Free Watch Incitement no registration Without Sign Up Full Movie
https://onwatchly.com/video-9700.html?utm_source=unlugarfeliz.blogia Server #1 Links >>>
Ron Leshem / audience score=214 votes / Thriller / / release date=2019 / duration=2 Hour 3Min. Musikis linki ra plz. So what about the violence that has been proliferated by radical left groups such as Antifa that has been rampant in cities and college campuses for the past 6 months? We're not going to talk about that. So actually, the audience wasn't sophisticated enough. Free watch incitements.
Stream Films en FranÃ§ais
Watch Incitement Online Putlocker… Read more here. All these DEMOCRATES incite violence. They are paid by tax payers just to abuse us. It is not a bad idea to restrain certain type of hate speech.
Just saw them live in Easton Pa! They gave me the set list. DOWNLOAD. 720p] Incitement* 2020 Full Movie Watch Online Free January 29 2020 Share this post Repost 0 To be informed of the latest articles, subscribe: You might also like: citement (2020) ONLINE ~ FULL MOVIE "FREE" 2020~HD. Download. Incitement Full in English Subtitle 123movies [mp4~720p] Download. Incitement Full Movie (2020) Free Online} HD 1080P! Incitement 'FULL. MOVIE' FREE. Download. 'Online' Next post »! Incitement 'FULL. 'Online' about me Comment on this post.
What you don't know, can't hurt you
We've picked up a lot of new people so I wanted to make this post to inform people on the truly insidious nature of Communism and its history. This information is pretty much not taught at schools and universities period. Every single university nowadays teaches Critical Theory so it would be counter productive for them to actually teach the truth. A Brief History of Communism 1850 Germany: The Proletariat is borderline exploited. Old capitalism treated them like refuse, causing them to be mentally & physically destroyed to such an extent that when the German military was looking for new, healthy people they had big problems finding them. Marx seeing this as an opportunity writes the 'Manifesto of the Communist Party in which he declares the following goals (that no one seems to know) By causing a violent proletarian revolution which will kill all the capitalists he wants the: 1) Nationalisation of all means of production aka, abolishment of all competition 2) Creation of fictional property that belongs to everybody aka, the takeover of said property by those who led the revolution 3) Creation of a 'system of terror' which will make sure the communist leaders will stay in positions of power as soon as the system goes bankrupt and the people will rebel. Sidenote: so actually pretty much the same situation we have in the EU right now. The system is bankrupt and a rebellion (in form of the rise of the right) is coming. The difference is that the modern EU does not (yet) has a 'system of terror' which it could use to suppress said rebellion. The fact that for Marxism to be put in place a violent revolution was mandatory was the main difference between Marxist socialism and other socialist ideas which wanted to achieve their goals via peaceful reforms. The problem both versions have to face eventually is that socialism as a whole is a system that has to fail sooner or later. The difference is that when this happens the socialists trying to get to power via peaceful reforms will inevitably lose it compared to those who got there with violence and can simply use their 'system of terror' to keep their power any time. After three major attempts classical Marxism failed in the west for two reasons: Because of the technical revolution & the changes in the proletariats mentality which for the first time in history allowed them to escape from poverty and moral degeneracy just with hard work and discipline. What do I mean by that? The changes in their mentality were caused by the introduction of different help & educational programs which were funded by the state of Germany and the church in the 1860s. Those originally very primitive, pessimistic and frustrated people started to study and have basic moral values again which increased their outlook on their future. At the same time the technical revolution increased the demand for highly qualified workers. This was the main reason why big companies had to start to compete with each other over them. Thats what caused capitalism to slowly change since these companies had for the first time an interest in the education and wellbeing of their workers. This eventually resulted in the so called Fordism of 1910 where Ford was able to pay his workers so much that they could buy the cars they were building at the time with just saving 3 months of salaries. But in return Ford demanded a perfectly educated and behaved worker who never made any mistakes while at work or at home. This strict work-ethic caused his factories to skyrocket in production efficiency and sales. Prime example of good capitalism. The rise of the proletariat was an issue for Marx because he knew in order to start a bloody revolution he needed a frustrated, pessimistic, uneducated group of degenerated people who have as little moral values as possible and will (if necessary) kill if he wants them to. Back in the day the proletariat met these conditions perfectly because those were people who (originally) didn't know how to work and even if they did they had a deep rooted hatred towards it because their last several generations got exploited through their hard & honest work by their (old) capitalistic employers. The increasing well-being of the proletarian masses caused a major drop in the communist partys popularity in 1875 which forced many Marxists to give the idea of a revolution up and try to achieve their goals via peaceful reforms. That's how the first (pre-runner of todays Social-Dems) social democracy was created. When Marx found out about this he was furious, because for him the violent revolution was an indispensable, holy part of the party. But whatever Marx did, his idea of a violent revolution was still losing popularity. What did this mean for Marx and his followers? It meant that they were losing their army of 'degenerate' proletarians which was designed to kill all the capitalists and help the Marxists to take over the positions of power as it is clearly described in the Communist Manifesto. At the same time more and more people started to prove all the pseudo-economic statements Marx made in his manifesto wrong. Even though he tried to correct them he was hitting a new low. The classical Marxists needed help and help they got. Lenin wrote a book in 1902 for the German SPD Party in which he changed one major thing compared to classical Marxism. He summed up that 'one can't count on the proletariat because they have been corrupted by capitalism' and that 'they are too primitive to understand real communist values and real freedom. As always the progress has to be made by the elite and the revolution has to be carried out by an elite party of professional revolutionists (see similarities today: Leftist groups such as Black Lives Matter/Antifa funded by Soros) against the will of the people if necessary which later are going to be kept down by the use of propaganda and/or terror. Even though Lenin saw this revolution happening in Germany, the war and other factors ended up making this plan possible for the first time in Russia. Sidenote: Lenin and his little crew of professionals got a lot of money from Germany and America to make sure the revolution was successful. Why? Because in the early days of the 20th century Russia was becoming an increasingly powerful economic danger to these two nations and they saw the revolution as a way to stop Russias growth. It worked and Lenin paid them 130x. the amount of money he owed them back as soon as he was in power. So if you think the revolution was a movement of the people, think again. Lenin realised in Russia every single goal described in Marxs manifesto and used his 'system of terror' to allow the communists to reign over the country for the next 60 years. One example is the persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union which started as early as 1917 and ended up killing 12-20 million Christians in total. And yet somehow we only talk today about 6 million Jews? Why is this important? Because propaganda caused people to believe that Marx & Engels were good-spirited idealists that were simply misunderstood by Stalin and it ended up badly. Nope. The communist ideology talks from its earliest days in the communist manifesto about killing people to take over their positions of power and killing more people to keep it. After the revolution was successful in Russia there were 3 major attempts to make it happen in Germany/Europe. One in 1918 where the (99% Jewish) communist party wanted to use the frustrated and weakened German proletariat to overthrow the German government with violence. They failed, yet this may give some context why Hitler who knew about this and watched what the (mostly Jewish) communist party in Russia was doing to Christians (12-20mil dead) wanted to get rid of all Jews in Germany. The last attempt failed in 1923. That's when Marxists understood that they have to find another way. So remember: even though Russia was the first country to realise Marxs wet dream, Marxism is an ideology which was created in the west, evolved in the west and in the end won in the west. But how? As it became clear that the people of the west rejected the classical idea of a bloody revolution, Marxists in the west had to find another way to use them to gain power. To find answers, they founded in 1924 the first Marxist university in Frankfurt (these people eventually ended up in America because of Hitler) where they focused on 2 main questions: 1) Why did Marxism fail in the west? 2) What could be improved/changed to succeed in the west? Compared to today where every single meaningful university or institute is Marxist, one can see how much has changed in the last 90 years. In 1931 a group of new communists came to said university in Frankfurt who made significant changes to the theory of Marxism which was the beginning of the so called 'neo-Marxism. The most important people there were Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm and Theodor Adorno. Sidenote: Many years later Adorno added his interpretation of neo-Marxism as a theory to the foundation work which has been done in the 30s and 40s. For some reason until this very day, every university wastes the peoples time trying to understand neo Marxism by looking at what Adorno meant in his complicated thesis instead looking at the very clearly formulated foundation work. To make it clear: Neo-Marxism completely changed its foundation by removing all the economic-talk classical Marxism was based on because 1) almost everything Marx wrote himself about economy turned out to be wrong 2) they had nothing economic to offer for the proletariat since they started to escape poverty themselves thanks to capitalism. They needed to find another way to 'liberate' people because liberation from poverty wasn't needed anymore. This is the basic Marxist thinking: They are going to liberate everyone. Doesn't matter if they want it or not. So who can they liberate and how? Finally they found the answer as Erich Fromm introduced the neo-Marxists to a sex maniacs theory about a 'sexual revolution. The maniacs name was Wilhelm Reich who used to be Sigmund Freuds student until Freud threw him out for being too radical. Reichs thesis was that the very purpose of a human being is complete sexual liberation. He claimed that the church and traditions are the main reasons why people can't liberate themselves sexually, which eventually ends up turning them into fascists. Reichs idea was that first communists are going to overthrow capitalism so that later the liberated people will have all the time necessary to focus only on their sexuality. (Seems familiar in todays society? Liberals who never experienced hard work, yet are obsessed about their sexuality. But Erich Fromm and his neo-Marxist friends immediately saw this revolutions immense potential if one would simply reverse its steps and first liberate the peoples sexualities and as a result overthrow capitalism from within. And they were right. They carried this plan out in the sexual revolution of the 60s which resulted in the society we live in today. So what can we learn from that? That the neo-Marxists understood that capitalism can get overthrown without a violent revolution if they can destroy the work-ethic/respect of work people have within by occupying them with their sexualities. Achieving this wasn't easy; they had to de-educate people from what they've used to believe. So their main goals were: 1) Destroy families. We all know what feminism and Hollywood did (and continues to do) to destroy white, heterosexual families with faith in god. (Mind you that 99% of the feminist movement founders were communist, Jewish women) 2) Pull a kid out of its parents influence at the youngest age possible (movies & pop culture) in order to have influence on it at the crucial time when it develops it's personality and teach it to rebel against his/her parents (or any type of authority) as much as possible. And later on, teach the kid that any constraint at all equals almost slavery and is inhumane. Government constraints? Slavery. Sexual constraints? Slavery. Work related constraints? Slavery. Big Media today: You gotta be young, wild & free and have as many (sexual) experiences as possible' Remember? Anyone having any sort of self-control, discipline or moral values is by definition a slave and 'regressive' instead of progressive. 3) The next obvious target therefore was the church and its influence. One needs to understand that back then the church was the only well-organised institution that had a pretty big say in the average persons life. Either a society has a general direction/ideology according to which the people live or it doesn't. The neo-Marxists aim was to destroy any sort of guidance people got from the church until it is widely labelled as a gay-hating, paedophile infested marginal institution only blind fanatics care about. They succeeded. Why was that so important? Because when using all these tactics you create generations of lost people without any work-ethic which then won't be able to create the prosperity they crave by themselves any longer. They depend on the neo-Marxists now and will vote for them whatever may come. In other words, the genius move the Marxist here did was that they promised people all kinds of rights and freedoms but at the same time depriving them of ways to earn different goods to utilise said rights. What is a right to travel good for if you cant rent a car or pay for a bus ticket? See, a right you can't utilise is pure fiction. So what does one do when he has all kinds of rights and freedoms (and just to be clear; for the last 60 years everyone has been promising freedom to everybody) but no way to earn goods to be able to utilise them? He has to steal these goods. And thus will vote for any party/system that is ready to steal them for him. He will vote for any party that promises 'free stuff. Democrats in America, Social Democrats in Europe. And exactly this is what Marxists have been promising to people for the last 100 years. Freedom without the necessity of work. Just vote for us and you'll get it for free. A prime example for that mechanism that comes to my mind is how liberals in Austria created the right for everyone to go to universities while depriving them of ways to earn money, making sure that people couldn't afford to pay for the tuition fees. What is such a right good for if you can't pay for it? Soon enough people demanded that the tuition fees had to be dropped but the ruling conservative party (VP) at the time said that the state can't afford this. That's exactly what the Social Democrats (SP) have been waiting for. As soon as the word was out, they promised to abolish any type of tuition fees as long as you vote for them. What they didn't mention is that they had to generate incredible amounts of debt to do so. Literally anyone could have done that. But nobody cared; people got out and voted making them into the strongest party at the time. A side product they also achieved was that that every student and university became