7 thoughts on “Katy Perry’s ‘One Love’”

    • “My career is like an artichoke. People might think that the leaves are tasty and buttered up and delicious, and they don’t even know that there’s something magical hidden at the base of it.”

      ― Katy Perry

      I always knew somebody had the answers, maybe a psychologist, a historian or cosmologist, somebody. And now I’ve finally discovered who.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  2. Arguably the best and most logical video I have seen regarding the terror attacks. This is where virtue signallers and logic reach an impasse. Virtue signallers condemn people who call the Islamic ideology into question (they actually say ‘racist’; a common faux pas on the part of ignorant and stupid people) yet they also believe that people have the right to identify as whatever they choose and that if a person wants to be gayest or change sex then that’s not a bad or strange thing.

    So what do virtue signallers actually support? LGBT rights or Islamic rights? You can’t support both as they contradict one another.

    I believe we have reached what one might call a paradox of sorts…

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • I suppose, because Islam corrodes gay communities, thus doing away with their need for rights, that the loony left (the loudest voice amidst leftists) have decided that they’ll defend #RealIslam, which as a result defends extremists, loony liberals have thrown largely left-wing projects to the dogs. Women’s rights, gay rights, religious pluralism, they don’t exist in Islamic nations, they’re disposed of, yet they’re ideas which people on the left claim they want to safeguard.

      I listened to an interesting lecture on high philosophy recently, in which the lecturer explained a paradox is apparently a statement or concept which despite having the appearance of being a contradiction isn’t an actual contradiction. A good example would be the paradox of God being all-powerful, His wanting everybody to be saved, yet still having people who reject Him. It’s got the appearance of contradiction, yet we’ve had logically sound answers to this question for donkey’s years. So, at least in philosophical circles, they make an interesting distinction between something being paradoxical, and something being a flat out contradiction. I think the left are just caught in a straight contradiction of interests, it’s an unresolvable contradiction because Islam won’t play by the rules.

      My question to you though, Paul, as an agnostic (if that’s untrue you’ll correct me), is how do you answer the problem of Islamic terror? We’ve got the rock and the hard place, an unbelieving populace who don’t understand their enemy, and an evil, thoroughly evil collection of believing men, they simply believe in an absurd, violent role model. I feel the unbelieving group are obviously the more open to an answer, be it preposed by either of us, and they’re more open partly because they’re the group being victimized. So, how do we repel Islam and better help our neighbours?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • It’s a very tough question to answer, but a good start would be for non-Muslims to stop shouting at scared people who are lashing out at the Islamic faith (usually called racist despite the fact that slating an ideology isn’t racism at all) when something like this happens. Apologists, people who clearly feel some level of guilt or another for NOT being Islamic or even for being white in general, need to stop fighting the fight for Islam. They’re inadvertently making the job of Islamists easier. If Islamists know that there are people out there who feel guilty for being anything other than Muslim then they’re rubbing their (likely grimy and unwashed) hands together in glee. Virtue signallers have to accept that there’ll be fear and hatred spilled vociferously as a direct result of that fear. Shouting at a person for feeling fear—justified fear—is about as stupid a thing as a person can do. That needs to stop. Then we—non-Muslims and Muslims who are united with us in stamping this out—need to reason with those Muslims who aren’t swinging one way or another to look within their communities and start reporting suspicious activities. Even if the suspicious activity comes to nothing, I would say it’s better to be safe than sorry. Only Muslims can solve the problem of whatever is wrong with the fundamentals of their religion that allows Islamism to be taught. A Christian like you or an atheist like I cannot. Our hands are tied. All we can do is use our voices to highlight the problem and risk getting called Islamophobes in the process. That doesn’t concern me. I know I’m not Islamophobic. But if non-Muslims can’t get on the same page and accept there’s a problem within the fundamentals of Islam, and then communicate this peacefully to the Muslims in our communities then nothing will change. We have to stop being scared of saying to Muslims that there’s something broken within their establishment of faith. We have to implore with them to help us (and themselves) by no longer sitting on the fence and sourcing out the brainwashed amongst them.

        What do you think?

        As for my use of the word paradox, that was honestly a mental block where I simply couldn’t think of a better word at that particular moment. Perhaps contradiction was a more apt term.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You’re on point about how non-Muslims should respond to angry, emotional criticism of Islam. The truth is, if/when somebody out of fear and upset shouts “Go home!” or even “Muslims are scum!”, as if they’re an ethnicity, I’ve got many different options on how I can respond. I decide whether I’m going to fight on that hill, because that rage isn’t the illness, it’s a symptom of the illness, those people, be they the EDL or whoever, they’re not popping into existence in order to insult Islam, they’re responding, they’re reacting to Islam. So let them go, let their rage fly, can we correct them? Yes. Should we? Yes. However, that’s not my plan A, no. 1, most important do or die argument.

        People are raging because their daughters are being raped and their sons are being slaughtered, they’re angry because people who won’t join in with our national identity are demanding that they be kept separate. Just imagine you, you Paul, leaving your house and going off to work, upon arriving home you find I’m in your living room, after having words, sharing the universal gesture of disapproval, you settle on allowing me to stay. Now, the next day, I begin making a little shanty town in the corner of your house, this town is for my guests and my 12 kids. I need this space because we’re going to be kept separate from you, because you suck, so says my holy books. 😉

        I’m in your home, and you’re expected to adapt. I’m your guest, and you’re expected to cow to my ways. Your kids will have to share a table with my kids and eat food blessed in the name of my god. Us writing “Well, these are home-grown terrorists”, that’s not the full story, rather we’re writing about many men who perhaps born on British soil are living in the shanty town. They’re part of a community within the community (and that community does not respect their hosts). I really wish the nominal Muslim community could be relied upon. However, info insofar as I’ve gathered shows these guys already hold extremist views.

        “Only Muslims can solve the problem of whatever is wrong with the fundamentals of their religion that allows Islamism to be taught. A Christian like you or an atheist like I cannot. Our hands are tied.”

        With regards to your point here, that’s true in our current climate, but is it necessarily true? I think much of the reason why we’re not allowed a platform to share our views about Islam, or we’re allowed to share, just at considerable cost, is because of identity politics. “Oh, you can’t say anything about that WITHOUT being a Muslim.” It’s the same logic which says men don’t deserve an opinion with regards to abortion etc. That’s why lecturers like Milo Yiannopoulos (gay) and Blaire White (transgender) fry the leftist’s mental circuitry. They’re gay yet oppose “gay friendly” laws, they’re transgender, yet they’re prepared to admit the sad truth that they’ve been made sterile by the process. These people can’t be character smeared by liberal mind readers as bigots how they could with straight white men like you and I.

        Apparently we can’t talk about Islam, an ideology, without having secret hatred against little brown men in our hearts. Of course this is absurd. It’s also part of the reason why leftists have such bad natured conversations with everybody, whereas you and I are utterly delightful even in disagreement.

        Like

Leave a comment