Max & Mischa Popoff: Anti-Jewish Crimes and Ethnic Nationalists

Join Max and Mischa Popoff on the history of Ethnic Nationalists in Israel and elsewhere persecuting Jews, Christians, and others.

Reference photos:

Image: The Royal London Hospital Archives.
Image: The Wikmedia Commons.
Image: Wikimedia Commons
From “Gunpowder and God” by Mischa Popoff
From “Gunpowder and God” by Mischa Popoff

ZeroHedge Posits a Plausible Qanon Story

As someone who followed Qanon for a long while, I never fully believed it could be trusted, but I always knew it was “real” — and by “real” I meant “a real operation by professinals who were very good and knew a lot” and “clearly had the tacit support of people within the Trump machine.” As someone with a long history as an independent journalist and a number of contacts in a lot of areas, I was also independently verify a few of Qanon’s stories. Still, it was obviously an agitprop/propaganda operation, and you can never trust those entirely.

Now, ZeroHedge has a report and asks, Is This Intelligence Group Responsible For The Q Anon Conspiracy Theory?

Probably the most useful quote:

New research reveals that a loose network including an organization known as Joint Task Force – Make America Great Again (JTFMAGA) made up of intelligence whistleblowers, alternative media figures and individuals with a known history of virally spreading information online was most likely responsible for inventing “Q Anon.”

ZeroHedge’s story may or may not be true, and the named parties may be only part of the story, or the story may even be wrong, but in the many efforts I’ve seen published trying to explain what Qanon was/is, it’s easily one of the most plausible.

Anyone who thought Qanon was a LARP or a hoax was a fool; anyone who really looked at it knew there was real information in there, information that was coming from a very slick outfit with resources and knowledge everyday people would not have access to. And it was meant to send a message.

I suspect we will eventually find out that Team Trump was fully aware and at least tacitly involved.

One thing I always knew Qanon to be: terrifying. Because what it showed was that leements of our government were at war with other elements of our government. Qanon is the type of operation you see in a third world country undergoing a coup or soft civil war.

When it emerged, it seemed crazy to talk that way: civil war, coups, revolution.

It’s hard to say where the country is going in the next year or two, but one thing’s for certain: nobody knows who you can trust anymore. Except maybe Christ.

Who do you trust and why do you trust them? It’s the most important question you can ask these days. And you should ask it often in these perilous times.

Official Red Pill Religion statement on Sargon of Akkad, aka Carl Benjamin.

Multiple members of the Red Pill Religion team, as well as people known by us, have been materially and reputationally harmed, harassed, deplatformed, and worse by Carl Benjamin, aka Sargon of Akkad. Furthermore, we are completely UNCONVINCED of his defense of charges of dealing in child pornography, based on our own in-house eyewitness experiences.

As such we do not post Sargon of Akkad videos, nor are they welcome here. Not until Carl Benjamin finally owns up to his deplorable behavior towards us and others, and not until he stops smearing and running from his critics and starts to deal with them ethically.

We certainly wont’ be doing anything to support his candidacy, for whatever that is worth.

References Used in Modern Day Debate with Jim Majors of Atheist Republic

References for books we wish Atheist Republic CEO Jim Majors would read and review, or have review. Let us also repeat our suggestion that Atheist Republic regularly post articles on their forums of Atheists Acting Badly, including religious people being beat up for specific Atheist reasons (opposition to “religion”).

Here’s the show we were on. References for Jim Majors and the rest of Atheist Republic below.


The New Atheist Denial of History by Borden W. Painter Jr.: Proves hate-propaganda distributed by modern Atheists on the Internet is directly out of Soviet propaganda, and other ideological anti-religious propaganda from Secular regimes:

Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless by Daniel Peris. Anyone who reads this will see, quite eerily, how many online Atheist groups match this Stalinist hate movement that tortured, mutilated, “re-educated,” raped, and murdered millions–in the name of Atheism.