liberal. But as one might have foreseen, this type of 'free stuff' government can't continue forever: The utopian world leftist politicians have been keeping alive since the 60s by constant generation of new debt is coming to an end. Let's be honest here. The west has enjoyed prosperity which the world has never seen before simply as a result of exploitation of 3rd world countries. Almost all heavy industry from the west left to Asia, while promising us that we are something special and that machines / automation or some cheap workers imported from Mexico/middle east are going to do the dirty work for us. But fact is this system never was and never will be sustainable. We just got comfortable on the massive influx of goods from these countries and can't comprehend a reality without them. Since 1969 this utopian world is being artificially kept alive by constant generation of debt in almost all European countries. Thus every party pretending it will keep these goods coming (doesnt matter from where) will win any election because of deniers who can't handle the fact that their safe-space bubble might burst soon. Already in 1971 Germany had 3 million 'guest workers' from the middle east taking the hardest/dirtiest jobs from their hosts for half the price a German would do it, while the Germans students were out in the street demonstrating for sexual liberation. (Remember? Neo Marxists dream: no work, obsessed with sexuality) This 'counter-cultural' revolution of the 60s and 70s was the last nail in the coffin the Social Democrats needed to gain total control over Europe and to keep that safe space bubble alive until this very day. So why did Europe happily embrace these neo-Marxist ideas instead of stopping them? Because the Social Democrats which were granted power over the EU parliament in the 60s were filled with neo Marxists who were very happy with the progress they were making. As soon as they got into power they turned their focus on the next goal: the replacement of the original founding block of the European Union 'the Schuman Declaration' by the Ventotene Manifesto written by Italian communist Altiero Spinelli. They managed to do this in 1984 as one of their biggest accomplishments, yet we know so little about it even today. It might sound surreal but as a result the Europe we know today is based on communist ideas and values. The content of the Ventotene Manifesto is easy to look up but I'll break down the most important points: 1) All European countries have to give up on their sovereignty and currency (no borders, only Euro) 2) Nationalisation of all independent means of production 3) All European countries have to relinquish their own armies which will then be replaced by one collective 'EU Army' to enforce everything the EU-Central has decided in case a country will not cooperate. (Note that a nation state without armed forces is unable to enforce its sovereignty) Preferably, said EU army is comprised mostly of members of some other culture (cough Islam cough) who won't have any mental resistance shooting Europeans if they might oppose the EUs decisions. Still wondering why Merkel is so happy about immigration from foreign cultures? Does all that sound familiar? Because it is. Especially 3) is a necessary step in creating the 'System of Terror' Marx was talking about in the communist manifesto back in 1850. There is more: 1) has already been tried in 2004 but France and Holland had a referendum where the people decided 'no. Even though Merkel and the EU have been trying hard to achieve their final goals 1) 2) and 3) they weren't able to which caused them to become increasingly desperate because they don't know for how much longer they will be able to sustain this illusion we live in. We have that exact scenario Marx predicted, that the socialist system is going bankrupt now (Spain, Italy, France, Greece etc. and an increasing rebellion (rise of the right/populism) which can't be stopped. There are 2 possible endings to this story: 1) Merkel/Marxists will finalise steps 1, 2 and 3 in time and will gain a 'system of terror' which they will use to suppress any rebellion for years to come. 2) Merkel/Marxists won't finish in time and the rebellion of the right will overthrow them. Let's be honest: If the current system in Europe is to be kept alive for much longer a complete collapse is inevitable because most countries are already at their maximal capacity when it comes to spending money and creating debt. And to top it all off there is nothing to counteract that, since Europe isn't able to produce any goods itself. One more financial crisis and everything crash. This is why you can literally observe the increasing tension within the EU. Merkel is desperate. She knows an era is coming to an end so she is looking for a way out and the only thing the left has left is to promote degeneracy and hope when they go for a final push of 1, 2 and 3 there won't be much resistance left. They also know that one such resistance people have is their identity. People won't be happy about giving up their countrys sovereignty or borders as long as they can tell themselves apart from people from other countries. The solution is simple isn't it? Miscegenation (race mixing. That desperation is the reason why nowadays you will see transgenderism and other degenerate filth on television every single day, homosexual courses in kindergartens and constant talk about fake news in Europe. They are afraid and this is their only hope. Merkel now introduced a law against 'fake news. But who decides what is fake and what isn't? We can already see Facebook / Twitter / Google censoring conservative opinions and anything contrary to the mainstream narrative is brushed under the rug. Attempts at legislating ‘fake news is simply a step towards totalitarian government and by censoring dissent, it becomes much more difficult to challenge bad ideas. In the marketplace provided by freedom of speech, bad ideas are always met by good ideas and the free market usually decides with the good idea. A case in point is how almost all unmoderated or lightly moderated forums on the internet lean conservative while those with heavy moderation are left-leaning. Whilst the laws against fake news are relatively new, legislation against 'hate speech' has existed for decades in most Western countries. Hate speech is one of the most sinister concepts developed and appropriated into our culture. Hate has been stigmatised in our culture for decades to the point where merely pointing out statistics on crime etc. is a major cause for contention and is enough for them to get 'triggered. Being filled with hate is indeed a bad quality to have as it can cloud one's judgment. Today, hate has replaced real evil as the thing to demonize and resist. It sounds like a good thing at first, until you realise what doing so has enabled. By demonising hate as much as our culture does, it makes it far easier to demonise the things someone doesn't like by claiming words and actions from the opposition as hate. And it's even easier if one is rooted in the emotional whirlpool that many are stuck within where their feelings rule their world view. When your values are completely based on the feelings over reality, it's nearly automatic that anyone or anything that opposes one's feelings based values would be seen as hateful, which again is their biggest evil. The practitioners of the new political correctness are not equipped for a world in which individuals can disagree with what is deemed appropriate thought. They rely on silencing the opposition with hysterics, instead of winning with superior ideas. It gets even worse though. Because hate has been so stigmatised, where anything labelled as hate justifies any form of treatment or resistance to it. Deplorable actions are justified because it's the greatest evil, so do anything against the greatest evil even if it's something you've professed to be against. Slapping on the label of hate strips something or someone of all their normal social and civil protections and declares open season on the hate label recipient, which is why it's ok to punch a racist because they're spouting hate speech. It's ok to accost Trump supporters because Trump is hateful. Hate speech isn't real speech and therefore not protected. Most free countries freedom of speech contain a short list of what isn't protected: fighting words; inciting someone to violence) obscenity (very high standard, like child porn) libel/slander; criminal activity (extortion, fraud, etc. threats of violence (must be credible) copyrighted material. Hate speech was something the Soviets would use to control the narrative in the USSR. Especially when it came to holding it together and being able to do whatever they wanted to do while being able to put down complaint. Ironically McCarthyism was a Soviet thing as well. However for them it was used to accuse people of being a Nazi. Eastern Europe bore the brunt of the Nazis far worse than the allies on the western side did. Even the invention of the term racism was a Soviet trope. Essentially if you were one of the countries the Soviets took from rather than liberates from the Nazis if you wanted independence from the USSR or objected to things such as force migrations then you would be called a nationalist racist Nazi making hate speech. It's ironic that today what's happening in the west is more like what happened in the USSR and Russia is an ally against that. In addition, most countries in Western Europe are attempting to pass legislation cracking down on the internet and encryption. They claim it is to prevent terror attacks but exactly how many attacks has the vast US spying apparatus prevented? Exactly zero. The real aim of the creation of backdoors into encryption and software is for unrestricted mass surveillance of the populace to identify and unmask dissidents and anyone who might cause trouble for the government. It is plain to see how much of a danger this has the potential to be in the hands of a totalitarian government. Even if the government of the time is somewhat benevolent, there is no guarantee of succeeding governments to wield the vast spying apparatus with restraint. The supreme irony of Communism, which no supporter of Communism gets, is that the intellectuals and activists who agitated for Marxism in the first place are usually the first to be lined up against the wall to be shot. They imagine they'll be elevated to philosopher kings, when in fact they'll just end up in an unmarked grave. Dictators have no use for potential nonconformists, even the ones who gave them power. The issue is that government fills a power vacuum. It's why anarchy would never work, and why Libertarianism is also flawed. Remove or weaken government, and a different type of power will just move in - be it criminal, religious, or military. Someone will always try to exercise their power over you, and I'd rather it be my elected representative than someone with a gun and a bad attitude. With Communism, because its always brought about by opportunists and thugs (as the working classes never actually vote for it) the government becomes ruled that way, and becomes just another criminal enterprise. Now they have power, the first thing they want to do is make sure nobody removes them like they did the last lot, so they round up all the agitators and have them shot. Including ones on their 'side' as their ideals and organisation skills could easily turn against them one day. Marxism is like a spiritual infection, there's just nothing good about it even if you're one of the useful idiots who believe in it. Marx viewed traditions and civilization as the 'infection' of humanity. His ideas could be considered chemo-therapy, if they wipe out traditions, cool. If they kill the civilization, meh, it was going to die of traditions anyway. Most people attack Communism like it is just a set of opposing social/economic beliefs, it's not. There is nothing creative about Marxism. It was designed by Marx to be destructive. Its purpose is to destroy. It wasn't promulgated to create society but to tear it down. That's why there isn't a single functioning communist society on this earth. Seizing the means of production includes labour aka the individual person is required to do whatever job the state deems the person is fit for. Failure to comply will result in the person being deported to gulag or shot. This fact of Communist states is often neglected to be stated. These Antifa / Black Lives Matter fantasists are no different than the useful idiots from the West who flock to Syria to join ISIS, and just end up as cannon fodder on the front lines while the actual leaders are busy hiding billions of stolen oil money in personal Swiss bank accounts. Fascism almost exclusively goes with socialism. It's a system it was designed for. Group collectivity, that sort of thing. However, socialism was never designed to be used permanently. It was meant to be a transitionary state between capitalism and communism. To add some perspective, imagine that some communists were to take over the US government today and get directly into communism. You'd notice, wouldn't you? This is why communists follow a pattern: 1) Find a nation that hates its government to a very high degree, be it due to a war (Russia, 1917) or an economic depression (Germany, Italy, Spain, and other European powers during the 1930s. 2) Tell the people about a supposedly wonderful new system that makes sure everyone is paid enough and that all are equal in every aspect (socialism. Note that this doesn't need to be true, nor will it be true. In truth, all will live in poverty as you soak up their money, but during a slow transition wherein they forget. Speaking of which- 3) Make them forget. Heavy use of propaganda, and even purges of dissidents. 4) Slowly replace the old ways by enlarging it, until it becomes communism. At this point, few will remember the old ways, and all must have great fear of the government. That is how communism begins. It is worth noting that, yes; communism works better than socialism because at least communism was intended to work. However, that's like comparing a paper umbrella to a cardboard one, as neither will work permanently, only longer. Eventually, communism fails in the same way a lobster dies. For those who don't know, lobsters are biologically immortal; they do not age and never stop growing. However, lobsters eventually die when they become so large that the strain of moulting their old shell is too much and kills them with the strain. Communism is the same as the lobster. It never stops growing, and essentially can't stop growing, until the moment that the strain of controlling the economy becomes so great that the state cannot handle it and it collapses. How long does this take? 80 year at the max. The Soviet Union lasted the longest, and was also the first implementation of communism. Even the lobster lives longer than communism, some living for over a hundred years before finally dying. The oldest one found was alive during the American Civil War, for context. Communism has no place in the world. It is a system based on both fear and reverence. In it, the state chooses who is taken from and who is given to, who gets to think what, who lives and who dies. Communism is an attempt to play God. An attempt to place in the hands of foolish and short-sighted mortal beings a power that could only work in the hands of an omnipresent, all-knowing being. It is an attempt that makes men rewrite the codes of morality to fit their needs rather than what is truly right, making the law into sin and virtue, the only sin being to go against the state of stand in its way. That is why communism fails, because no man can ever handle even a fraction of the power of God, simply because they lack the knowledge and reasoning of God. They don't even have the knowledge and reasoning of most other mortals, for it they did, they wouldn't attempt to institute that system at all. If Marx did, he never would have written the Communist Manifesto, and would have dismissed it as a bad idea doomed to fail, as all people of normal or higher intelligence should be able to do. No society ever thrived because it had a large and growing class of parasites living off those who produce. I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money - Thomas Sowell.
