, February 9. Associated Press. French police arrest another 26 in troubled Paris suburbs . Retrieved February 14, 2017, from http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f13cb5…

BBC. 2017, February 7. BBC. Frenchman describes brutal ‘police rape’. Retrieved February 14, 2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-…

Bulman, M. 2017, February 6. The Independent. French police officer charged with rape of young man . Retrieved February 14, 2017, from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wor…

Chrisafis , A. 2017, February 6. The Guardian. French police brutality in spotlight again after officer charged with rape . Retrieved February 14, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/201…

CBS News 2017, February 8. CBS News. Paris riots after black teen allegedly sodomized by police officer with baton. Retrieved February 14, 2017, from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-rio…

Holley, P. 2017, February 11. Washington Post. A black man accused French police of raping him. Police claim it was an accident. Retrieved February 14, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/w…

Russian Times. 2017, February 13. Russian Times. Reporter attacked, 2 cars burned out as anti-police protests rage on in Paris suburbs. Retrieved February 14, 2017, from https://www.rt.com/news/377146-france…