Quote by David Sinclair, longevity researcher at Harvard:
Statistically, you should not exist:– Life-friendly universe: 1/10⁶⁰
– Earth + moon: 1/10⁹
– Multicellular life: 1/10⁴
– Intelligence & civilization: 1/10⁹
– Your genome: 1/70 trillion
You’ve already won the lottery 10 times in a row. Ignore small people & enjoy!
"Hate Speech" is a claim that some topics/claims are off-limits, that someone ELSE gets to decide what's off-limit and that you are irredeemably "bad" if you try to apply facts, logic and persuasion. Yes, "hate speech" is the modern secular authoritarian version of "blasphemy" or "sacrilege."
I was provoked to write the above after reading the thoughtful post below by Greg Lukianoff, who was provoked by reading this text messages between Tyler Robinson, the accused Charlie Kirk assassin, and his roommate and romantic partner, per prosecutors:
Lukianoff:This is going to be a Rorschach test for a lot of people. What I see when I look at this is the harm of a quasi-mystical idea of “hate” as a spectral, even demonic, force. It’s a superstition that allows you to turn off your critical faculties, ignore anything that might contradict a sacred belief on a particular topic or about a particular individual — as in this case — and act with impunity.
It has always been a profoundly anti-intellectual idea, developed by those who saw intellectuals as mere tools for often extremely simplistic partisan ends to allow them to win arguments by brute force rather than logic and proof.
It has spread into the rest of society and across the globe in a way that allows taboo to defeat reason and skepticism almost every time.
I hope it’s an idea — like “speech is violence” — that we can relegate to the dustbin of history. If you believe the world is divided into a simplistic binary of “good people” and those infected with hate, then maybe the post-Enlightenment world is not for you.
And for those of us who believe that human morality and nature is more complex and less flattering than the sacred warriors in this battle, it's time to remember that Enlightenment values are not easy. But they are absolutely worth fighting for because the world without them is a place that lets you excuse the most monstrous behavior and never lose your sense of moral superiority.
That's the trap of the binary.
X is rapidly filling with credible posts providing evidence that numerous UK girls, at least 1,500, have been raped by Pakistani gangs over the years, yet the police have been covering this up and, in fact, criminally prosecuting UK citizens who try to express concerns about these rapes on social media. Tommy Robinson's courageous reporting has been critical to bringing the issue of these UK rapes to the fore, yet Tommy is currently in UK prison for the crime of reporting on this issue.
Could the number of victims really be closer to 250,000 girls?
Consider Samantha Smith's allegations:
Bill Ackman weighs in:
Tommy Robinson's documentary, "Silenced," can be viewed here. It is gripping and horrifying. Tommy has made a very strong case and yet he sits in prison for exposing societal dysfunction and corruption:
[More . . . ]
Coleman Hughes has written a personal account of the excruciating death of his mother. What follows is an excerpt from "My Mom—and the Case for Assisted Death: My dying mother chose to end terrible suffering. I want others to have that choice, too."
Instead of a slippery slope, what has emerged over the past three decades are two distinct policies: one restricted to people on their deathbed and exemplified by Oregon, Australia, and New Zealand; and the other open to anyone who is “suffering” and exemplified by the Benelux nations and Canada, without any slippage between the two. It is not a coincidence that all the horror stories come from the latter. The lesson for the rest of the world is not to throw out assisted dying altogether, but to copy the policy that works, and avoid the policy that doesn’t.Aside from the major objections, critics have leveled many practical objections: Do doctors always know when someone has six months to live? Are fatal drugs always painless? What if relatives pressure someone to commit suicide? I may go through these one by one some other time, but here I will simply say this: Once you understand how much suffering is on the other side of this moral equation—that is, once you understand just how bad “bad deaths” are—then you must view these practical objections as problems to be addressed, rather than as reasons to jettison the whole policy.
It is commonly said that a huge percentage of our healthcare spending comes in the last year of life. But the far more important corollary is rarely said: In many cases, a huge portion—perhaps a majority—of our lifetime suffering comes not just in the last year, but in the last few months. Assisted dying therefore represents an opportunity to prevent an immense amount of needless suffering in the world. If my mother’s story can help even one person come around to this view, then I can say that she did not suffer completely in vain.
I think of these issues every so often. And I often think back to my college days when I volunteered as a counselor and trainer for Suicide Prevention in St. Louis. After doing my best for several years I left. I had had several cases where I did my best to encourage people to live another day, but where I privately wondered whether that was the kind of advice I would want were I in a situation that was truly (not merely apparently) hopeless. I'm referring to people who were terminally ill, jobless, in constant pain, who had no longer had family or friends to look out for them. People who had worked hard for months to find reasons to keep on living but no longer could. People for whom the things that once brought them great joy were no longer interesting to them.