Free watch incitement definition. October 10th, 2019 Flagstaff, Arizona with Prong & Hatebreed. 🤟😎. A well done comparison! Thank you. Free watch incitement to violence. Free watch incitement test.
Incitement watch online free. How original a government demonising a people they are against.
This film is a re-creation of the life of Yigal Amir, the assassin of Yitzhak Rabin, from the time of the announcement of the 1st Oslo peace accord, to the actual deed. While Yigal was already a nationalist (he starts by being arrested at an anti-Oslo rally) various forces encouraged or abetted him towards assassination.
There is his mother, encouraging him to greatness, as per his name. There are rabbis who proclaim that Jewish law should supercede secular law, and also that Rabin is a "Persuer" and an "Informer" permitting him to be killed. There is a Likud / Bibi rally, where calls to kill Rabin go unchecked. There are girlfriends / potential brides, who just distance themselves from him but not report his thoughts to authorities. About the only person who comes off well is his father, who said that, if Rabin should be struck down, it should be by the hand of God and not of man.
I was at the world premiere (see: trivia) where the director said the film project was started 5 years ago, and it is just coincidental that it is coming out as populists hold hate-filled rallies.
Did anyone notice that at the end it says 'find your path' like Dolores used to say in season 1 'there's a path for everyone' 🤔. Sports news first Henrikh "permanently injured" Mkhitaryan received a new injury during the match against Torino. He'll miss the game against Juventus. Long-time Armenian soccer team goalie Roman Berezovsky, now "retired" will become the Pyunik FC coach. maternity clinic in Maralik A group of Maralik residents is protesting the closure of a local maternity (birthplace) clinic. The 12 employees lost their job beginning in 2020, after being notified last year. They shut down the Yerevan-Gyumri road. "If you pay fewer bonuses to your Ministers, we'll have enough funding for the clinic" complained some employees. Protesters blamed incorrect information passed by the clinic to the Healthcare Ministry, which resulted in incorrect calculations and a decision to shut down the clinic, according to protesters. They want the Healthcare Minister and Pashinyan to revert the decision. Why was it shut down? Govt made a decision in July 2018 to only fund maternity clinics with annual births of >150 in order to keep the system financially sustainable, and to reduce child deaths and complications, because the practice shows that in smaller clinics with fewer births, the staff loses experience, which results in health issues for the newborn. This was combined with the fact that Maralik lacked some maternity doctors. Maralik had 105 births in 2019, significantly less than previously. Its maternity clinic does not have a child surgeon-gynecologist, emergency anesthesia administer, neonatologist. Healthcare Ministry recommended calling 911 which will take the pregnant woman to the nearest certified facility. The practice is done in numerous other settlements. For Maralik residents, it means they'll be taken to Artik settlement 5 miles away. This was already done by some pregnant women who voluntarily decided to visit nearby Artik or Gyumri out of safety precautions. Neighborhood News A group of Armenian servicemen have completed their peacekeeping task in Lebanon and have returned home. It is unclear whether they smuggled some real lahmajo with them, not like the bootlegs you buy from corner budkas in Yerevan. US, Iran, and Armenia The US earlier killed a top Iranian general Soleimani, Iran's foreign policy "mastermind" who was accused of arming terrorism in the Middle East, attacks on US-allied nations' oil sector, and the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers. Iran retaliated by firing 22 missiles on Iraqi military bases housing American troops. Iran claims these bases were used to launch the drone strike that killed Soleimani. The Iranian missiles fell away from the American quarters (bases are quite large) causing "insignificant damage" to American side. At least 4 missiles failed, and 1 fell near an airport in Kurdistan capital Erbil. Pentagon believes Iran intentionally avoided hitting Americans to avoid a further escalation. This speculation was bolstered by official Iran's message urging de-escalation after the strikes. The US will respond with more economic sanctions against Iran, indicating that there won't be a further military escalation. Iraq announced their soldiers were also unharmed. Fake news was circulated in the initial hours, claiming dozens of deaths. Footage of missile fires from Ukrainian and Syrian wars was circulated claiming to be Iranian. Fake news was circulated claiming US Selective Service was drafting men. Several electronic scam campaigns were launched taking advantage of the situation. One of the military bases targeted by Iran was in Kurdistan. Kurdish leaders urged both sides to de-escalate and not to hinder the work by US-led anti-ISIS coalition in the region. PM Pashinyan urged the US and Iran to solve the problem through dialogue, saying Armenia will remain neutral in this conflict. Armenian MFA says the Armenia embassy in Baghdad is not affected. In other news, a Ukrainian Boeing fell in Tehran, Iran after an engine failure. Hundreds have died. Armenia MFA says they have no record of Armenian casualties. The same jet flew between Yerevan-Kyiv the day before it crashed. Update on Facebook news A Kocharyan activist earlier wrote a fake Facebook article claiming Pashinyan congratulated Donald Trump with the killing of Iranian general Soleimani, and that Iran officially criticized Armenia and agreed to help Azerbaijan in the Karabakh war to restore its rule. The article was picked up by Iran-based outlets. It resulted in anti-Armenian sentiments. NSS arrested the fake Facebook user who is a man using the name Diana Harutyunyan (transgender Soros supporter maybe. He is accused of acting maliciously. He is charged with: Breaking Law 226. 2. 1 - incitement of ethnic hatred through the means of using mass communication tools. Punishable between 200k fine to 6yr prison. And more interestingly, Breaking law 254. 1 - illegal intrusion into a computer system or creating "hacking" tools. Punishable between 300k fine to 2yr prison. No other details are known. The suspect earlier confessed to spreading the "satire" news out of hatred towards Pashinyan because of the arrest of Kocharyan. He apologized for his actions. Kremilin's chief international propagandist and Russia Today TV president Margarita Simonyan "indirectly but directly" criticized the arrest of the Kocharyan activist, saying "I love these revolutions" referring to the 2018 Revolution in Armenia. As a side note, it is against Russian law to use a faul language against Vladimir Putin or the members of his regime. Several Russian citizens have been issued hefty fines for cussing grandpa Vlad. Update on HHK's medals shenanigans In June 2019, a Parliament whistleblower informed the authorities about HHK administration members' 2015-2017 scheme to embezzle funds during the purchase of hundreds of silver medals that the govt gives to various people to honor them. Cheaper medals were purchased, embezzling the remainder money. A felony case was launched. Authorities charged 2 officials. A court granted permission to arrest them for 2 months. A court then agreed to free them under bail. Prosecutors are currently trying to appeal this decision in Cassations Court, to send them back to jail. Authorities say evidence of other corruption incidents were uncovered during this investigation. other courts & trials Kocharyan earlier lost another bid to be freed on bail. He Appealed and lost again. He now takes the case to Cassations Court for a final verdict. Kocharyan's media guy and 5TV owner Tavadyan was earlier arrested for allegedly being part of the scheme in which a Kocharyan supporter was seen on an undercover video offering bribe to a March 1st, 2008 victim to have the latter withdraw the claims of sustaining damage. The activist claimed they was going to be a revolution to overthrow Pashinyan, after which the victim would receive a good "position. Tavadyan lawyers filed a petition to Prosecutors asking him to be freed. It was rejected. New Year stuff 95 people got hurt from fireworks and firecrackers over the holiday celebrations. 94% male, 6% female (no trans, why Nikol 😔) 30% kids, 12% adolescents, 58% adults 78% had a hand injury, 19% on the head, 2% on foot, 1% went full retard Steve O and got shot in the ass. A hospital employee says the incidents have reduced this year, perhaps because of widespread public announcements and discussions about its dangers, after a kid lost his fingers a few weeks ago. Holiday hospitalizations with: intestinal infections down 2x acute respiratory infection down 3. 6x flu down 1. 7x alcohol poisoning up 1. 2x CO2 poisoning the same Watch how bootleg Santas struggle to "infiltrate" St. Gregory Illuminator hospital to give gifts to patient (pun intended) kids. 15:34 A painter from Gyumri created Christmas-themed toys. I know some of you like arts. PICS: Provincial News Armavir city projected budget will be 1. 2bln in 2020. It was 1bln in 2019. Vayots Dzor's provincial budget revenue collection rose 7. 6% YoY. Vanadzor is going to have bicycle lanes in renovated parks, as part of the regional infrastructure development package. Tourism improvement steps will be taken in 2020. disabled citizens Labor Ministry will hire people with the Sign Language knowledge to provide better assistance to those with hearing disabilities. Old City Construction work was done on a public square in 2003. Workers discovered an underground "old city" that was built in the 17th century. They then closed it with a concrete and asphalt. Education Minister Arayik Harutyunyan says they're discussing with experts to possibly restore the old city soon. (Education Ministry now includes the Culture Ministry and Sports Ministry) If approved, Republic Square could have a new tourist attraction at the expense of the free area. PHOTO: Tax waiver for more diasporans QP and govt are working on a tax reform bill to allow more diasporan Armenians, who want to move to Armenia, to pay 0% import taxes for importing personal items such as a car, furniture, electronics, clothing, etc. Currently: If you're an Armenian citizen permanently living abroad, you must pay taxes on the border while moving to Armenia. If you're NOT an Armenian citizen, and your name is not on a local residential registration list, and you haven't lived in Armenia for 5 years, you will get a tax waiver. Proposed: Regardless of whether you're an Armenian citizen, or whether your name is on a residential list or not, you will get a tax waiver if you resided effectively no more than half of the past 3 years in Armenia. Co-author QP MP Sisak Gabrielyan says this border tax waiver is against the EAEU trade bloc rules, but they'll be (Armenian side) making amendments to make this possible. This would help those of you who left Armenia and haven't renounced your citizenship or haven't contacted your local district agency to remove your name from a database which indicates you're a local resident. Those of you who earlier applied for a tax waiver and got denied will be able to apply again to get approved. Disclaimer: All the accused are innocent until proven guilty in the court of law, even if they may sound as being guilty. Currency in Armenian Drams unless specified otherwise. Older posts can be found at: PART 1; PART 2; PART 3; PART 4, credits to Idontknowmuch.