The New Atheist Threat: The Rise of Secular Extremists by CJ Werleman: A Professional Atheist exposes some of his other Professional Atheists for their propagandizing and “will skeptic for cash” ways, and their tendency to destroy their critics:

Faith of the Fatherless by psychologist Paul C. Vitz. Based on extensive social science, peer reviewed, you can look at yourself:

Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Belief by research psychologist Justin L. Barrett. God is not a delusion and not “indoctrination” — sorry Atheists! Typical example of an

Atheist Republic hate comment (one single example of countless):

Lies about the nonexistent “Christian Dark Ages” (one single example)

Books recommended on the Inquisition and Science:
Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History

Galileo Goes to Jail & Other Myths about Science & Religion

Red Pill Religion’s creepy Internet stalker, Kevin Wayne

The Red Pill Religion team has a creepy stalker who goes by Kevin Wayne, passing off fake, altered, and otherwise phony screen shots allegedly under the name “Dean Esmay.” This guy is a loon, and anyone who believes any of his “screen shots” should speak to us about it. This video and this post are our only comment otherwise, just watch out for anything you read about “Dean Esmay” on the Internet–people make things up constantly. When you piss off the powerful, or people with small minds, this is what they do to you on the Internet.

I’ve had worse than this puke; if we aren’t afraid of drug companies, ideological Atheist/Skeptic/Rationalists, or Feminists, why would we be afraid of this puke and his fraudulent “Men’s Rights” friends?

On the Limited Utility and Poor Assumptions of IQ Tests

public domain, wikimedia commons
Einstein had a very high IQ. He was right about a lot of things but wrong about a lot of things. He was socially awkward, known for being lost in a mental fog/aydreaming, and having trouble with things like poor dress and hygiene. He was a nice guy, and everybody liked him. But you wouldn’t want him in charge of anything important. Which, by the way, he would have agreed with.

What IQ tests fundamentally measure is your ability to learn academic materials in a standard academic environment, and test for those skills that are good for those things. Which is useful to know about yourself, but it’s not apparent to me that we should allow such people to run society.

Indeed, a strong case could be made that anyone with an IQ over above, say, 115 or 120 is inherently dangerous and untrustworthy. Until they prove otherwise, of course.

IQ says nothing at all about virtue: integrity, honor, loyalty, or the ability to be dispassionate when you need to be vs. knowing when you should be passionate. It has no ability to predict your moral sense at all, and if history is any guide high IQ people tend to be more prone to being amoral and to thinking they can invent and rationalize their own morality.

High IQ people can be very good at manipulating and fooling otherwise good and honest people who aren’t as quick as they are. High IQ people also, at least if my decades of observations are worth anything, have an unfortunate tendency to think they are a natural elite, and often seem to wish to be treated that way.

High IQ people also tend to have a lot of nervous disorders and personality quirks, and seem to show other social and developmental problems, once you get an IQ much above 140.

Furthermore, we have no test for Sociopathy/Psychopathy. You may know a sociopath and not know it. Worse, sociopathy is a particularly dangerous mental condition when married to a high IQ. Which means, in a very realistic sense, while it may not be fair, if you meet someone and say they have a very high IQ, you should watch for signs of sociopathy, narcissism, arrogance, cockiness, and other personality defects. Not all high IQ people are like this, but an awful lot of them are.

“He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.” –William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

Thus, if anything, our society should begin looking at the assumptions underlying the IQ tests and their importance–and also, how much we should ever trust men who are too clever.

For example, I recognize Vox Day as an extraordinarily brilliant man, with an obviously very high IQ (165 I think he’s had it published as). I very much enjoy him, and I do respect him and his lovely wife–though we’ve never met in person, we had a Twitter relationship at one time. But despite his brilliance, he’s quite often so full of himself it’s funny, and he has blind spots all over the place that are sometimes hilarious to watch. All because of his high IQ and how important he appears to think that makes his analyses, without apparently being aware of how quickly that can turn into arrogance and hubris.

I don’t mean to pick on Vox Day. When I look at the writings and thoughts of many other high IQ individuals, like Aaron Clarey or other figures who talk about their high IQs, I do see sometimes brilliant men doing brilliant things, but I also see high-IQ schmucks and douchebags and autistics who can’t even understand basic logic, such as Lawrence Krauss.

By the way I have a high IQ. How high is none of your business, but statistically it’s better than college professors on average for sure. I just find flashing one’s IQ to be vulgar, and to contribute to the mindset where we equate being very very clever with being virtuous, trustworthy, and fit to set the direction of society.

