The brother gives a pretty fair explanation on the origins of Red Pill and some good insights. I would only add that Red Pill ideology does not, in fact, address Western problems effectively, and that they espouse false concepts like hypergamy as scientific fact. It is important to recognise the 'pick-up artist' origins of the ideology in this regard, because most of the evidence for hypergamy relate to pairings for casual sex and short term relationships, not to marriage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-bR8p7BUVY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-bR8p7BUVY
YouTube
Redpill: A Brief Analysis on the Origins
Men who are simply good; who are entirely or mostly spared the tempting challenges of corruption; are outliers. For the great majority of men, the only difference between a good and decent man, and an evil man, is that the former successfully battles and defeats the hordes of impious urges that revolt against him every day, and he chains them; while the latter surrenders without any or adequate resistance. When you see a good man, you see a fighter; when you see an evil man, you see a coward.
👍3
Announcing Changes to the Channel!
Al-Hamdulillah, I have observed that viewership and subnoscription rates for the prominent Tomassiyeen channels have been steadily declining, and I believe that they have been adequately refuted on my channel and many others. I feel they have also unambiguously revealed themselves as crude, Islamically uneducated, and shameless hucksters. I created this channel primarily to respond to the false concepts promoted by Red Pillers and their ilk, and to try to promote healthier, more Islamically correct views on masculinity and gender relations...and I believe that task has been reasonably fulfilled at this point.
This is not a topic that was ever of particular interest to me, as I genuinely feel most of the issues that relate to it are self-evident. My own interests are much broader than the narrow spectrum of this channel, so I will soon be rebranding Qawwamun as a new channel devoted to a wider array of issues, insha'Allah. All of the current content will be partitioned into a Qawwamun playlist, and I will continue to upload material relevant to that topic as needs be, from time to time. However, the channel name will change, and the content I will be producing will cover a broader range of (to me) much more interesting and important topics.
This channel will become "The Middle Nation", and I hope all of you will continue to find it informative, useful, and engaging.
Jazakum Allahu khayran for all the support you have given to the Qawwamun channel, it has meant a lot to me.
-- Shahid
Al-Hamdulillah, I have observed that viewership and subnoscription rates for the prominent Tomassiyeen channels have been steadily declining, and I believe that they have been adequately refuted on my channel and many others. I feel they have also unambiguously revealed themselves as crude, Islamically uneducated, and shameless hucksters. I created this channel primarily to respond to the false concepts promoted by Red Pillers and their ilk, and to try to promote healthier, more Islamically correct views on masculinity and gender relations...and I believe that task has been reasonably fulfilled at this point.
This is not a topic that was ever of particular interest to me, as I genuinely feel most of the issues that relate to it are self-evident. My own interests are much broader than the narrow spectrum of this channel, so I will soon be rebranding Qawwamun as a new channel devoted to a wider array of issues, insha'Allah. All of the current content will be partitioned into a Qawwamun playlist, and I will continue to upload material relevant to that topic as needs be, from time to time. However, the channel name will change, and the content I will be producing will cover a broader range of (to me) much more interesting and important topics.
This channel will become "The Middle Nation", and I hope all of you will continue to find it informative, useful, and engaging.
Jazakum Allahu khayran for all the support you have given to the Qawwamun channel, it has meant a lot to me.
-- Shahid
❤2
The largest industry in the world does not manufacture anything; does not produce any goods; does not cultivate or harvest any natural resources; does not develop technology. The largest industry in the world is the business of creating want. It is the public relations, advertising industry.
Their whole function is to stir up desires in the population for all the endless array of mostly unnecessary goods produced by all the other industries in the world.
The drive for ever-increasing profit leads to mass production, which requires mass consumption. The reason for supply used to be demand, but demand among rational consumers can never meet the profit goals of corporations, therefore, increased demand has to be created to justify supply.
The only way to create demand for unnecessary goods, of course, is to undermine rationality and encourage impulsiveness; sabotage contentment and promote dissatisfaction; discourage self-control and convince people to surrender to their urges. They must train people to be slaves of their desires, and those desires should be multiplied and perpetually renewed. They have to convince the people that they are innately inadequate and offer them the possibility of increasing their personal value by purchasing material goods. People must be in a constant state of craving, and they must never hesitate to gratify this craving. This is the demand of the capitalist system, and of course, it is shaytanic in every way.