This post is not about questioning transgenderism. We know that intersex people exist and for the purposes of the post here, we understand that some people consider themselves to be transgender and wish to transition. And FOR YEARS the transgender community has insisted that people have "dysphoria" and the TREATMENT for it is transition. But things are changing now, and maybe you aren't even aware of the changes. This post is to inform you and to prepare you as we go into a future where gender and politics are de facto intertwined. Recently Joe Biden said that transgender rights are the big civil rights struggle of our time. Warren said that she will vet her Education Secretary by having a transgender youth speak to them and approve them. The issue of transitioning children has been in the news and recently: A pedophile was released from prison because since "he" transitioned to "she" the judge argues that she is no longer a threat. Which, on its actually OFFEND the transgender community because they insist that pedophilia has no place in their community and that pedophilia is not an orientation or an attribute of the LGBTQ+ community. So no matter WHAT gender that offender is, they should NOT be released from prison simply because they are "transitioning. It's not a "get out of jail free" card. How did we get here? I think that there are three important events that brought the issue of transgender politics into the public consciousness. If you are like me, you probably stood in line at the grocery store and saw the headlines on the National Enquirer saying things like, Revealed: Bruce Jenner wants to be a woman. And you rolled your eyes and thought, Come 's really a stretch. And then it happened. Bruce transitioned to Caitlyn and the world was in love with it. In fact, she was now MORE of a woman than other women. Woman of the year! And none of us really have a problem with Jenner. Seemed kind of like the sanest one on "Keeping up with the Kardashians" in fact. Then, there was a reality show, I am Cait. It didn't last long, but I watched cause it contained things that were very educational about the transgender community and it contained things that were TELLING about the people at the top of the movement. See, they hooked Caitlyn up with transgender activists and authors and sent her roaming around with them. The series didn't last long and in one of the final episodes, I think I saw something that told me why. See, Jenner's a patriot. A capitalist. Loves the Constitution and America and had voted Republican. The transgender activists on the show absolutely couldn't handle that. They were phlegm-spittling at Caitlyn because her gender transition wasn't necessarily a political one. Her transition from male to female didn't transition her into a leftist, America-hating shrew and it caused REAL conflict. This told me that the "acceptance and tolerance" that the community constantly talks about DOES NOT include tolerating conservatives. 2) Obama's Title IX. Suddenly there's a MtF transgender teen with a penis in the locker room after PE with your teenage girl. This caused problems. because when did we even have a national discussion about doing this? We didn't. More on THIS later. Transgender students were offered the opportunity to have their own bathrooms or changing areas, but this compromise was rejected as "separate but equal" and as such, NOT acceptable! So the modesty and privacy of SOME students was cast aside in order to accommodate trans kids. And it has resulted in some uncomfortable situations. But. your modesty, bigot. In conversing with activists about this situation, I have often seen them resort to, Americans are so uptight about nudity anyway. What's the big deal. It's just a naked over it. That's not an acceptable argument. People have a right to their modesty and privacy especially in situations like locker rooms after PE where they are required to shower and change. 3) The North Carolina Bathroom Bill. Oh, how they howled. "We're gonna boycott the state! They are just trying to be mean to transgender people for no reason. Well, what the media didn't tell you was that the bathroom bill was a RESPONSE to an intolerable situation. The city of Charlotte, NC passed an ordinance. This ordinance said that ANYONE based on "gender expression" was allowed to use whatever private area they wanted. This applied not only to public services but to private businesses. The ordinance initially said that it would NOT apply to places like "the locker room at the Y" that were obviously spaces where gender segregation was necessary to respect privacy, but that language was struck from the bill. This meant that if you operated "Salon Spa King. would have to allow a male presenting as male to use the women's locker room where you have showers, whirlpools and a sauna and changing area for women. Obviously, there was outrage. Those are the three things that IMO, really brought "transgender politics" to the fore. But now it's important to note that we are being prevented from talking about this. The community claims to want a too many in the community actually employ tactics to STOP any discussion and disagreement with their agenda. Here's how they do it: So you see the Charlotte ordinance and you say, I believe that this is foolhardy and it endangers people's privacy because bad actors will take advantage of it in order to creep on women and girls and maybe even men in states of undress. That's a reasonable statement, right? Well, it will be met with cries of: You are calling transgender people perverts and that's very offensive, bigot. But you did no such thing. You said that bad actors will take advantage of it. And we know that they will. The transgender community may deny it, but I have an internet full of indications that perverts look for opportunities to get their jollies and when you say that anyone can walk into the locker room at the Y before girls' swim class, perverts are going to do just that. We all know it. We aren't saying, Trans people are perverts. are saying, There is zero reason to change the rules and allow something like that to happen. I know that you want " your rights " but if your "rights" remove the rights of others, you are doing something wrong. Others do not lose their right to privacy simply because you think allowing people to have gender-segregated places where they disrobe is an antiquated idea that interferes with your rights as a "gender fluid" person. Have some common sense and realize that what you "want" is something that comes with too much potential for abuse and so it's a bad idea and stop screaming, BIGOT. 2) The lexicon: Policing free speech. It seems to me that in the transgender community the acceptable language is constantly evolving and being developed. The average person has no idea how folks in the transgender community speak with each other. You don't know what a TERF is. You don't know what a "truscum" is. You don't pepper your conversation with AMAB and AFAB. You just try to speak. You shouldn't be required to master a dictionary of trans-acceptable terms in order to try to convey your thoughts. But it's remarkably easy to try to seek conversation with someone in the trans community and unintentionally offend them so much that they are ready to picket your business, call your employer and do a write up on you in "Frock Magazine. So. they claim to want a the moment you seek one and you are discussing a point and you innocently say, So if a woman who was born a man decides. You will be met with, STOP right there and have a seat BIGOT! He wasn't born a was ALWAYS a woman. if you cannot speak without being so horribly offensive then just be quiet and listen to. blah blah blah blah blah. So, your right to speak has been removed and the other party has taken offense. You have been SILENCED and told to assimilate or else. Ergo, you can't even attempt to understand because you don't know the "translanguage" and you have unintentionally committed a the cardinal sin of saying something that someone took offense to, even if you did not intend to offend. 3) And this is the BIG ONE) Emotional blackmail and emotional manipulation. The suicide rate in the trans community is high. It's remarkably high and apparently gender dysphoria is comorbid with other mental illnesses. No one wants anyone to die. No one wants anyone to kill themselves. Disagreeing with the trans community regarding desires and political goals they have is NOT incitement to suicide. I have personally had this argument presented to me for simply saying some of the things I said prior in this post that: What you are doing is harmful because when you disagree with us like this, we are killing ourselves. You are contributing to the high rates of suicide in the trans community. No. Just no. That's emotional blackmail. That's no different from a man who beats his wife and then says, Baby you can't leave me. if you leave me, I'll kill myself. We have the right to disagree with things without being accused of inciting people to suicide. Further, the trans community really hates TERFS. A TERF is a "trans exclusionary radical feminist. The operative thing to remember is that they are "radical feminists. They are mostly lesbians, but they have a very low regard for men in general. You might even say that they hate men. They refuse to recognize male to female transgender folks as women. And some of these MtF transgender people describe themselves as gay. And maybe they do not wish to have "bottom surgery" and remove their penises. So they demand that women must accept them as women with penises and lesbian women should be okay having SEX with them because they are women, even though they have penises. And some lesbians say no. In fact, some straight people say no, too. But the transgender community has started to say that even if the person doesn't fully transition, they are the gender that they say they are and even if you are a straight woman who isn't interested in having sex with someone with a vagina, you are being a bigot if you do not give the transgender man with a vagina your attention. That's right. For a long time, homosexual people have said that their sexuality is immutable and innate and they are NOT attracted to the opposite here comes the transgender community to insist that everyone has to potentially accept having sex with anyone at all if that person identifies as the appropriate gender even if the genitals do not match. And any woman at all who questions all of this gets the "TERF" label these days. It's becoming like "Nazi. It's tossed out so casually. And you know how people think it's acceptable to "punch a Nazi" Well. And here's a clue MtF transgender folks. When you are talking about wanting to BEAT women for not agreeing with you, those women are going to simply wonder if you aren't just an abusive male who is looking for an excuse to target them. This takes us back to the trans pedo who was just released from prison. Transitioning isn't something that absolves you of all of the bad shit you may have done in your life. I get it that your old name is your "dead name. transitioning is NOT a "get out of jail free" card. If you have failed marriages or were an abuser, if you were a drug addict, if you were a doesn't get wiped clear just because you changed your gender. If you were a terrible person before you transitioned, own up to it and change. Changing ONLY your gender doesn't magically make you "good. The future: So now, knowing all of do you go forward? speak up. Refuse to be cowed when someone tries to employ techniques to silence you. YOUR rights are as important as anyone else's. You have the right to speak and you need to confront any bully trying employ the tactics I mentioned in order to remove your right to your opinion. Fight back against censorship. The trans community seems almost obsessed with censoring or "de-platforming" anyone who objects to any goal of their community. REFUSE to be silenced. There HAS to be a free and open debate before policies are enacted. Don't let them stop the debate from happening, or you end up like business owners with an insistent lumberjack in front of them who are befuddled. "What do you MEAN I'm legally required to let you in the women's locker room because you feel like a woman today. Be kind. It costs you nothing. There's no sense being mean to anyone. Remember. there ARE many trans people who are not activists at all. There are trans people who are conservative. They aren't that loud, but they are out there. Many of them are concerned and upset with some of the things their "community" tries to force on their behalf. And finally, you MUST know that there's a debate in the trans community right now that bodes ill for the future. You know how we've been told for so long that trans folks have dysphoria and the treatment is transition? There are now people in the trans community that HATE the idea. They refer to people who believe that as "truscum. And the "truscum" are now pitted against the "tucutes. I know. I know. I told you that they have their own dictionary. In short, everything they have said prior is now under the bus. If you don't have gender dysphoria, now. you can still be "trans. Obviously. that flies in the face of what the medical community has said previously. but when the TRANS COMMUNITY is writing all the rules, this is what you get. A complete erasure, almost, of gender in general. "If you feel like 's what you are. So now you know. You are now armed with some information and, I hope, better able to understand and to try to engage with issues going forward. Knowledge is power.
შეგეცით ვისაც გიხარიათ ეს. ספויילר לסרט ימים נוראים רבין מת. Making style awesome. Adams Fam. This movie seems really promising and I really wanna see it. I saw few georgian dances on YT and it just made me wow. Ballet on another level. I also heard about those protests from homophobes and all I wanna say to this that it haven't changed my thought abouy Georgia nor people living there. It's just a group of dumb people who can't keep their problems to themselves. I still want to someday go to Georgia and see its beauty that I saw in this trailer and, maybe soon, movie. Love from Poland.
The holy land so they say? Occupied by demons. If you look up the assistant in the YouTube search bar, you'll see this trailer next to the original. In the thumbnail, they literally put makeup on her and brightened up her outfit. What the hell, guys. @SamuelJoaodaSuica ended. Islamaphobia will end, too. And you will look like a fool to your children, when they are perfectly fine with Muslims and you are so hateful. Martin Indyk sounds like an Australian. They could have made the edible house the most standing out building in that world but it's the same depressing shade as the rest of the movie 🎦. Really well done. The story is compelling and the acting is seamless and fantastic especially the lead actor. I was also impressed by the editing. They used real footage of real events and combined them into the new footage is a seamless and a very skilled fashion, impressive.