High IQ people like Stefan Molyneux obsessively defend the concept of IQ as vital. But then, he has a high IQ, so how much can we trust his objectivity? Especially when he seems to have so much invested in his own high IQ?

My very high-IQ friend John C. Wright says it well: having a high IQ is like having one very large and superstrong arm. It’s kind of cool, and it’s kind of useful, and it’s kind of dangerous, but that’s about it. It says very little else about you as a person that’s of value.

Atheist Vs. Atheist: Max & John C. Wright

Support Subscribe to our new channel! John C. Wright & Max both used to be atheists. Join us for some holiday cheer as we examine atheism and its future.

Our Subscribestar page:

Our Patreon:

Our Bitcoin and Paypal Tip Jar:

Our account:

Our Gab:

Our Facebook:

Jordan Peterson Affirms Hitler Was An Anti-Christian

A lot of people don’t like Jordan Peterson these days. People like Vox Day and Owen Benjamin and others have said he’s sold out. Whether that’s true or not, even they acknowledge he often speaks the truth, and he speaks it here.

Anyone who believes Hitler was a Christian believes anti-Christian hate propaganda. Hate propaganda that comes predominantly from Postmodern NeoMarxist universities and from Internet Atheism Cult Forums and YouTube channels and various phony “history” sites litter the Internet, but scholarly references affirm Mussolini and Hitler were both brutal repressors of and murderers of Christians. Especially the Catholics and the Lutherans in Germany. Stop trusting Internet sources, too much of it is Fakeapedia trash and people with axes to grind. Go with legitimate historical references, like Rabbi David G. Dalin’s The Myth of Hitler’s Pope.

Why Does Anybody Care About Richard Carrier’s Sex Life?

Every once in a while in our adventures in Atheistland–which is not the only topic we talk about on Red Pill Religion but it is a perennial favorite–we run into another story about pseudohistorian Richard Carrier’s supposed evil nature as a creepy sex predator. Or, about how he’s supposedly being defamed for petty jealous reasons with false allegations.

Honestly? I have NEVER been interested much one way or the other with Carrier’s sexual pecadillos, because he’s from Professional Atheistland, and in Professional Atheistland, the men and women are all either:

1) Sexless desperate nerds with no social skills. They are often highly unattractive but mostly on purpose. Note the On-Purpose part: they’re virtually all afflicted with poor self-image and self-loathing.

2) Some “sophisticated” variety of “polyamoury,” which is what in the old days we used to call “swingers.”

I’m quite certain Richard Carrier’s been very sexually promiscuous, in ways a lot of people would find gross or unhealthy. Also, he lies brazenly about history for a living, so he would obviously lie about anything else, too. Including whether or not he had “consent” to do whatever he did. Or whether he says he or didn’t do.

Liars lie, after all.

But this is Professional Atheistland, and the women in Professional Atheistland are women attracted to manipulative narcissists. Women are rare in Professional Atheistland, but they are all also either desperately unattractive and unhappy loners desperate for validation, OR, “sophisticated” swingers. They take pride in their “open-minded” sexuality and multiple partners. Liars lie, and “regret rape” and “rape allegations for revenge” are real things that women who don’t have any morals and ethics will use.

To be honest, if you’re in a room full of people who do nothing but obsess about sex and open-mindedness about it, and take pride in their many sexual adventures, “consent” become a meaningless concept.

In short, I don’t know what happened, because these people are all into wild crazy sex. They just help prove that “consent” isn’t really a coherent concept legally or morally when it comes to sex. If anyone consented to anything, it was when they walked into a room full of sex-obsessed neurotic ideologues in a bizarre hate cult.

How about we go back to a notion that promiscuous sex is neither healthy, brave, admirable, or even attractive. Indeed, isn’t good for anyone involved let alone society as a whole. How about we start respecting that “monogamy” is actually natural in humans (much much well-established science shows) and socially desirable.

And that promiscuity is neither brave nor admirable. Besides the sexual diseases and unloved or aborted children it brings, it also eventually brings about confusion and recrimination and more.

Richard Carrier lives in a land where everybody’s most important value is being “not judgemental” about sex, but being judgemental about everything else. Except that people with no morals usually turn on each other.