The qualities and character they are trying to promote among mankind are the qualities of the shayateen; qualities consistent with the jinn, and of that from which the jinn were created. Fire is aimless, uncontrolled, acts blindly, and consumes anything and everything in front of it; exactly the traits of an ideal consumer in the capitalist system.
It should go without saying that instilling these qualities in the population, the promotion of desires and instant gratification, obviously has a detrimental effect on the moral quality of the people as well. Reforming people's character to resemble the burning, erratic qualities of the shayateen, making them nothing more than bundles of urges and impulses with continuous stimulation and endless appetites, destroys their humanity, their honor, their patience, ethics and decency.
And that, ultimately, is the aim.
Their whole function is to stir up desires in the population for all the endless array of mostly unnecessary goods produced by all the other industries in the world.
The drive for ever-increasing profit leads to mass production, which requires mass consumption. The reason for supply used to be demand, but demand among rational consumers can never meet the profit goals of corporations, therefore, increased demand has to be created to justify supply.
The only way to create demand for unnecessary goods, of course, is to undermine rationality and encourage impulsiveness; sabotage contentment and promote dissatisfaction; discourage self-control and convince people to surrender to their urges. They must train people to be slaves of their desires, and those desires should be multiplied and perpetually renewed. They have to convince the people that they are innately inadequate and offer them the possibility of increasing their personal value by purchasing material goods. People must be in a constant state of craving, and they must never hesitate to gratify this craving. This is the demand of the capitalist system, and of course, it is shaytanic in every way.
The qualities and character they are trying to promote among mankind are the qualities of the shayateen; qualities consistent with the jinn, and of that from which the jinn were created. Fire is aimless, uncontrolled, acts blindly, and consumes anything and everything in front of it; exactly the traits of an ideal consumer in the capitalist system.
It should go without saying that instilling these qualities in the population, the promotion of desires and instant gratification, obviously has a detrimental effect on the moral quality of the people as well. Reforming people's character to resemble the burning, erratic qualities of the shayateen, making them nothing more than bundles of urges and impulses with continuous stimulation and endless appetites, destroys their humanity, their honor, their patience, ethics and decency.
And that, ultimately, is the aim.
👍5👌1
Important commentary on the UN-WEF agreement
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/conspiracy-theories-aside-there-something-fishy-about-great-reset/
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/conspiracy-theories-aside-there-something-fishy-about-great-reset/
openDemocracy
Conspiracy theories aside, there is something fishy about the Great Reset
It’s a corporate takeover of global governance that affects our food, our data and our vaccines
The View from the Throne
Military conflict appears very different depending upon your vantage point. How you perceive the battlefield when you are on it will be radically different from the way it looks from, say, Washington, and more different still, from Wall Street. Seeing as how our lands are quite often battlefields, we tend to view these conflicts from the single vantage point on the ground.
From here, of course, the imperative is to engage the invading or aggressive military forces. It is to upgrade our weapons capabilities and degrade the capabilities of the enemy. We deal on a block by block, district by district basis. Victory, indeed survival, requires us to be this way. From the ground, the urgent thing is how to prevent an air strike, how to evade it, and if possible, how to bring down a fighter jet. From this vantage point, the concerns are immediate, tactical for short term wins; planning ambushes, striking checkpoints and convoys, etc. The medium to long term planning is also within the framework of battlefield immediacy; can we develop methods for scrambling the signals of drones? Can we manufacture our own weapons, and so on. If enough small victories are achieved, perhaps they will build the final triumph.
From Washington, as you might expect, the view is very different. Weapons and support for you and for your opponent are two valves, side by side, opened and shut with careful synchronicity to maintain a balance of power on the battlefield, until an atmosphere is created that is conducive for the inevitable political solution to be crafted, proposed, and imposed by politicians from each government involved in the conflict. This process is expensive, of course, and these expenses will be explained as vital to the national security interests of the country when they submit their budget requests to Congress. Congress will concur with that assessment, not because the expenses are vital to national security, but because they entered congress, in part, with the considerable financial support of the aerospace and defense industry.