Maxine Waters is Hitler along with Nancy pelosi, Chuck schumer George Soros the clintons and Obama's bushes hell the list keeps going on. (2019) Midsommar 9. 5/10 This movie isnt for everyone and I dont mean that in a pretentious way. I do think almost anyone can understand the plot, the subtext and motifs strewn throughout. However, the way its presented, isnt always traditionally palatable. Astor is just such a student and fan of film that you can see this kaleidoscope of homages and influences throughout this movie, all while making it feel like his own project. Florence Pugh really surprised me. She had huge shoes to fill and my favorite aspects of the film were brought to light through her performance. Her character arc is the entire movie and I really felt like I related to her character, while being terrified by how much I also didnt relate to her, if that makes any sense. This is just a movie you need to see for yourself. (2019) Us 9/10 Im thankful that I can say, put simply, this film lived up to the hype. I was slightly concerned that it was going to be Peeles attempt at a home invasion horror movie but the script is spectacularly original and I can say with all honesty, its very unpredictable. I love how its once again, like his previous film, set in an idyllic location. It opens with tons of effective humor, coupled with the cheery atmosphere; its inviting nature just makes the tonal switch hit that much harder. (2019) Little Monsters 8/10 Lupita is absolutely exceptional. She blew me away in Us and she blew me away here. Her performance, character and delivery are so exceptionally genuine here. Really everyone is fantastic. Josh Gad and Alexander England are hilarious and deliver some really witty dialogue. It's just a surprisingly sweet and funny zombie movie. I loved it. (2019) Furie 7/10 (2019) Godzilla: King of the Monsters 7/10 (2019) Glass 8. 5/10 M. Nights superhero universe is so special to me simply because its different. He took the task of creating and growing these characters in a realistic space, which wasnt guaranteed to work. Its pretty much universally agreed that Unbreakable is a fantastic film and Split while respected, was divisive. Now with Glass, everything has only become even more divisive as this universe is fully established. I respected this film so much for not hiding behind itself, the entire plot puts all three characters in the forefront and shines light on all their strengths and weaknesses. Its clear James McAvoy is the star though. His performance is absolutely incredible. (2019) Ma 7/10 (2019) Crawl 7. 5/10 (2019) I Am Mother 8/10 I Am Mother is an incredible sci-fi horror film that while borrowing from previous successes, manages to add a whole new human element that makes it unique. I thought Clara Rugaard did a great job. My initial thoughts were that the role didnt require much but the subtleness of her role arguably required a greater effort than a traditional dramatic role. (2018) Dragged Across Concrete 8/10 S. Craig Zahler is unlike any other filmmaker out there. His style is akin to an NFL ref who really doesnt care to step-in too much to call penalties. His films are lengthy because he really just likes, natural, raw, uncut scenes and that aspect is pleasantly subversive to traditional filmmaking. It comes with some potential pitfalls like actual missed editing (more so complete omission) opportunities of certain scenes and overall this project can seem too long. Despite the length though, it kept me engaged the entire time and has such a unique, albeit potentially racist perspective. (2018) Lords of Chaos 8. 5/10 I've been a black metal fan forever and this is a biography-ish (who knows what actually went down exactly) film about the band Mayhem. Man, some scenes are so brutal and dark bur most importantly, I loved how it portrayed most of these dudes as neo-nazi incels. I still fucking love Burzum and Mayhem but I'm glad they got this one right. Rory Culkin is pretty fantastic in his role and I feel like the horror community should be interested in this. (2018) Incident in a Ghostland 9/10 Im so grateful for a psychological horror film of this magnitude and frankly, the best twist since the M. Night-era. Im filled with questions but ultimately I thought it was one of the smartest films of the year. I found the sound design to really play into the gut-wrenching meat of this project and its something I could discuss for days. The cinematography is also fantastic, violence is fast and impactful. (2018) Climax 8/10 The dancing in this film almost feels like its intertwined with every aspect of both the story and the production. Its almost hypnotizing at times and evolves eventually into a brutally intense sequence of dizzying follow-cam style shots as you watch these incredible performers contorting their bodies. It all eventually sort of decays as characters separate and reality from the drugged-up trip seems to blur. Actual horrible things are happening in real life but because these characters are consumed by delusion. I think people need to watch this and just sit with it for a bit before forming an opinion; I definitely needed to. (2018) The House That Jack Built 9. 5/10 In my mind, this is Lars Von Triers masterpiece and Matt Dillons best performance to date. Its hands down the most fun, engaging, darkly humorous, disturbing, bleak and creative film Ive seen in a long time. (2018) Braid 8/10 Braid is a fantastic film and one that I cant jump to compare to anything else. Its such a fresh new take on the psychological horror genre. I loved how I actually didnt understand what was going on in the beginning but was so enamored with the visuals that my attention didnt waver. The film really excels in storytelling and all three actresses did a great job at selling their roles. Its one of those great mystery projects thats hard to talk about because you so badly need to go in blind. (2018) Venom 7/10 (2018) Head Count 7. 5/10 (2018) The Witch in the Window 8. 5/10 First off, this film has the funniest fucking spotlight negative review on iMDB about a festering rotten cup of piss and I love that. Unfortunately, or fortunately rather, I wholeheartedly disagree. It was one the most emotionally impactful movies Ive seen in months. The cinematography is so clean and correlates with the tight knit story itself. Nothing is hidden; the dialogue and visuals are very much the focus. It blends scary with intriguing in a way thats truly unpredictable. (2018) The Strangers: Prey at Night 7/10 (2018) Suspiria 9/10 Its definitely a lengthy film but the narrative is fantastic. The visuals are muted in stark juxtaposition to the original but theyre so fucking raw and twisted that it works. Theres also several performances to note, Tilda Swinton, Mia Goth and our lead of course, Dakota Johnson. I dont think theres any competing with Goblins original soundtrack for Argentos film but Thom Yorke did a good job. It took a re-watch to fully appreciate his work but I like that its different and very melancholy. (2018) The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then The Bigfoot 7. 5/10 (2018) Bird Box 8/10 The creature design in this film is so incredibly unique and almost intangible at points. Its not without its minor flaws, such as some shoe-horned characters and flirtations with over-used tropes but they dont seem to detract from the big picture. (2018) Hold the Dark 8/10 Jeremy Saulnier is an incredible director, usually putting forth visceral experiences that both speak for themselves and hit the viewer hardest from a visually artistic standpoint. Hold the Dark is completely different. It contains the same expert level cinematography, sound design and photography but where it differs is its story driven aspects. The tale of this film so-to-speak, is fucking insane. (2018) Halloween 8/10 I absolutely loved this movie, if not simply for the fact that it balanced that difficulty of paying homage to the original series, while using modern techniques to elevate it. Its extremely well-produced but still forces itself to break away from the obscured angles and macro shots to give us these raw, long follow-cam sequences. (2017) The Crescent 7/10 (2017) Cold Skin 7/10 (2017) Jungle 8/10 For a religious-themed film about survival and hope, McLean did decide to pull from his horror-film roots for the most intense, seemingly hopeless portions of the film. The ominous music, tense visuals and crushing psychological twist is for me, what sets it apart from many other films of the same vein. (2017) Pyewacket 8. 5/10 I fucking love occult horror and this film was downright scary. Thats truly one of the greatest accomplishments because I dont usually get scared watching horror films anymore. Its somewhat of a slow burn but in a way that really creeped me out. (2017) A Ghost Story 9. 5/10 Its really difficult to put into words why I loved this movie so much because it was less about the mechanics and more about that way it made me feel. I never thought I would come close to crying watching Rooney Mara eat pie for what seemed like a half hour but here we are. Its an arthouse film. They fuck with the aspect ratio. They fuck with every shot, oftentimes by not fucking with it at all. It was touching to me; sweet at times, dark, lonely and ultimately hard hitting. (2017) The Bar 7. 5/10 (2017) Tigers Are Not Afraid 9/10 It didnt even really register to me that even films that portray the Cartel in the most violent way, still tend to be glorifying the culture. This film weighs the innocence of childhood directly against the gangs ruthless nature to deliver a seriously moving project. I absolutely loved the art direction and cinematography. Theres a certain simplicity to it all which seems to oscillate between endearing, depressing and terrifying. The child actors are also remarkable, Im not sure how these directors manage to even find them. The story is really tight-knit as well, which makes the pacing almost impeccable. Scene after scene, the film just gets more “real” while also losing itself in fantasy. Its just wonderful. (2016) Sam Was Here 9/10 Never in my 4 years of reviewing on here have as so firmly disagreed with an iMBD score but this movie is fucking fantastic. It's evil, it's mysterious, well shot, well acted and one of the most suspenseful films I've seen this year. I was absolutely rocked by the ending and I have nothing left to say. The mystery is the most fun part so just go watch it and pay attention to detail. (2016) Are We Not Cats 8/10 This is a film that, at least for me, beckoned some further understanding or hidden meaning. Now that I sit with it though, I've very satisfied with the experience. It felt desolate yet intimate, gross, strange and helpless. I feel like it's a fantastic project about acceptance, hardship and empathy. It seems like it was comprised with all amateur actors and filmmakers but I'm impressed with every aspect of the film. (2015) Southbound 7/10 (2015) Baskin 8/10 The first 40 minutes are a horror-filled dreamlike sequence of dialogue only. Given the explicit nature this film eventually gets into, the fact that its my favorite portion of the film says so much about the quality of this script. (2015) Remember 9. 5/10 This is an absolutely enthralling and heartbreaking revenge film. Its the type of movie where I dont want to mention a single detail about the story because the story is the entire film. The acting and script are top notch; cinematography clean and focused. Its one of the most immersive experiences Ive seen this year and something that felt hard to even pause. (2014) Tusk 7/10 (2014) Dead Snow 2: Red vs. Dead 7/10 (2014) The One I Love 7. 5/10 (2014) Life After Beth 7/10 (2014) Honeymoon 8/10 There is definitely overt horror as the film climaxes but its a very performance driven film. Rose Leslie is to thank for that that, her character is genuine and believable throughout. Harry Treadaway deserves a mention too because hes great as well. Its really the contrasting highs and lows of their on-screen relationship that build tension and create this anxious atmosphere. (2014) Creep 7/10 (2014) As Above So Below 7/10 (2014) Girl House 7/10 (2013) I Spit on Your Grave 2 7/10 (2013) Horns 8. 5/10 This film has so many different faces and its an absolute grab-bag of emotions depending on what scene you to choose to examine. The reason that mix isnt to its detriment though is because that constant tonal shift if present throughout the entire fucking film. I love religious based horror like this and this sort of filled me with that wide-eyed fascination that Erremenatri gave me. (2013) V/H/S 2 7. 5/10 (2013) Coherence 8/10 I absolutely love this movie. Ill be upfront in saying its difficult to talk about without spoiling anything. However, I genuinely found the events that transpire during this normal dinner party setting to be unsettling. (2013) Bad Milo 8/10 This movie is so fucking funny. As a person with anxiety and acid reflux, it was just wonderful. Ken Marino was absolutely hilarious and its one of the most ridiculous films of the decade. (2013) Afflicted 8/10 The found footage genre isnt new but a version dominated by POV shots, such as this one, is less common. In this instance, it works incredibly well. Considering Im writing this in 2019, its a damn shame directors Derek Lee and Clif Prowse havent released another film. Theyre such standout filmmakers, writers and even solid actors as well. The story itself isnt mind-blowing but its absolutely engaging and definitely not a weak spot. I feel like without it the production efforts would have felt gimmicky but as an entire package, the film is a vicious, fun ride. (2012) Vamps 7. 5/10 (2012) V/H/S 8/10 Anthologies are one of my favorite mediums to consumer horror but can also be the most difficult to pull off. This film has writing and directing credits in the double digits and with that many creative minds working together as well as separately, its very common for a portion of the film to fall short. V/H/S is incredibly special for defying this common pitfall by delivering shorts that are diverse but consistent in quality. (2012) The Bay 7. 5/10 (2012) Sinister 8/10 I found Sinister to be a perfect blend of bleakness and scary. It has some effective jump scares to reel in that horror, cinematic experience but also casually injects some incredibly fucked-up content. For a wide-released, ultra-popular horror film, it pushes the limits quite a bit. The fount footage aspects are the best part. Ethan Hawke is great and everything but theres something about these tapes, coupled with very eerie audio that just throw you off balance. (2011) Youre Next 7/10 (2011) Apollo 18 7/10 (2011) The Cabin in the Woods 9/10 Its literally a statement on the instability of the horror genre itself. The production is fantastic and however goofy it may seem, its actually thrilling. The film has the ability to create and break stereotypes simultaneously. (2011) Source Code 8. 5/10 I always pay attention to films that require a character to accept an entirely new reality. With a normal films runtime, it can be difficult to balance that pacing of that sort of character development. This film is a great example of it done right. Gyllenhaals characters reluctance vs. acceptance are two aspects that work in tandem throughout most of the film. Its a very human and a definite point of praise. (2010) The Crazies 7. 