I hope that humane people will step up to help me in my moment of need, people who have the courage to show mercy rather than to obsess about the "rules."
You have a choice. One option is to follow the dictates of the U.S. warmongering uniparty, who tells you, "Putin is bad. So shut the fuck up and support our policy of endless treasury-draining war. Or you could listen to Mike Benz, Executive Director of Foundation for Freedom Online. 
Mike discussed Ukraine and U.S. censorship recently on Twitter. I created a transcript of his conversation with Win Marshall:
Win Marshall
Do you not think America should have supported Ukraine in the war?
Mike Benz
It's good question. It's strange for-- You know, if I'm hesitating, it's because to answer that question, there are so many layers that come before it that I haven't even really honestly had to think about where I actually fall on the underlying issue, because the process is so corrupted. And we lived through Russiagate, this thing where anybody who supported a detente with Russia was it was effectively deemed to be a Putin puppet, and then you could launch a federal investigation. You could bring in indictments and domestic spycraft on, you know, Trump's whole campaign, because of his policy of neutrality, with with Russia effectively, or his NATO skepticism. They were able to argue, you know, that he was effectively a Russian puppet, and so they spied on his campaign.
Win Marshall
These things are happening today in Britain with Nigel Farage, and he's been called a Putin apologist. I think it's continuation
Mike Benz
It's the same thing. And so I think the way I would answer the question is: if you took the gun off of my head, where the state, the regime, the NGOs, the cutouts, the media, the lawyers, the federal investigators, all said, "Hey, you know what? If you have your own opinion on the Ukraine war, I'll put the gun down." Then maybe I'd think about and say, Okay, well maybe we can now talk about whether or not it actually redounds to US interests to try to secure these $12.4 trillion in the natural resources, whether it redounds to our benefit to have this elaborate CIA State Department operation to kill Gazprom and pry all the profits off with this endogenous, you know, Ukraine Petro industry and lifeline by all these US oil and gas companies and British companies like Shell. Maybe. But the answer is a hard no while they still have a gun to my head, because you can't, you can't do that.
Win Marshall
Okay, so let's say there's no gun to a head.
Mike Benz
That feels like a hypothetical that is kind of irresponsible for me to indulge in because there is a gun to my head. The censorship industry grew out of Ukraine. That whole infrastructure of censorship that Americans live under and inherited during the 2016 presidential election cycle came from the 2014 US-UK overthrow of the Ukrainian-democratically elected government. When, when we orchestrated that coup, when the head of the US Embassy was personally handing out cookies and water bottles to the January 6 style protesters surrounding the parliament building, pumping them full of money, when our own senators like John McCain were there on the ground calling for a transition of the government, when we overthrew that government and then did not expect the blowback, did not expect the counter coup.
When the entire eastern side of Ukraine broke away and declared itself a breakaway state in 2014 and when Crimea voted in its referendum to formally join the Russian Federation, this set off a total crisis across NATO and called for a fundamental reimagining of how NATO understood warfare. This gave rise to something which I've talked a lot about. You know, first was called the Gerasimov doctrine. Then it was called hybrid warfare, and now it's sort of called sharp power. But it was essentially this idea that NATO could no longer just be a military alliance. It had to expand its mandate, and this is a direct quote from Jen stellenberg, from tanks to tweets. The reason that we lost in Ukraine was because we lost the information war. We lost to Russian propaganda, infecting the mines of Ukrainians. And it was Russian propaganda who was infecting the mines of Germans, because at the time the German AFD party was on the rise. They were running on restoring gas relations with Russia, because they were mostly a sort of working class, sort of like Trump, Trumpism. They were running on, sort of because these sanctions that the US State Department and UK Foreign Office effectively imposed on all these different other European countries, after Crimea, to sanction Russian gas, which was the cheapest gas.
The alternative was LNG liquefied natural gas harvested in Houston, liquefy ship 5000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean. You know, de-liquefied in ports in Portugal or in through the Baltic strait into Poland. You know, de-liquefied transported. That's orders of magnitude more expensive than Russia, which means the industries suffer, which means the middle class suffers. The welfare safety net suffers. So AFD was running on restoring gas relations with Russia. Marine. Le Pen was was running on the same from from France. So is the Vox party in Spain.
And so NATO is saying, Oh, my God, these right wing populist parties are all running on this economic nationalist what's best for us. Don't care what the US or UK says about, you know, being a good Global Citizen and sanctioning Russia, we want to do what's economically best for our own middle class citizens. And so our intelligence State, the trans military alliance of NATO, at that point in 2014 declared this hybrid warfare doctrine. Said war is actually not about tanks anymore. It's about tweets. It's about control over social media. Because we lost to Russia without Russia firing a bullet, Crimea voted itself to join the Russian Federation. It's the same thing as if they had rolled into Crimea with tanks and submarines, they now control it because of the referendum of the people.
Well, where are they getting their information?