From Wall Street, like from the ground on the battlefield, every downed fighter jet, every disabled tank, every fired missile (whether it hits its target or not), is celebrated. Unlike on the battlefield, however, every bombed hospital, every demolished bridge, every devastated city, no matter which side of the conflict is affected by it, is also celebrated. Where we see rubble, they see a market. Where we see a loss for the enemy when his weapons are destroyed, they see a guaranteed sale of new merchandise. Regardless of which side in the war is momentarily prevailing, from Wall Street, they see the victory of a climbing share price. Every major sector of the American economy is connected to military production; technology, construction, telecommunications, aerospace, the automotive industry, and obviously defense and weapons; everything. Through every major financial crisis of the last two decades, war based industries have enjoyed uninterrupted prosperity.
The combined political power of these industries is unequaled in the United States. Their economic power dwarfs that of many small countries. And, when we talk about companies, we are not talking about faceless entities; we are in fact talking about their owners; the corporate shareholders. We are talking about the super rich who organize their wealth in the form of corporations. They finance politicians, essentially hiring them as they would a CEO, and assign them the task of increasing share values for their companies; and they do this through government policy. If they fail to do this, like an unsuccessful CEO, they will be replaced.
Military conflict appears very different depending upon your vantage point. How you perceive the battlefield when you are on it will be radically different from the way it looks from, say, Washington, and more different still, from Wall Street. Seeing as how our lands are quite often battlefields, we tend to view these conflicts from the single vantage point on the ground.
From here, of course, the imperative is to engage the invading or aggressive military forces. It is to upgrade our weapons capabilities and degrade the capabilities of the enemy. We deal on a block by block, district by district basis. Victory, indeed survival, requires us to be this way. From the ground, the urgent thing is how to prevent an air strike, how to evade it, and if possible, how to bring down a fighter jet. From this vantage point, the concerns are immediate, tactical for short term wins; planning ambushes, striking checkpoints and convoys, etc. The medium to long term planning is also within the framework of battlefield immediacy; can we develop methods for scrambling the signals of drones? Can we manufacture our own weapons, and so on. If enough small victories are achieved, perhaps they will build the final triumph.
From Washington, as you might expect, the view is very different. Weapons and support for you and for your opponent are two valves, side by side, opened and shut with careful synchronicity to maintain a balance of power on the battlefield, until an atmosphere is created that is conducive for the inevitable political solution to be crafted, proposed, and imposed by politicians from each government involved in the conflict. This process is expensive, of course, and these expenses will be explained as vital to the national security interests of the country when they submit their budget requests to Congress. Congress will concur with that assessment, not because the expenses are vital to national security, but because they entered congress, in part, with the considerable financial support of the aerospace and defense industry.
From Wall Street, like from the ground on the battlefield, every downed fighter jet, every disabled tank, every fired missile (whether it hits its target or not), is celebrated. Unlike on the battlefield, however, every bombed hospital, every demolished bridge, every devastated city, no matter which side of the conflict is affected by it, is also celebrated. Where we see rubble, they see a market. Where we see a loss for the enemy when his weapons are destroyed, they see a guaranteed sale of new merchandise. Regardless of which side in the war is momentarily prevailing, from Wall Street, they see the victory of a climbing share price. Every major sector of the American economy is connected to military production; technology, construction, telecommunications, aerospace, the automotive industry, and obviously defense and weapons; everything. Through every major financial crisis of the last two decades, war based industries have enjoyed uninterrupted prosperity.
The combined political power of these industries is unequaled in the United States. Their economic power dwarfs that of many small countries. And, when we talk about companies, we are not talking about faceless entities; we are in fact talking about their owners; the corporate shareholders. We are talking about the super rich who organize their wealth in the form of corporations. They finance politicians, essentially hiring them as they would a CEO, and assign them the task of increasing share values for their companies; and they do this through government policy. If they fail to do this, like an unsuccessful CEO, they will be replaced.
Thus, the overwhelming driver of policy is this; to serve the financial interests of the owners of the government. As long as a policy achieves this, that policy will continue. If you are interested in changing that policy, there is only one way: you have to ensure that it fails to achieve its aim. And you have to understand its aim, not from the vantage point on the ground, not from the vantage point of the policy's victims, but from the vantage point of those who benefit from it.