5/10 (2010) Tucker and Dale vs Evil 8. 5/10 This movie is one long gag but its both completely genius and absolutely hilarious. Its truly a masterpiece of satirical meta-horror. (2010) I Spit on Your Grave 9/10 This is the most gruesome, violent revenge film Ive seen to date and a shining example of a movie that holds back nothing. Its 50 min of an elongated rape scene followed by a Hellraiser level revenge sequence that will make the most seasoned horror fans wince. (2009) Zombieland 8/10 This is an incredible zombie film and despite feeling like a time-capsule of 2009, the core components still hold up really well. Its a short, sweet, easily digestible and simply, fun to watch. I love all four main characters but the dynamic between Eisenberg and Woody was my favorite. Woody in particular is fucking hilarious and oftentimes I felt as if his energy actually was actually the backbone of the entire film. (2009) Jennifers Body 7. 5/10 (2009) Triangle 8/10 Its a movie thats strangely simplistic while being really complex. Theres a ton to be gleaned from the details and, outside of the exposition, I actually had the most fun simply pondering what the bigger picture was. (2008) The Ruins 8/10 I actually had put on this movie looking for a schlocky, vacation horror that I could semi-tune out to but I was so impressed. I feel like Im the first person to say this but I saw a few big connections to Annihilation. Theres some super creepy shit with plants and relevant to that, a very familiar misdirection. The gore is also fantastic. (2007) The Poughkeepsie Tapes 7/10 (2007) Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street 7. 5/10 (2007) 1408 9. 5/10 John Cusack helms what to me is one of the scariest haunted house films ever made. Its a project that breaks free of the traditional tactics and roots itself in psychological horror. I highly recommend this for literally anyone and everyone. It feels like being water-boarded by supernatural/psychological horror and by the end, I felt spent, in the best way possible. (2007) Stuck 7/10 (2006) Slither 7/10 (2006) Bug 7. 5/10 (2006) The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning 7. 5/10 (2006) Final Destination 3 7/10 (2006) Hatchet 7. 5/10 The predictable characters, campiness and outrageous special effects arent just essential to this film but slashers in general. I love Victor Crowley. Does he bear some resemblance to Jason? Sure, I can see it but this inbred mongoloid also happens to have his own unique charm. Despite the film being called “Hatchet”, Victor isnt afraid to use anything and everything around him to kill. (2006) Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon 7. 5/10 (2005) Hostel 7. 5/10 (2005) Doom 7/10 (2005) Shaun of the Dead 9/10 This movie is just wonderful. I find it hilarious on a personal level but also so intelligently funny that it could go down as one of the greatest horror-comedies of all time. (2005) The Butterfly Effect 8/10 Alright so I watched the directors cut and wow, I fucking loved it dude. I should note I think it can take an open mind to fully accept and appreciate the new ending but I found it made the entire film much more complex. I highly recommend checking out this version of the movie. (2004) The Village 8/10 One of the saving graces for this film was the writing of William Hurts character. Hes such a uniquely sensitive and honest injection into what lays out on paper as one big deception. M. Night chooses to lift the veils fairly early on about the more thrilling aspects of the film, which is a complaint for many. However, it rightfully reverts the focus back onto the characters in my mind and the sense of desperation that embodies this village. Ultimately what the film represents to me is hope. Id recommend not listening to what youve heard and checking it out for yourself. I think that after over a decade has passed since its misguided marketing, the film deserves a second chance under fresh perspectives. (2004) Dead Mans Shoes 8/10 One of my favorite sub-genres is revenge horror and this low-budget film implores its characters to be as human as possible. Beyond the veil of violence and even characteristics indicative of slasher films, Considines character is a deeply flawed, psychologically broken man. Oftentimes in revenge films, we see this unstoppable omnipotent protagonist fueled by pure rage but here, his fearlessness goes hand-in-hand with recklessness. (2003) Jeepers Creepers 2 7/10 (2003) House of 1000 Corpses 7. 5/10 (2003) Alexandras Project 7. 5/10 (2003) Scary Movie 3 8/10 As much as both horror and comedy films can succeed without actually being scary or funny, those are still some of the most important aspects. If Im scared, its an effective horror film and the same goes for comedies. Basically what Im trying to say is that as dumb as a movie like this is, its so fucking funny. It also strays away from just making fun of horror with parodies of 8 Mile, which is just delightfully retarded. (2003) Final Destination 2 7/10 (2002) The Ring 9. 5/10 This was one of the scariest fucking movies I saw as a kid and it still is to this day. It also happens to be, what I consider, one of the few powerful uses of grey-scale film in existence. It's bleak, expertly paced and really just pure tension from start to finish. I love everything about this film. Gore did a fantastic job directing but I have a huge amount of respect for Ehren Kruger as well for the screenplay. The original film is iconic but frankly, this is better. (2001) Jeepers Creepers 8/10 Id go as far as to say this is the best demonic horror film, post 2000s. Justin Long is a breakout star. A lot of people shit on him but his wide-eyed looks alone made this film the success it is. He was more successful in portraying fear than most modern actors. (2001) Dagon 8. 5/10 Stuart Gordon doing Lovecraft isnt something I could ever envision as being anything but fantastic and this film confirmed that. Stuart working with David Marti this time on the visual effects; I cant even begin to describe how excellent the body-horror is here. Its fucking fantastic. (2001) The Others 8/10 Its a film to be that blends drama with horror in the fashion that tends to suit a really good haunted house film. For me personally, I felt the séance sequence is what stood to me most. Its not the most violent, lengthy or erratic scenes Ive seen of its type. However, its reveal and overall fluidity is something that just came off very eerie and hopeless. (2000) Final Destination 7. 5/10 (1999) Sleepy Hallow 7. 5/10 (1998) Disturbing Behavior 7. 5/20 (1997) Event Horizon 7. 5/10 (1996) Scream 9. 5/10 Scream just may be the best meta-horror film ever made. Its so special to me and was probably the film that sparked my fascination with horror. I watched it the year after it came out, at 8-years old, alone in my dark basement. I shut it off after the opening scene with Drew Barrymore and never saw the rest until years later. However, if I had just stuck with it, it actually evolves into this darkly funny, poignant statement on slasher films. I could talk about a ton of performances but Matthew Lillard blows me the fuck away every time I watch this movie. I literally get chills during the climax seeing him become and own this fucking character. Hes just incredible. (1994) Mary Shelleys Frankenstein 9/10 Absolutely, hands down the best modern Frankenstein movie Ive ever seen. Robert De Niro brought life to a character that was fucking meant to have life. Its one of the most entertaining, gothic interpretations of the original story. (1992) Army of Darkness 7. 5/10 (1991) Sometimes They Come Back 8/10 This is a simple story by King standards but I think it was incredibly effective. It's childhood based and emotionally impactive. It incites bravery with acceptance and mostly, just makes me want to hug my younger brothers. (1991) The Silence of the Lambs 9. 5/10 This film is a model in dialogue-driven horror and both Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster are incredible in it. I only say dialogue-driven horror because while the film does stand out in blatant, suspenseful, scary moments; it's the conversations between Clarice and Dr. Lecter that make it so memorable. It just adds this timeless psychological horror element that helps establish it as a classic in my eyes. (1990) Gremlins 2: The New Batch 7. 5/10 (1990) Tales from the Darkside: The Movie 7. 5/10 (1989) The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover 9/10 This film is so exceptionally cruel. Even when theres a clear bad guy it seems as if everyone is fighting to get to the bottom. Its unapologetic, violent, with dynamic characters that thrive on hedonistic impulses. Visually, its remarkable. You would think its a Giallo film before you heard people speaking non-dubbed English. Im not just speaking aesthetically too but every color choice and wardrobe decision seems fully intertwined with the films central message. (1989) Intruder 7. 5/10 (1988) Following 8/10 Following is actually Nolans debut film and seeing that hes one of my favorite directors, Im almost mad it took me this long to see it. Shot in black and white, this super low-budget crime-noir, psychological thriller is an incredible feat in storytelling and sets the tone for Nolan as a career director. It features his classic non-linear plot as well as really being a character driven film. For a big-budget director, its almost heartwarming to know that he could accomplish something like this on almost nothing. Its reminiscent of Man Bites Dog and Hitchcock films but very much stylistically, and most importantly, Nolan himself. (1988) Brain Damage 7/10 (1988) Halloween 4: The Return 7/10 (1988) Beetlejuice 9/10 This film is, head-to-toe, one of Burtons strangest films to date. Not only is it just a strange original story but the production and overall execution is absolutely insane. (1987) Evil Dead 2 8. 5/10 Just from a technical perspective, everything is so fucking impressive. Its all basically hand-done, practical effects and the camera work is just remarkable. The film leans more towards the humor side of the series but it does so both intentionally and gracefully. I adore this movie, its on par with the original. I dont think I can necessarily rate it the same from an analytical perspective but from an enjoyment perspective, hell-fucking-yeah dude. (1987) Angel Heart 8/10 Mickey Rourke is incredible here and its simply a satanic, thriller epic. Theres not a huge twist per-say but the entire film slowly reveals something horrible about the main characters. (1985) Re-Animator 8/10 Its probably one of the goriest movies of the decade but its also endearing in its humor. Dont get me wrong, its brutal. Its ultra-violent, perversely sexual even but the way fans revere it is what makes it so special. (1985) Day of the Dead 7. 5/10 (1984) Gremlins 7/10 (1983) Cujo 7/10 (1982) Cat People 9/10 I love the original film to death but I couldnt be more satisfied with the direction this pseudo-remake went in. Its less of a psychological thriller and more of an erotic, body-horror fever dream. Also features a great score by Giorgio Moroder, as well as an excellent theme song by Bowie. (1982) Poltergeist 8. 5/10 Sans maybe one scene of CGI, this is one of the 80s best displays of practical effects. I sometimes dont even think of Tobe Hooper as an elite director until I watch his films and instantly Im clicked into the magic. I just love how the characters are rough around the edges. The parents smoking weed together and playing around is endearing and humanizing. Humor is strewn throughout very naturally to make the film more fun. (1981) The House by the Cemetery 8. 5/10 People love The Beyond but this film does a much better job at devolving into that hellish landscape from a simplistic approach. The gore is unreal and coupled with his absolute best camera work to date, I cant see it as anything but his masterpiece. (1980) Cannibal Holocaust 7. 5/10 (1979) Apocalypse Now 9/10 Its a long film and the scale, especially in certain combat scenes is just fucking huge. I mean the actual production itself, the budget, the scope of this fucking movie is massive. The entire time I was struggling to really understand the narrative, what the actual goal was but really, that confusion was intentional. This is Coppolas profound statement on the pointlessness, and specifically so, of the Vietnam War. Its an incredible film and a must watch. (1977) The Hills Have Eyes 7/10 (1976) Carrie 8. 5/10 This film was fantastic. I love Sissy Spacek, she just really embodies this role and its one of those performances that I couldnt see anyone else playing. (1973) Dont Look Now 8/10 I felt this film was a great study into ambiguous filmmaking vs overt horror, really relying on the former. Theres tons of fantastic performances suggesting a really sinister narrative, all leading up to a decently insane finale. (1972) Raw Meat 7/10 (1972) Tales from the Crypt 7. 5/10 (1972) The Last House on the Left 8/10 Ive always respected Wes Craven immensely for both influencing the genre as a whole and also, always having fun with making the films he wanted to make. This film forgoes a lot of traditional horror filmmaking and just filmmaking in general. It doesnt attempt to conceal anything to build tension. Quite frankly, it has the restraint of a snuff film. That style, berthed a whole new generation of exploitation horror movies. (1953) The House of Wax 7. 5/10 (1953) The White Reindeer 7/10 (1950) Sunset Boulevard 9/10 It totally brings a smile to my face to say this this is, yet again, another film that had to inspire David Lynch. Its certainly film-noir but the melodrama itself is so creepily in-tune with the struggles of Hollywood actors and actresses. (1949) The Queen of Spades 7. 5/10 (1947) Black Narcissus 9/10 This film is absolutely breathtaking. For anyone whos ever considered technicolor to look fake, blown-out and oversaturated, this is a shining example of it done right. Its an entirely created set with gorgeous artwork. Its not just in how its looks from an artistic standpoint but even on a technical level, Powell was able to blow up a studio space with fantastic, wide-panning shots. There is not a better looking film out of this decade. (1946) Bedlam 7/10 (1942) Cat People 8. 5/10 I actually consider this film to be one of the best early psychological-horror films. Masquerading as a b-movie of sorts, I surprisingly found a lot of depth in it. Simone Simon is a fantastic lead and even with the short runtime, I came to understand her character rather quickly. Tons of anxiety as well as repressed sexuality sort of hone her into this timid and frightened woman who brings her own fears to life. (1938) They Drive by Night 8/10 This is a great fucking movie that totally embodies crime-noir. It reminds me a ton of early Hitchcock and for the 30s, the narrative is spectacularly clean. (1937) Song at Midnight 7/10 (1914) The Egyptian Mummy no rating/10 (just a cool slapstick early short.
I always start a riot with my twitchy move. maybe i should try ballet. I should probably say that my article is not intended to 'bash' or 'insult' Islam, rather it's just a criticism of Islam, and stating why I left it. All of this is protected by the Constitution of this country which allows for Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. However, should this article go public, I strongly believe some Malays or Muslims will report it for 'incitement of unrest or violence' something that is notorious among the Muslim society here in Malaysia. It's always ok for other religion to be ridiculed or criticised but theirs is somehow 'the holiest of the holiest' those who dare to go against it will be punished. You may also wonder why I do not just leave and keep quiet about it and my answer in Islam, apostasy is dealt with the death penalty. Ex-Muslims are probably the most executed minorities in the world where they are tortured, killed or jailed in Muslim majority countries and called 'Islamophobic' by liberals in the west. Unfortunately, these people do not know the true colours of this 'peaceful religion. Therefore, this is why I am voicing out. It is about time ex-Muslims in Malaysia does the same since we can only hope on each other to survive in this country that oppresses us. I did not write this to be famous or infamous, I simply want to convince ex-Muslims in Malaysia that they are not alone and should not be afraid. Anyhow, without further ado, here are some of the reasons why I left Islam: Islam is not the religion of peace This will probably shock nobody but somehow even non-Muslims in Malaysia fail to see this; the religion is not peaceful. Preachers here in Malaysia will always say 'Islam' comes from the word 'Salam' which means peace; thus, Islam is a religion of peace. You will also hear politicians from different political parties especially PAS and UMNO (the two biggest Islamic and Malay party in Malaysia) saying that Islam will bring peace and harmony for everyone. Yes, it will bring peace and harmony but only for Muslims. As I mentioned before, the penalty for apostasy death but you should also know the penalty for blasphemy is also death, adultery is also death and homosexuality is also death. What is so peaceful about that? They might as well call it the religion of death, perceiving that death is the central theme of the religion. 'But this will only affect Muslims, non-Muslims won't be affected by sharia law. They can live freely. Muslims group said but under more than 60 years under UMNO and now under the person who used to run it are non-Muslims free? Think about the arrests made under the Sedition Act where non-Muslims are accused of inciting 'violence and civil unrest' when they criticise Islam. Another example that I'd like to give is if LGBTQ+ goes against Islamic teaching why are non-Muslim LGBTQ+ individual also punished. Why has not the sodomy law be repealed so that it would not affect non-Muslims? Besides, the survey by Pew Research Center in 2013 shows that 41% of Muslims in Malaysia believe that Sharia Law should apply to non-Muslims. Keep in mind that the poll was carried out in 2013. Do you think the number has increased or decreased since then? The answer is obvious; it has increased and will increase, even more so after PAS and UMNO forms the government in Malaysia, something that I'm sure would happen, seeing that the PH government is too weak, with low approval numbers. Religion is supposed to be a personal belief. If you want to worship Allah, Jesus or Krishna, that is up to you, but you simply cannot for everyone else to do the same. Your religion is not special. You may think it is the ultimate revelation that the rest of humanity needs to follow but it's not. It's utter rubbish, literally written by men to control the populace, especially women, which lead to the second reason as to why I left the religion 2. Islam is not the feminist religion it claimed to be Many Muslims will tell you that Muhammad is somehow a feminist figure who liberated women who were oppressed before Islam. They said female babies are killed and women cannot be in the position of power. But what you stopped and wondered if that's true? A research done by professors of The Hashemite University and Albalqa Applied University in Jordan found that the claim of infanticide in pre-Islamic society is not true. Infanticide aside, have you ever wondered how Khadijah, Muhammad's first wife is a successful businesswoman if women were so oppressed in pre-Islamic Arabic society? Surely she would have been a sex slave. I know this is a flawed logic but remember that there were female rulers who ruled the region before Islam. Even assuming that this liberation myth is somehow true, what is liberating about how women are treated in Islam? For example, one male witness is equivalent to two female witnesses (Quran 2:282. That automatically places women at a lower standard than men in Islam, something that is disgusting and dehumanising. Imagine a woman getting raped and having to have four male witnesses or eight female witnesses in order for the offender to be punished. If the victim fails to do so, she is the one who will be punished for 'fitnah' or false accusation, even if scientific reports shows otherwise. In what universe would this be seen as acceptable. Yes, in Malaysia we do not have that system but imagine the PAS-UMNO coalition coming into power. Even without Sharia Law being fully implemented in Malaysia, women are still treated in a dehumanising manner. They were sued in Kelantan for wearing clothes that are 'sexy and not appropriate. Why are the Sharia authorities doing so? They are simply following the Islamic teachings that require women to cover up (wearing the hijab. I have no objections to anyone wearing the hijab, but if and only if it's their personal choice. The problem is, the same cannot be said for most Muslim women. They are disowned by their family, ridiculed by society and in places like Kelantan, sued by the authorities. How is that feministic and empowering? When I was a Muslim, my Islamic Studies teacher told me that Allah tells women to cover up because if not, men would rape them. This, in my opinion, dehumanises both women and men because firstly, it is a form of victim shaming and secondly, it is a horrid statement, making men appear as nothing more than horny, rapey monsters. It is time to teach men to have more respect towards women, not to force women to cover up in potato sacs because men cannot control their horniness. If they could not do so, I suggest a hijab for men, one which covers their eyes. Furthermore, wives are expected to be their husband's slave. If they refuse to have sex, the wife can be divorced or even beaten. The Quran also said the angels would curse the wives until dawn. This is what annoys me the most. Most Muslims will say Islam is so peaceful, it teaches husbands how to beat their wives. NO peaceful religion should teach their followers how to be violent. Furthermore, it is also forbidden for the wife to leave the house or to let someone else in the house without the permission of the husband. Imagine being a parent or a sibling and not being to visit your daughter or sister because of her husband. 3. Muhammad is a paedophile Muslims will always say that 'Muhammad is the perfect human being and the perfect role model' but he is a paedophile. Why? He has a wife named Aisha' who he married when she was six years old. The marriage, however, was consummated when she was nine years old which mean he raped a child. This is why child marriage is an issue among Muslims in Malaysia. I am fully aware other religion or races practice child marriages to but the title of this article is 'Why I left Islam' and so, I will only be focusing on Islam. The beloved prophet in Islam is also far from being peaceful, let alone perfect. Politicians and Malay Preachers will tell you wonderful stories about how Muhammad was kind towards those who insulted him and ruled Medina fairly but they would not tell you the dark parts. They would not tell you that he had sex slaves, killed critics of Islam, practised polygamy, killed Jews, divided captured women among soldiers, etc. On the question of polygamy, I am not saying that polygamy is immoral. It is not a business of mine to tell someone how many wives or husbands they can have. However, in Islam, only men are allowed to have more than one wife but the wife cannot have more than one husband. This also brings to the topic of rewards in heaven. The hadith says, Everyone that God admits into paradise will be married to 72 wives; two of them are houris and seventy of his inheritance of the [female] dwellers of hell. All of them will have libidinous sex organs and he will have an ever-erect penis. Sunan Ibn Majah, Book 39. But what about women? Will they be given 72 husbands? Also, what about the LGBTQ community who chose to remain celibate in order not to anger Allah. Will they get the same reward or will they just burn in hell because of who Allah made them to be? 4. Islam preaches hate: Moderate Islam in Malaysia is a myth I truly believe that Islam preaches hate and is indeed an extreme right-wing ideology, similar to Nazism or Fascism. If you ask them, many Malay and Muslims in Malaysia will tell you that being a Muslim makes them superior compared to people of other religions. For instance, the main reason why Malaysia failed to sign on to the 'International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination' ICERD) is because of objections from Malays. When asked why, they simply said (and I paraphrase, Because we are want to safeguard our rights' What about the rights of others? If your religion is so peaceful, wouldn't you be rallying against income inequality or high cost of living instead of against a convention to end discrimination? When you think you're special just because of your religion then you're no better than Hitler or the KKK, and you still have to gall to call out 'apartheid' in Israel. I blame the Malay Supremacy problem in Malaysia on Islam. It is indeed the religion that teaches them to be hateful of others. When I was a Muslim, my Islamic Studies teacher told me that Muslims needs to befriend Muslims first. What kind of mentality is that where you even want to control who people are friends with. Indeed you can say that I left Islam because 'you're just angry' but that's just one in many reasons. In school, Muslims are also taught that one day, the Muslim army under Imam Mahdi will kill all the Jews and reconquer Jerusalem. We were taught to hate the Jews just because they happen to be Jews. I questioned my Islamic teacher about why I must hate every Jewish person but I was instead told to shut up and just accept the teachings of the Quran and the Hadith. Like any other religion, we were also taught that we were indeed somehow special because Allah made us Muslims. Muslims were taught that the religious have a higher 'ranking' in the eyes of Allah. This is why Muslims are so sensitive when it comes to criticism. They think that Allah has increased their 'ranking' thus, they are somehow 'sacred' compared to the others. On top of that, Muslims give labels to non-Muslims, calling them Kafirs and Infidels, telling them they would burn in hell for eternity. This fuels the 'us versus them' enigma which leads to the increasing Islamic Supremacy attitude in Malaysia, causing them to think they are untouchable. I was taught by my Islamic teachers to be compassionate and never upset others but somehow that teaching is gone once someone of another race talks about Islam. I still remember the incident where the word 'Allah' was used in the Malay version of the bible. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims (mostly Malay) went to the street, saying that they need to protect Allah's honour as if Allah who's supposed to be an omnipotent being is unable to do it on its own. I've always wondered if they knew how ridiculous they looked. Furthermore, when Liberal Muslims criticise Orthodox Muslims, they were treated with death threats. I still remember seeing FB posts of 'Ustazs' telling people to pray for the death of Siti Kasim, a prominent Liberal Muslim in Malaysia. I also still remember that time when two lesbian couples were canned in public because they were caught ATTEMPTING to have sex. This is yet another example of pushing their religion down people's throat. Why is your religion so special that everyone else has to respect it? The shooting at Charlie Hebdo wouldn't have happened if Muslims were not so sensitive and have respected the freedom of speech. The Charlie Hebdo shooting was not the only incident where Muslims reacted violently when their religion is criticised. Raif Badawi, for example, was sentenced to 1000 years in prison for writing a blog in Saudi Arabia and Asia Bibi, a Pakistani woman was almost sentenced to death for blasphemy. People are offended by many things, I included but to quote Richard Dawkins, So what if I'm offended. The right to offend is and must be protected under the Freedom of Speech because it is the only effective defender of the Enlightenment Values. To conclude, Islam is simply incompatible with humanity. Allah is the most homophobic, sexist, psychotic fictional character I have ever met in my life. Just in case you're wondering when did I leave Islam, it was when a preacher once told me 'The Jews in the holocaust deserved to die. No, nobody deserves to die but Islam seems to be high on killing and that's why I'm no longer a Muslim and I would like to call out all ex-Muslim especially those who are Malays to come together and help make Malaysia a secular nation.
Sam has strongly recommended Douglas Murrays new book, The Madness of Crowds, hosted him on Waking Up/Making Sense a few times, recommended his earlier book The Strange Death of Europe, and engaged in some live shows with Douglas as well. I wanted to talk about a framing which Douglas used when promoting this new book. In a promotional video, Douglas said: in my own experience, very often, the views that are most unpopular are the ones that you need to hear. I found this an interesting comment, as Douglas has not always seemed very open to the expression of certain unpopular ideas. Before I get to that, lets take a look at Douglas general attitude to free speech, expressions of ones views, and ideas being discussed on university campuses. Murray suggests that free speech means societies should allow unpopular speech or views which might be held by a minority of people, and that there should always be debate: I can't think of the last time I spoke at an event where a majority of people agreed with me. But the point of free-speech isn't continuous and tedious hymn-singing. the point of free societies is that we don't agree. On anything. And certainly – for well known reasons – never unanimously. Never finally. The debate is the thing. Note that the subheading of this article is: ‘The oxygen of free societies is freedom of speech. Everything short of incitement has to be tolerated, even when it is wrong. Murray seems to support the notion that everything should be up for discussion: Some of us have great confidence of victory in the realm of unfettered ideas. He has a full-blooded and muscular vision of what free speech means to him: This is my view, generally, on free speech: the answer is not to have endless seminars about it, its just to do it, and encourage everyone else to do it, and do it more and more, and break all the rules and laws if theyre there. Because who do we want to tell us what we can say, or think, or do? Who would you appoint to be such a person? And free speech is a central right for all of us, which is unfortunately not embraced on university campuses, where people try to shut down discussions or report people to the authorities: As university campuses across the Western world now show: they say they believe in free speech, but really they believe in free speech for themselves, but not for anyone who disagrees with them. Its free speech for me, but not for thee. I can say anything I like about anyone else, but if they say anything that I disagree with Ill call the police, or retreat into a safe space, or moan about intersectionality…This idea that, effectively, if you dont like something you can shut it down, shut it up, exists everywhere. And by the way, the strange thing about this is not particularly that young people are doing this, so much as the fact that the adults keep on giving in…Free speech isnt something which is just one of a set of things you can pick and choose from, it is the absolutely central right upon which every other right is based. So from Murrays own words: we shouldnt shut down unpopular ideas, we should accept open disagreement, we should just say what we want to say without regard for any rules and laws which regulate speech, and reporting people to authorities or shutting discussions down on university campuses is a betrayal of a central right, to which adults should not acquiesce. Okay, fair enough. The problem here is if Murray believes this so strongly, he is a massive hypocrite. In 2015, Southampton University in the UK was planning to host a three day academic conference called ‘International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism. According to the website for the conference: This conference will be the first of its kind and constitutes a ground-breaking historical event on the road towards justice and enduring peace in historic Palestine. It is unique because it concerns the legitimacy in International Law of the Jewish state of Israel. Rather than focusing on Israeli actions in the 1967 Occupied Territories, the conference will focus on exploring themes of Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism; all of which are posed by Israels very nature. The conference aims to explore the relatedness of the suffering and injustice in Palestine to the foundation and protection of a state of such nature and asks what role International Law should play in the situation. It will take place over a whole weekend and will involve leading thinkers: scholars from law, politics, philosophy, theology, anthropology, cultural studies history and other connected disciplines. Key speakers and various panels will diagnose the legal position with regard to the nature of Israel thus enabling a much needed platform for scholarly debate and disagreement. Now, unsurprisingly, this ended up causing some controversy, and eventually the university cancelled the conference citing concerns regarding security and the ability to deliver the conference safely. And who should voice their apparent agreement with cancelling the conference: one Douglas Murray! Douglas Murray, associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, said: “The event at Southampton University was not an academic conference but a rally of bigots. The proposed line up consisted only of people dedicated to the delegitimising and destruction of the state of Israel. “No academic conference on Pakistan, for instance, founded just a year before Israel - would consist solely of discussion on whether it should have been created and how to end it. ” So apparently it is okay to shut down discussions on university campuses if one thinks the speaker or speakers are bigoted! It seems Douglas actually agrees with the college students he harshly criticizes here. Not only did Douglas think shutting down this conference was fine, he also suggested that universities which host conferences like this should have their government funding withdrawn: Lets start by demanding that the Government stops giving our money to universities like Southampton if they cannot stop themselves transforming from centres of learning into epicentres of hate. So much for not wanting discussions to be shut down on university campuses. Murray also seemed annoyed that an Oxford university academic wasnt censured or disciplined by the university for making an inflammatory comment. Earlier that year, Tom Paulin, an English lecturer at Oxford, was reported as comparing American-Jewish settlers in Palestinian territories to Nazis. Yet the university took no action against him. Murray also had his own run-in on Twitter in 2015 with an anonymous user who Murray for some reason thought worked at Kingston University. The tweet in question from this user is no longer visible, but Murrays responses are: InTheSoupAgain Do your employers at Kingston Uni know you spend your days trolling people anonymously? KingstonUni Do you know you have an employee who spends his time on Twitter anonymously libelling strangers? Happy to help @InTheSoupAgain It seems that Douglas was trying to get this particular assumed academic in trouble with their employer. Now, its possible that the comment made was in fact libellous, but Murrays actions dont seem in keeping with his belief that people should say what they want, more and more, and freely break any rules and laws which regulate speech. Indeed, Douglas has on occasion been quite sensitive to what people say about him online and in the free press, and has used an implicit legal threat to dissuade a newspaper from writing something about him which he didnt like. Soon after the Huffington Post launched in the UK, they ran an article in which the author criticized right-wing bloggers/writers who, according to the author, had been either slow to comment, or silent, on the topic of Anders Breivik, allegedly with the inference that this was because they had some degree of ideological overlap with Breivik (“Christian cultural conservatism”. I say allegedly because the article has since been removed following a complaint, and I cant find an archived version, so Im going by a second-hand report of the article from an unfriendly website. Of course, one of the people this article criticized was Douglas Murray, who was not happy about being mentioned in such a way. In two angry phone calls with Huffpo staffers, Douglas Murray, associate director at the Henry Jackson Society, described the inference as scurrilous, adding that to accuse someone of not having written publicly about such recent events was a smear of the lowest order. Murray warned the Huffpo that its time in Britain would be short if it persisted in libeling people in this manner. At which point, the Huffington Post agreed to remove references to Murray from the story. So Murray gave them an implicit threat of a libel suit and pressured them into removing any references to him from the article. So much for ‘just…do it, and encourage everyone else to do it, and do it more and more, and break all the rules and laws if theyre there. Because who do we want to tell us what we can say, or think, or do? A couple of years prior to this, Murray had gone even further, and actually sued someone who at the time was a left-wing blogger who also wrote for The Guardian, someone by the name of Sunny Hundal. Sunny had quoted a report from someone else that Murray was having a dinner with Robert Spencer and some other figures, to which some English Defence League figures had apparently been invited (but not by Murray. Sunny then added his own commentary underneath: So Douglas Murray of the Centre for Social Cohesion meets Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch – a noted anti-Muslim bigot. They were both meant to meet the nutjobs from the EDL and CAN but they got chucked out because of the nature of the discussion! Well, well, well. Could Douglas Murray perhaps confirm or deny any of this? What was he doing meeting Spencer? And why the meeting with CAN and EDL? All sorts of “anti-jihadis”, including our comrades from Harrys Place, keep referencing and talking up Douglas Murray and his Centre for Social Cohesion. This is all a bit embarrassing isnt it? First Douglas Murray was defending and praising Geert Wilders and now hes having cosy dinners with Robert Spencer. As Douglas describes it, this was ‘profoundly, disturbingly and very provably defamatory. Im personally struggling to see the defamation there. Regardless, in Murrays words: Sunny once libelled me. He lied. I sued. He had to apologise. He had to pay costs. We can see Sunnys apology here, which reveals the nature of the supposed defamation: On my blog for 9 September 2009 about the English Defence League, I suggested that Douglas Murray of the Centre for Social Cohesion was a friend and supporter of the EDL and Christian Action Network. I was wrong about this. Mr Murray has clarified to me that he supports neither of these organisations and I apologise. Now, if Murray wanted to make clear that he doesnt support these organizations, he could have simply issued a clarification and asked Sunny to include it in his post, as he did to the blog Sunnys quote came from. Especially as Sunny was clearly inviting a clarifying response from Murray. But no, Murray took legal action, initiating a process Sunny likely couldnt afford to go through, forcing him to remove the material from his blog, issue an apology, and pay Murrays legal costs. Douglas later gloated about the fact that Sunny couldnt afford to pay back Murrays legal costs all in one go: some years ago Sunny had to pay out and publish a wholesale apology to me after libelling me on his website. On that occasion he published outright falsehoods, though his more typical style has been to settle for selective quotation, misquotation and misrepresentation. In what must have been a highly embarrassing process for Sunny, as I remember it he then had to declare current and future earnings to me in order to reach some reasonable financial settlement. During that process it became entirely clear that Sunny did not have a career. His main organ of distribution was a pointless self-published website which earned him no money. He occasionally earned small fees for intermittent blogs for the Guardian. But in no way did this add up either to a salary or a funded career. So rather than truly believing that rules and laws regulating speech should be freely broken, Murray is quite happy to either threaten or use legal proceedings when he encounters speech which he believes paints him in an unflattering light. Whats more, he actually seems to take enjoyment from the fact that someone he sued over a blog post couldnt afford to cover his legal costs. While this is a relatively small number of examples, I think this makes the point that Murray actually isnt opposed to shutting down discussions on university campuses, and in fact recommends withdrawing funds from universities which host discussions he considers bigoted. He seems to be in favour of universities disciplining academics for things they say, including trying to report an anonymous Twitter user to their supposed university employer. He even gave an implicit threat to a newspaper/media publication, forcing them to remove his name from their article, and sued a blogger over a post they made, later seeming to gloat about the fact that they couldnt afford to cover his legal fees at the time. So the next time you hear Douglas Murray talking about how free speech is a central right for everyone, how students shouldnt be shutting down discussions on university campuses or reporting people to the authorities, and how we need to hear unpopular ideas, hes a total hypocrite. He just wants free speech for his ideas, he just wants his kind of ideas and views to be aired on university campuses. Hes perfectly happy to have things shut down which he finds objectionable, even threatening or using legal proceedings. Dont be taken in by the rhetoric on this one. Edited to add. u/gelliant_gutfright also points out two more cases of Douglas threatening legal action against people who wrote blog posts about him: soon after this post was published I received a threatening email from Douglas Murray. I thought it was strange that someone who campaigns against lawfare would use such an intimidating tactic himself. Ive since learned on this post that Murray has often used such tactics. After this article was published, Mendoza phoned me to try to pressurise me to remove it, claiming that Murray would otherwise sue me for libel. By way of warning, he pointed out that Murray had previously threatened legal action against Sunny Hundal, editor of Liberal Conspiracy, forcing him to remove a reference to him on Hundals website. On another occasion, he had apparently pressurised the Huffington Post into removing references to him as well.
- . , ( ) . כמובן, יגאל אמיר הוא גיבור. אני יודע מראש כי האזור של מלכי ישראל לשעבר (כיכר רבין) ייקרא מחדש על שמו. See how israel is let the world see they bring them in thin u do this u satin people watch soon soon u all gunna go see satin. Movie Incitement vodlocker Watch Incitement 2018 Online HD 1080p. Incitement Online Free Stream. INCITEMENT (2018) English Full Movie Watch Online. It's gonna be littt.